Talk:Cold case

Wikified this article, good suggestion

I have Wikified this article; I believe the above suggestion is a good one. Can anyone assist in finding a list of famous "cold cases," or, would it be better to write a Wiki article called: "List of cold cases." Please sign your comments, everyone. User:ProfessorPaul 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry; I will have to dispute this article

I think I need to find the stub about "disputed facts" in articles; the links do not say that the human remains of Judge Crater have been confirmed. User:ProfessorPaul 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolving this dispute

I would agree to remove the "dispute" tag if/when the proper authorities in New York confirm (via DNA testing) that the human remains of Judge Crater have been found. Until then--it may be "likely" or "probable" that his remains have been found, but just not yet confirmed. The Judge Crater article also notes that it has not yet been confirmed that his remains have been found. User:ProfessorPaul 00:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists and JFK.

I am changing the phrase "Conspiracy theorists consider the John F. Kennedy assassination..." To "Some people consider (...)". Unless everyone included the many noted people (such as Oliver Stone the director) and ordinary folk both in the U.S. and elsewhere who do not ascribe to the "official" version of events are to be considered as conspiracy theorists (with all the negative connations that come along with that). Also of note here should be a direct quote from the J.F.K. assassination wikipedia page: "The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1979 that Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald probably as a result of a conspiracy." So who are the conspiracy theorists if the official version is that the assassination was a result of a conspiracy as well? 84.254.50.179 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous examples

the "missingest man in New York"
Whoever coined this monstrosity should have all his English qualifications revoked. --Bicycle repairman (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Am I the only one who feels the basically undiscussed (there was some suggestion at Talk:Cold Case (TV series)#Requested move but no discussion here nor was it what the move concerned) decision to move this page from Cold case to Cold case (criminology) making Cold case a disambiguation page was silly? The idea that a TV series (which I'm a fan of so please don't bring up silly suggestions like I have a bias against the show) and a book about cold cases are even close to the article on the concept itself (which is clearly the primary topic) which the book and series get their name from is silly and sadly smacks of the systemic bias and recentism all too common on wikipedia. Plenty of people have heard of cold cases long before the show (including I'm pretty sure, me), plenty of people will hear about cold cases long after the show is but a distant memory, even a news search now will find plenty of discussion of real world cold cases but people coming to wikipedia to read up on the concept are hit with a disambiguation page... Not quite as bad as those who've tried to move Java to become a disambiguation page perhaps but still... Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Samantha Runnion

Samantha Runnion's case was solved within a week of her body being found (which was less than 24 hours after she was kidnapped) so I don't believe it would be a "Notable Solved Cold Case" Laladoodle92 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Boston Molasses Disaster?!

Some of the so-called "cold cases" listed--the Titanic, some bridges failing, and the Boston Molasses Disaster--really have nothing to do with being a cold case. There's no crime, no whodunit, just in certain cases people later discovering other possibilities for the reason for the disaster. Do these really belong here? I think they should be removed. For example, while it may be recorded in history that someone died of a heart attack in the 18th century, but people today (having more information about causes of death) speculate that the person died of a stroke, I don't see how that would constitute a cold case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.50.234 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed "solved" status of 2001 Anthrax

What are the criterion for listing a case as "solved"? Does it depend on a conviction or confession?

The 2001 anthrax attacks case had neither, since the FBI's suspect took his own life. A subsequent investigative story by Frontline investigation has cast doubt on the solved staus of this case - wouldn't it take an actual judicial hearing to reliably consider a case as "solved" vs. merely closed. rhyre (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127063823/http://www.komonews.com/news/local/121611274.html to http://www.komonews.com/news/local/121611274.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

The first paragraph should be reworked. Murder may not have a statute of limitations in Common Law countries, but I'm certain this is not the case in many (all?) Civil Law countries.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

The reference given for the following paragraph does not give this information: "The rate of cold cases being solved are slowly declining, soon less than 30% will be solved per year. About 35% of those cases are not cold cases at all. Some cases become instantly cold when a seeming closed (solved) case is re-opened due to the discovery of new evidence pointing away from the original suspect(s). Other cases are cold when the crime is discovered well after the fact—for example, by the discovery of human remains." 2A00:23C6:BB22:A001:F9ED:EC8F:4C36:11EE (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of the lists and criteria for inclusion

Update: I mean tables. Apologies for confusion.

Given the number of cold cases worldwide, lists in a Wikipedia article can't be comprehensive. If the lists can't be comprehensive, they're necessarily subsets of all cold cases. I think it stands to reason that they also aren't complete or representative subsets. So what do these lists actually tell the reader about cold cases? What are they supposed to tell the reader about cold cases? Without answers to these questions, I think we either remove the lists or split them off into a separate list article. ClaimTracer (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought and think the first thing we should do is fix the structure of the lists. Then we will have a clearer idea of what they actually do in the article and decide whether they belong in the article or as separate list articles.

There are currently two groups of lists (Examples of criminal cold cases that ended in conviction and Examples without conviction, but considered solved or likely solved). Each group of lists is broken up into sections by decade, with each decade getting its own list. No prose accompanies any list that might explain why they've been broken up like this. Breaking them into separate lists undermines list functionality. For example, it's currently impossible for readers to sort all cases with convictions by Conviction date. If decades are analytically important, they could be kept as a new column.

Suggested action: Edit each group of lists into a single list. That is, one list called Examples of criminal cold cases that ended in conviction and another list called Examples without conviction, but considered solved or likely solved.

I still think there are broader problems with the lists, but I think those problems will be easier to address after this action. I'm happy to take this action on. But first, thoughts? ClaimTracer (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"Examples without conviction, but considered solved" We have articles on cases where DNA or other evidence indicated the identity of the killer or culprit, but only after their physical death. There can be no convictions, because you can not put a corpse on trial. For example, the murder of Tina Harmon took place in 1981 and the identity of the killer was revealed in 2010. The killer had been executed back in 2002 for an unrelated crime. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the difference between the two groups of lists. I get how cold cases can be cleared without conviction. I'm questioning why each group is a group. Like, for Examples without conviction, but considered solved or likely solved, why is there a list for the 1910s, another for the 1960s, another for the 1970s, and so on? If there's a good analytical reason, we should add some prose that makes that clear. If not, let's combine the lists within the groups of lists to make two lists. ClaimTracer (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's been a week and I'm not seeing any comments disagreeing, so I'm going to take that as a sign that nobody's terribly opposed. I'm going to start combining lists in a sandbox that I'll share a link to for feedback. ClaimTracer (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The "Identifying a suspect" subsection

The majority of the statements in this subsection are unsourced, and there are many vague points that need clarification. I'm going to remove these statements. WP:BOLD If anyone wants to revert this, please clarify the marked statements and provide sources. ClaimTracer (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)