Missing White Male

[jab]

I disagree that police are useless and only look for missing people from wealthy families. It IS true that fairly often, when the missing person is a teenager or very young adult, there is a greater presumption that the missing person is a runaway (as if that meant they were less likely to be in danger). Missing children and vulnerable adults garner a lot of local attention. So do missing boaters, hunters and fishermen and snow mobilers. Less often missing hikers in my corner of the state but more so in larger wilderness areas. Most such cases only get local or sometimes regional attention

Note: I live in a small city (25K) surrounded by smaller towns but mostly farmland, some forested area, prairies, lakes and rivers. The nearest large metropolitan area is more than 100 miles away.

Yes, what the police suspect to be the situation plays a big role in the sort of search that's mounted.

The police generally only put in much effort when it's someone they suspect is in danger and not due to their own criminal activities. (Which means missing prostitutes don't get looked for--but to a considerable degree this is because it's basically futile. If it was a serial killer in the car rather than a normal john the chance of catching him is basically zero other than through his screwing up. Throwing a lot of effort into a hopeless case isn't a good use of resources.)

um, re serial killers of prostitutes: examine the case of Robert Pickton--On the Farm is a pretty good book

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree that police are useless and only look for missing people from wealthy families. It IS true that fairly often, when the missing person is a teenager or very young adult, there is a greater presumption that the missing person is a runaway (as if that meant they were less likely to be in danger). Missing children and vulnerable adults garner a lot of local attention. So do missing boaters, hunters and fishermen and snow mobilers. Less often missing hikers in my corner of the state but more so in larger wilderness areas. Most such cases only get local or sometimes regional attention

Note: I live in a small city (25K) surrounded by smaller towns but mostly farmland, some forested area, prairies, lakes and rivers. The nearest large metropolitan area is more than 100 miles away.

Yes, what the police suspect to be the situation plays a big role in the sort of search that's mounted.

The police generally only put in much effort when it's someone they suspect is in danger and not due to their own criminal activities. (Which means missing prostitutes don't get looked for--but to a considerable degree this is because it's basically futile. If it was a serial killer in the car rather than a normal john the chance of catching him is basically zero other than through his screwing up. Throwing a lot of effort into a hopeless case isn't a good use of resources.)

Everything is hopeless if you don’t try.

Resources aren't infinite.

Serial killers get lots of press but they are relatively rare. Still, where there are suspicions of a serial killer at work, it’s pretty important to devote redirected time catching them, don’t you think?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong but it seems as though you also don’t think prostitutes’ murders need investigating?

It has nothing to do with value, it has to do with capability. If a streetwalker disappears chances are there is nothing to go on.

And I’m not sure why you jumped to prostitutes here?

Because so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes.

Teens/young adults who are missing are often runaways (which dies carry danger) or are blowing off steam or staying with friends and come home on their own. But obviously that’s not always the case. Children who are missing sometimes have wandered off but are more likely to have been taken by a noncustodial parent or other family member. Sometimes they have been kidnapped by strangers and in any case because they are children certainly their disappearances need investigating.

Note that you're showing that the vast majority of those cases are nothing. Again, it comes down to resources.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Because so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes.

At first glance, this odd claim probably seems irrelevant to the thread. However, let's go up one higher level of categorization: from prostitute to sex criminal. How many missing men and woman are involved in sex crimes? Even up another level to simply suspected of criminal activity, i.e. suspects. Now suddenly we're in op territory. How many adult males vs females that are missing are criminal suspects? How many suspected victims of crimes?

 

[Toni]

Everything is hopeless if you don’t try.

Resources aren't infinite.

Serial killers get lots of press but they are relatively rare. Still, where there are suspicions of a serial killer at work, it’s pretty important to devote redirected time catching them, don’t you think?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong but it seems as though you also don’t think prostitutes’ murders need investigating?

It has nothing to do with value, it has to do with capability. If a streetwalker disappears chances are there is nothing to go on.

And I’m not sure why you jumped to prostitutes here?

Because so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes.

Teens/young adults who are missing are often runaways (which dies carry danger) or are blowing off steam or staying with friends and come home on their own. But obviously that’s not always the case. Children who are missing sometimes have wandered off but are more likely to have been taken by a noncustodial parent or other family member. Sometimes they have been kidnapped by strangers and in any case because they are children certainly their disappearances need investigating.

Note that you're showing that the vast majority of those cases are nothing. Again, it comes down to resources.

Teenage runaways are not 'nothing.' In fact, quite a large number of them end up in very dangerous situations that they did not anticipate. AND quite a number of them are runaways because they were already living in dangerous situations with their families: their family was the dangerous situation.

There is always 'nothing to go on' if you don't look for it. Teenagers, young adults and prostitutes are all people with value--as much value as a white male banker, for instance.

The lack of capability you note seems very much related to the capacity to care about teenagers and prostitutes and young adults as fellow human beings.

 

[Gun Nut]

In another thread, someone was very upset that missing males don't get the same coverage as missing white females. So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss Brian Laundrie who went missing. It's possible in theory that someone killed him. I'm just saying...

I didn't pay attention to this till the police bodycam video came across my feed a few days ago, and I started watching and ended up watching the whole thing. From that video, I wondered whether it could have been a self defense situation, because she was the one that was going to be charged for assault. ICYMI, they were stopped for driving erratically in Utah. From their own accounts, she did hit him while he was driving and also earlier in the day, and he had visible marks on his face and arms. The police even talked to a witness on the phone who had witnessed the earlier altercation, and said the woman was the aggressor. So, the police were considering charging her alone, but ultimately decided not to and just to ask them to spend the night apart. The police were exceedingly accommodating to them, so polite and generous. They made arrangements to get the guy a room for the night, to be covered by the local women's shelter. She was to take the van on her own.

Anyway, she was very anxious and crying and did seem like she could have mental health issues, and maybe she could have been the abuser. She was apologetic about what she did to him. He also came off anxious, but less so, and he put it to having police lights flash behind him. They were both very cooperative and mild mannered and blabby, more so than any attorney would advise. They admitted way too much.

So, I was wondering at first whether maybe she might have attacked him one day and he was defending himself and it got out of hand.
/
BUT THEN, a couple of days ago, it was reported there was another 911 call on that same day (8/12) of the stop, and this caller said he saw the guy slapping the woman several times. And then another story came out that a diner at a Wyoming restaurant recalled seeing Brian arguing aggressively with a waitress there on 8/27, 2 days before Gabby was last heard from. And there are reports now that friends of the couple say they had a rocky relationship, he was controlling and jealous.

It's been like a Dateline episode where they bury the lede of all the obvious incriminating evidence until the end. I mean as to motive, he always obviously killed her or at least knew what happened to her. But now I suspect her anxiety on display during the stop could be because he made her like that.

Anyway, fuck this guy. He is probably hiding out, hope the crocs get him, if he is even in the woods, which could be a diversion.

I wonder how the UT police feel now about how they handled it. Probably nothing they could have done to change things though.

I also paid no attention until the bodycam video ended up trending on youtube. I watched the whole thing... it was fascinating to me.
The biggest problem I had with what I observed about the male was that he was WAY too interested in establishing and maintaining rapport with the cops. It was too much like how a psychopathic killer might engage the cops. I put myself in their position and at some point during the 50 minute contact with police, I certainly would have started turning on the cops and demanding they charge or release. When the cops were talking about arresting his girlfriend for DV, his reaction was not appropriate... is was too "I understand your challenges mr. police officer" and not enough, "the HELL you are - I'll have your fucking job and sue your entire department".
So the male is either a psychopathic killer, or way too much of a hippy to even consider being a killer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes.

At first glance, this odd claim probably seems irrelevant to the thread. However, let's go up one higher level of categorization: from prostitute to sex criminal. How many missing men and woman are involved in sex crimes? Even up another level to simply suspected of criminal activity, i.e. suspects. Now suddenly we're in op territory. How many adult males vs females that are missing are criminal suspects? How many suspected victims of crimes?

AFIAK everywhere in the US streetwalking is a crime. They are criminals. Criminals tend to get into conflict with other criminals.

Also, because they are criminals they tend to act from the shadows, avoiding surveillance systems. In hiding their activities they also hide the identity of whoever picked them up, giving the police basically nothing to go on in trying to hunt down their killers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Teens/young adults who are missing are often runaways (which dies carry danger) or are blowing off steam or staying with friends and come home on their own. But obviously that’s not always the case. Children who are missing sometimes have wandered off but are more likely to have been taken by a noncustodial parent or other family member. Sometimes they have been kidnapped by strangers and in any case because they are children certainly their disappearances need investigating.

Note that you're showing that the vast majority of those cases are nothing. Again, it comes down to resources.

Teenage runaways are not 'nothing.' In fact, quite a large number of them end up in very dangerous situations that they did not anticipate. AND quite a number of them are runaways because they were already living in dangerous situations with their families: their family was the dangerous situation.

There is always 'nothing to go on' if you don't look for it. Teenagers, young adults and prostitutes are all people with value--as much value as a white male banker, for instance.

The lack of capability you note seems very much related to the capacity to care about teenagers and prostitutes and young adults as fellow human beings.

Most of them come home on their own. Any effort spent looking for such people produces no useful results. The police looking for them won't change the danger they're in.

Police resources should be allocated based on the severity of the situation * the chance of success.

In practice this means that when the chance of success is minimal they aren't going to spend appreciable effort. This has nothing to do with the nature of the victims, it has to do with reality.

Serial killers get caught because they slip up, or because technology changes. Otherwise the chance of catching them is about zero. (For example, DNA. It solved a bunch of cold cases. Now genetic genealogy is solving some more--they had the DNA but nothing to match it to--now they're figuring out who by matching it to relatives.)

 

[Arctish]

Teenage runaways are not 'nothing.' In fact, quite a large number of them end up in very dangerous situations that they did not anticipate. AND quite a number of them are runaways because they were already living in dangerous situations with their families: their family was the dangerous situation.

There is always 'nothing to go on' if you don't look for it. Teenagers, young adults and prostitutes are all people with value--as much value as a white male banker, for instance.

The lack of capability you note seems very much related to the capacity to care about teenagers and prostitutes and young adults as fellow human beings.

Most of them come home on their own. Any effort spent looking for such people produces no useful results. The police looking for them won't change the danger they're in.

Police resources should be allocated based on the severity of the situation * the chance of success.

In practice this means that when the chance of success is minimal they aren't going to spend appreciable effort. This has nothing to do with the nature of the victims, it has to do with reality.

Serial killers get caught because they slip up, or because technology changes. Otherwise the chance of catching them is about zero. (For example, DNA. It solved a bunch of cold cases. Now genetic genealogy is solving some more--they had the DNA but nothing to match it to--now they're figuring out who by matching it to relatives.)

So if white men are going missing on hiking trails in Nevada we shouldn't expend resources looking for them because they probably went into the wilderness of their own accord and don't want to be disturbed, or it's likely they're male prostitutes and are either running from their fellow criminals or were murdered for being whores?

I disagree.

I think the police should always make a good faith effort to find missing persons and not presume it's a waste of time or that the person isn't worth the effort. And if there's any hint of foul play, they should devote even more resources to the task.

 

[ZiprHead]

Has anyone looked behind Nikki Minaj's cousin's friend's balls?

 

[Trausti]

Has anyone looked behind Nikki Minaj's cousin's friend's balls?

You're probably itching to look.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Teenage runaways are not 'nothing.' In fact, quite a large number of them end up in very dangerous situations that they did not anticipate. AND quite a number of them are runaways because they were already living in dangerous situations with their families: their family was the dangerous situation.

There is always 'nothing to go on' if you don't look for it. Teenagers, young adults and prostitutes are all people with value--as much value as a white male banker, for instance.

The lack of capability you note seems very much related to the capacity to care about teenagers and prostitutes and young adults as fellow human beings.

Most of them come home on their own. Any effort spent looking for such people produces no useful results. The police looking for them won't change the danger they're in.

Police resources should be allocated based on the severity of the situation * the chance of success.

In practice this means that when the chance of success is minimal they aren't going to spend appreciable effort. This has nothing to do with the nature of the victims, it has to do with reality.

Serial killers get caught because they slip up, or because technology changes. Otherwise the chance of catching them is about zero. (For example, DNA. It solved a bunch of cold cases. Now genetic genealogy is solving some more--they had the DNA but nothing to match it to--now they're figuring out who by matching it to relatives.)

So if white men are going missing on hiking trails in Nevada we shouldn't expend resources looking for them because they probably went into the wilderness of their own accord and don't want to be disturbed, or it's likely they're male prostitutes and are either running from their fellow criminals or were murdered for being whores?

I disagree.

I think the police should always make a good faith effort to find missing persons and not presume it's a waste of time or that the person isn't worth the effort. And if there's any hint of foul play, they should devote even more resources to the task.

If someone goes missing in the wilderness there most certainly is a search--for the person, not for evidence of their murder. It's a useful thing--they're often found.

How about making a better comparison.

 

[Arctish]

So if white men are going missing on hiking trails in Nevada we shouldn't expend resources looking for them because they probably went into the wilderness of their own accord and don't want to be disturbed, or it's likely they're male prostitutes and are either running from their fellow criminals or were murdered for being whores?

I disagree.

I think the police should always make a good faith effort to find missing persons and not presume it's a waste of time or that the person isn't worth the effort. And if there's any hint of foul play, they should devote even more resources to the task.

If someone goes missing in the wilderness there most certainly is a search--for the person, not for evidence of their murder. It's a useful thing--they're often found.

How about making a better comparison.

Better in what way?

I believe there should always be a search or an investigation when a person is reported missing. The cops should never just decide beforehand that investigating is pointless or that the person isn't worth all that effort, which is what you are insinuating.

The race, gender, and occupation of the missing person should not determine how much effort the authorities put into locating them. Presuming a missing person knowingly and willingly put themselves in danger _might_ be useful in the investigation _if_ it has been established they were engaged in risky behavior at the time of their disappearance. But even if they were, that shouldn't diminish or prevent a sincere effort to find them, no matter what that risky behavior might have been.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Has anyone looked behind Nikki Minaj's cousin's friend's balls?

You're probably itching to look.

Don't worry, Trausti, he will find him for you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if white men are going missing on hiking trails in Nevada we shouldn't expend resources looking for them because they probably went into the wilderness of their own accord and don't want to be disturbed, or it's likely they're male prostitutes and are either running from their fellow criminals or were murdered for being whores?

I disagree.

I think the police should always make a good faith effort to find missing persons and not presume it's a waste of time or that the person isn't worth the effort. And if there's any hint of foul play, they should devote even more resources to the task.

If someone goes missing in the wilderness there most certainly is a search--for the person, not for evidence of their murder. It's a useful thing--they're often found.

How about making a better comparison.

Better in what way?

I believe there should always be a search or an investigation when a person is reported missing. The cops should never just decide beforehand that investigating is pointless or that the person isn't worth all that effort, which is what you are insinuating.

The race, gender, and occupation of the missing person should not determine how much effort the authorities put into locating them. Presuming a missing person knowingly and willingly put themselves in danger _might_ be useful in the investigation _if_ it has been established they were engaged in risky behavior at the time of their disappearance. But even if they were, that shouldn't diminish or prevent a sincere effort to find them, no matter what that risky behavior might have been.

What you're not getting is that it's not about the value of the person, but the chance of success.

You chase what leads you have. When the disappearance is related to their own criminal activity the chances are you have basically zero leads. Check if there are any cameras or the like, if not you wait for someone to talk or someone to slip up and get caught by some other means.

You don't solve a crime by putting in x amount of effort. You solve a crime by running down the leads until you find one that points to the perpetrator. There is no guarantee that there is such a lead.

 

[Arctish]

Better in what way?

I believe there should always be a search or an investigation when a person is reported missing. The cops should never just decide beforehand that investigating is pointless or that the person isn't worth all that effort, which is what you are insinuating.

The race, gender, and occupation of the missing person should not determine how much effort the authorities put into locating them. Presuming a missing person knowingly and willingly put themselves in danger _might_ be useful in the investigation _if_ it has been established they were engaged in risky behavior at the time of their disappearance. But even if they were, that shouldn't diminish or prevent a sincere effort to find them, no matter what that risky behavior might have been.

What you're not getting is that it's not about the value of the person, but the chance of success.

You chase what leads you have. When the disappearance is related to their own criminal activity the chances are you have basically zero leads. Check if there are any cameras or the like, if not you wait for someone to talk or someone to slip up and get caught by some other means.

You don't solve a crime by putting in x amount of effort. You solve a crime by running down the leads until you find one that points to the perpetrator. There is no guarantee that there is such a lead.

True, there's no guarantee of success. That is true even when there are solid leads for investigators to follow. But you appear to be subtly shifting the goalposts here to justify assuming a few conclusions you made about missing persons here.

First off, you have presented no data to support your claim that "so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes", and second, you have presented no data to support the claim that when prostitutes go missing "chances are there is nothing to go on".

Prostitutes are as likely to have cell phones as everyone else. They have friends, favorite grocery stores and restaurants, favorite places to do business, etc. They are as likely to be seen on security camera videos as non-prostitutes.

I see no reason to assume a search for a missing prostitute is less likely to succeed than a search for a missing non-prostitute. And there is no _good_ reason to be mingy with resources when the missing person earned a living via the sex trade.

The hunters and hikers who get lost in the wilderness are pretty damn hard to find. The missing boaters and commercial fisherman are even harder to locate. Why are you assuming finding missing prostitutes is hardest of all? Are you assuming that they've been murdered? Because if so, that makes their disappearance a very serious crime that warrants a helluva lot more investigative resources than finding some random guy who tried to create a shortcut in a wild area.

 

[Jarhyn]

Better in what way?

I believe there should always be a search or an investigation when a person is reported missing. The cops should never just decide beforehand that investigating is pointless or that the person isn't worth all that effort, which is what you are insinuating.

The race, gender, and occupation of the missing person should not determine how much effort the authorities put into locating them. Presuming a missing person knowingly and willingly put themselves in danger _might_ be useful in the investigation _if_ it has been established they were engaged in risky behavior at the time of their disappearance. But even if they were, that shouldn't diminish or prevent a sincere effort to find them, no matter what that risky behavior might have been.

What you're not getting is that it's not about the value of the person, but the chance of success.

You chase what leads you have. When the disappearance is related to their own criminal activity the chances are you have basically zero leads. Check if there are any cameras or the like, if not you wait for someone to talk or someone to slip up and get caught by some other means.

You don't solve a crime by putting in x amount of effort. You solve a crime by running down the leads until you find one that points to the perpetrator. There is no guarantee that there is such a lead.

True, there's no guarantee of success. That is true even when there are solid leads for investigators to follow. But you appear to be subtly shifting the goalposts here to justify assuming a few conclusions you made about missing persons here.

First off, you have presented no data to support your claim that "so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes", and second, you have presented no data to support the claim that when prostitutes go missing "chances are there is nothing to go on".

Prostitutes are as likely to have cell phones as everyone else. They have friends, favorite grocery stores and restaurants, favorite places to do business, etc. They are as likely to be seen on security camera videos as non-prostitutes.

I see no reason to assume a search for a missing prostitute is less likely to succeed than a search for a missing non-prostitute. And there is no _good_ reason to be mingy with resources when the missing person earned a living via the sex trade.

The hunters and hikers who get lost in the wilderness are pretty damn hard to find. The missing boaters and commercial fisherman are even harder to locate. Why are you assuming finding missing prostitutes is hardest of all? Are you assuming that they've been murdered? Because if so, that makes their disappearance a very serious crime that warrants a helluva lot more investigative resources than finding some random guy who tried to create a shortcut in a wild area.

I think the biggest issue with prostitution is that business happens quite often where there is little oversight, no vetting, combined with the fact that prostitutes will quite often get into strangers' cars.

I agree that anyone who gets into someone else's car willingly, without someone recording details (and note that cars for this purpose used by a smart killer will not be easy to tie to a killer), there's just going to be a HUGE uphill battle to get any leads.

It is absolutely the case that people should be more concerned that there are humans preying on vulnerable humans. The issue is that some people think "they're only prostitutes", perhaps not openly or even consciously, and then that involvement of effort to an already hard problem becomes "easy" to ignore.

I hope for Lauren's sake that he knows well how to force himself to sleep; I know I would not be able sleep easily at night knowing I had handwaved away deaths in such a horrid manner.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtloVODQUVE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First off, you have presented no data to support your claim that "so many of those disappeared women are prostitutes", and second, you have presented no data to support the claim that when prostitutes go missing "chances are there is nothing to go on".

Prostitutes are as likely to have cell phones as everyone else. They have friends, favorite grocery stores and restaurants, favorite places to do business, etc. They are as likely to be seen on security camera videos as non-prostitutes.

If they go missing when not actually being prostitutes you're right. But the usual scenario is they are picked up by a bad guy. At that point they are probably by their own choice out of sight of security cameras and the phone is going to get turned off.

I see no reason to assume a search for a missing prostitute is less likely to succeed than a search for a missing non-prostitute. And there is no _good_ reason to be mingy with resources when the missing person earned a living via the sex trade.

You're being awfully blind here.

The hunters and hikers who get lost in the wilderness are pretty damn hard to find. The missing boaters and commercial fisherman are even harder to locate. Why are you assuming finding missing prostitutes is hardest of all? Are you assuming that they've been murdered? Because if so, that makes their disappearance a very serious crime that warrants a helluva lot more investigative resources than finding some random guy who tried to create a shortcut in a wild area.

The issue is you have no trail to follow.

Somebody missing in the wilderness, you normally have a good idea of what they were planning. It is very unlikely they are trying to avoid being found--a good search & rescue guy can look at the situation and make pretty good guesses of what somebody in distress would do in trying to get help. And note that most of the search effort is usually by volunteers.

The missing prostitute, however, was in all probability snatched by someone who will be seeking to obscure their trail. Generally there will be zero information as to where they went. Phones certainly can be traced until you're too far off the grid, but the bad guys know that and will turn off or destroy the phone. Once it's off the trail goes cold. Think anyone's going to get the plate of the car she got into? And even if they do how do you know that's the bad guy rather than just a previous client?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the biggest issue with prostitution is that business happens quite often where there is little oversight, no vetting, combined with the fact that prostitutes will quite often get into strangers' cars.

I agree that anyone who gets into someone else's car willingly, without someone recording details (and note that cars for this purpose used by a smart killer will not be easy to tie to a killer), there's just going to be a HUGE uphill battle to get any leads.

It is absolutely the case that people should be more concerned that there are humans preying on vulnerable humans. The issue is that some people think "they're only prostitutes", perhaps not openly or even consciously, and then that involvement of effort to an already hard problem becomes "easy" to ignore.

I hope for Lauren's sake that he knows well how to force himself to sleep; I know I would not be able sleep easily at night knowing I had handwaved away deaths in such a horrid manner.

Your first two paragraphs explain exactly why I said what I did. It's not a matter of value, it's a matter of capability.

If there is no detectable connection between killer and victim, no slip-up at the time and nobody talks the chances of getting caught are about zero.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think the biggest issue with prostitution is that business happens quite often where there is little oversight, no vetting, combined with the fact that prostitutes will quite often get into strangers' cars.

I agree that anyone who gets into someone else's car willingly, without someone recording details (and note that cars for this purpose used by a smart killer will not be easy to tie to a killer), there's just going to be a HUGE uphill battle to get any leads.

It is absolutely the case that people should be more concerned that there are humans preying on vulnerable humans. The issue is that some people think "they're only prostitutes", perhaps not openly or even consciously, and then that involvement of effort to an already hard problem becomes "easy" to ignore.

I hope for Lauren's sake that he knows well how to force himself to sleep; I know I would not be able sleep easily at night knowing I had handwaved away deaths in such a horrid manner.

Your first two paragraphs explain exactly why I said what I did. It's not a matter of value, it's a matter of capability.

If there is no detectable connection between killer and victim, no slip-up at the time and nobody talks the chances of getting caught are about zero.

The thing is, you claim it's a "waste of resources". It's not. It's a proper use of resources that they just won't put in because they don't think the victims are worth it.

Every victim is worth every resource it takes, even if it's hard. Sometimes especially when it's hard.

Of course part of it comes from the fact of how the police are already misusing their resources to shut down sites that enable safer prostitution practices.

The issue here is that it's fucking disgusting to say "these people are expensive to care about", when it's just as expensive to waste so much money on looking for rich white chicks rather than just investigating their romantic partner.

The unstated part of your statement is "and they just don't matter enough to actually put in that effort."