![]()
Session Four
Intense Investigation, Part 1
Thinking about Evidence and Learning to Take Notes
In 1981 Mike Lubahn told police that Carol, his twenty-seven-year-old wife and mother of their two young children, had run away from home. Everyone believed Mikeās story, including Carolās family and the original detective who considered this to be nothing more than a missing personās case. More than thirty years later, however, after a long cold-case investigation, we convicted Mike of Carolās murder.
A week after the verdict, Keith Morrison, anchor of NBCās Dateline, challenged my conclusions. While we were taping another Dateline episode, Keith leaned back in his chair and said, āIām not so sure youāve got the right guy this time.ā His right elbow was propped against his crossed left arm, and he was cradling his chin in his right hand. Iād seen this mischievous, questioning expression often as we chronicled many of my cold cases. āCome on, Jim. What makes you so sure Mikeās the killer?ā
His doubt was understandable. It had been an incredibly difficult case. Our agency didnāt begin working the case as a homicide until six years after the murder. We never found a single piece of physical evidence. There were still many unanswered questions. We didnāt know how he did it, where he did it, how he disposed of the body, or how he moved the car. In spite of the unanswered questions, the jury found Mike guilty after approximately four hours of deliberation.
āThis case is just like all the other cases, Keith,ā I explained. āItās not any one thing that demonstrates Mikeās guilt. Itās the collection of everything that demonstrates his guilt.ā Even though some questions remained unanswered, I had more than enough evidence to confidently conclude that Mike was guilty.
As it turned out, weeks after the taping and prior to the final edit of the episode, Mike Lubahn removed any doubt about his guilt. At his sentencing hearing he confessed to the crime and revealed where he had buried Carol.
How could I be so confident when we didnāt have all the answers? Itās really quite simple: evidential confidence is often the result of investigative diligence. I was confident of Mikeās guilt because I did what I always do: I took the necessary, time-tested investigative steps to evaluate the case, collect evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Iāve learned to trust the investigative processānot just in my cold cases, but in investigating the truth claims of Christianity. Our confidence in the truth of Christianity can be bolstered if we apply investigative diligence to our faith.
Open the Case File
(5 minutes ā Consider and Answer the Questions)
It is not uncommon for people who reject the Christian faith to insist that there is no real evidence for Jesusās claim that He was Godāor that He even existed. How do you respond when someone makes such a claim? How do you know for certain that their claim is false?
How is it possible to gather enough evidence to make a case for Jesus when thousands of years have passed since He lived on this earth?
View the Video Testimony
(11 minutes ā Take Notes)
Cold-case investigation and Christian case makingāsurprising similarities
Building the case on the basis of evidence
Study the ācasebookā from cover to cover
Extraordinary claims and ordinary evidence
Take notes and analyze data
Conduct a Group Investigation
(23 minutes ā Investigate the Issues and Answer the Questions)
Once weāve accepted our evidential duty concerning Christianityās claims and embraced a...
