Tactics for future crime prevention

https://www.bearbrookpodcast.com/season-one
Listen to episodes 1-8 of the Bear Brook Podcast and watch The Chameleon documentary. and answer the below questions .

Guidelines for an Analytical Review:
An analytical review carefully and critically examines all aspects of the case. The nature of the crime, the victims, the perpetrator, the investigators, etc., in an attempt to understand what transpired. This includes leading up to the murder(s) and all subsequent actions related to the case until its resolution. While we know how this case ends, it is always relevant to examine cases with a critical eye to see if there were things that could be done differently.

These analyses can help investigators gain insight into tactics for future crime prevention, methodologies of investigative tools and techniques and how they were used (or not used), or any other factors that directly affected the outcome of the case. For example, one of the biggest questions surrounding the Bear Brook murders is why did it take over 30 years to solve the case? Critical analyses seek to provide the answers to such questions.

Questions:

1. Provide a brief summary of the case.
2. What do you think were the biggest challenges for the investigators and how did those challenges factor into their ability to solve the case?
3. Discuss the limitations/problems of the case. For example, were there errors on the part of law enforcement, limitations in forensic methodologies, the nature of the crime itself, etc.?
4. Did the chameleon have a certain type of victim he targeted? If so, what was the victimology he targeted or exploited? Do you think his choice in victims contributed to this case being unsolved for so long?
5. Discuss the methodologies used to identify the victims and what did those methodologies reveal about the individuals and or the perpetrator?
6. Were there any investigative tools overlooked or underutilized by the investigative team?
7. What investigative tool did YOU think was the most useful in helping to solve the case. Why?
8. Do you think there were mistakes made in the case? Should it have taken over 30 years to solve this case? Explain.
9. After listening to the podcast and watching the documentary, which did you prefer? Do you think one was better than the other? Do you think there were things that could be improved upon for either or both?
10. What do YOU think is the most fascinating and/or horrifying aspect of the case?
11. What do you think is the biggest lesson to be learned from this case and why?