The release of further information about last fall’s shooting of William Baldwin by a Montezuma County Sheriff’s deputy has proven very enlightening. An affidavit by a Colorado Bureau of Investigation officer describes very clearly the threat Baldwin’s mental state presented to law-enforcement officers. It illustrates his resolve not to "give up" and presents information about how often and with what intent he shot at officers during the siege.

None of the details come as a great surprise. Most citizens at least wanted to believe that the MCSO had made every attempt to settle the conflict without shooting Baldwin. Specific information about the negotiations and Baldwin’s continued intransigent attitude goes a long way toward reassuring constituents that officers made the right decision.

One question lingers, however: Why was this information kept secret for so long? Portions could have been omitted in order to avoid compromising the case against Baldwin’s alleged partner in crime, Pete Mola (although that case seems extremely straightforward), but a great deal could have been announced immediately.

There was no need for secretiveness; when the facts were finally released, they clearly supported the actions taken. Given the fact that those actions had been a matter of considerable debate within the community, it would have been a good idea to publicize the facts considerably sooner.

Any violent death creates fear and suspicion, and the tendency by the sheriff’s department and the district attorney to avoid releasing any details whatsoever adds to that climate of fear. When facts aren’t available, rumors fly, and speculation usually strays far from the truth. It certainly happened with the Baldwin case, and it’s happening again, following the recent shooting death of Kenneth Wayne Dugan III.

In this most recent case, one arrest was made yesterday and another person is being sought, but even so, the charges alleged in the complaints have been kept secret. Most local residents would like to know a little more, and that’s a reasonable desire, given the fact that a killer may still be at large. A concise description of the suspect and the crime he or she is suspected of committing is surely in order. That information is routinely released when arrest warrants are issued for most crimes. We realize the investigation is ongoing, but by the same token, a suspect still being at large is a good reason for citizens to want to know what’s going on.

The trend toward sealing all information related to local violent crimes is disturbing, and so far it hasn’t proven particularly justified. Considerable information was withheld from the public regarding the manhunt which followed the shooting of Cortez police officer Dale Claxton; the secrecy didn’t help the case a bit. More than a year later, one body was found just a few miles from where the getaway vehicle was abandoned, and it became painfully obvious that those hundreds of searchers had literally not had a clue.

No one — not law enforcement, not the public and not the press — wants to disseminate information that might prevent these violent crimes from being solved. Recent cases suggest, though, that information is being suppressed as a matter of routine rather than out of any reasoned likelihood that it might harm a criminal investigation. That’s always a possibility, but there’s another one as well: Citizens who are provided with a reasonable amount of true, undisputed information are more likely to connect the dots and be able to offer additional evidence.