An Italian translation is available here.
Former US Marshall William Sorukas published in 2021 his memoir entitled "Chasing Evil: Pursuing Dangerous Criminals with the U.S. Marshals" in which he gives very detailed insights about the most relevant cases he investigated. Sorukas had been already interviewed by us twice in the past: about 9/11 and about spree killer Andrew Cunanan.
To give us some further details about his most important investigations, Sorukas accepted our proposal for an interview we offer today our readers.
We would like to thank William Sorukas for his kindness and his time.
Nastro di Mobius: In your book you describe many of the main cases you've been involved with as an investigator. Which one has been more impactful on you and why?
William Sorukas: All of the investigations mentioned in the book impacted me in some form or fashion, as did many other cases that I worked during my 28 years with the U. S. Marshals Service, and as part of Team ADAM with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Regardless of whether the case was for a murder or low level criminal offense, I always tried to remember that there was a victim in each and every investigation. For example, as a member of Team ADAM with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I was involved in a parental abduction case involving the biological mother and two young children that she ultimately smothered to death. I happened to be present when the children were found and it is an image, situation, and circumstance that I think about often. So, with the thousands of cases that I worked on, and thousands of victims, each and every one of them was impactful at some level and in some way.
Nastro di Mobius: In all the cases you describe, USMS had to cooperate with other agencies, of course. How was collaboration among agencies? Smooth and easy or were there tensions?
William Sorukas: The U. S. Marshals Service is involved in many law enforcement programs with other federal, state, and local agencies such as with the housing and transportation of prisoners and asset forfeiture sharing, in addition to fugitive apprehension. When multiple agencies become involved in an investigation for a single fugitive, it can be complicated at times. Each agency has investigative responsibility for the crime that occurred in their jurisdiction, so they want to ensure that their respective agency is conducting a logical and determined investigation and coordinating with all of the other agencies. The U. S. Marshals Service enjoys very good relationships with other federal, state, local, and international agencies for which the foundation is often participation by the other agency on a fugitive task force. As an example within the book, I refer you to the investigation of Andrew Cunanan. When it was discovered that Lee Miglin was one of his victims and there was a cellular phone in a stolen vehicle, the U. S. Marshals Service volunteered to coordinate the tracking of this device. At the time, the Marshals Service was more advanced and experienced in this type of technology, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation insisted on taking the lead on this portion of the investigation. When word leaked out that law enforcement was tracking the phone in Miglin’s car, Cunanan killed William Reese in New Jersey. My opinion is that this murder was more out of necessity than opportunity. Cunanan needed to abandoned the Miglin vehicle and Mr. Reese happened to be the victim out of necessity of needing a replacement car. We still don’t know exactly how the media in the Philadelphia area acquired the information about tracking the cell phone, but it certainly came from law enforcement at some level. Citing this example is the exception to collaboration with other agencies. In a normal investigation, agencies have a the common goal of apprehending the wanted person and work in concert with one another toward the end result.
Nastro di Mobius: You often mention the impact that TV shows like "America's Most Wanted" had on the investigations. Are these kind of shows useful in your opinion or can they somehow even jeopardize the investigations by releasing too much information to the public?
William Sorukas: When
America’s Most Wanted started in the late 1980’s, it was a significant new tool for investigators. Putting the eyes of 10,000 people on the wanted poster for a fugitive definitely aided many investigations that I was involved in over a 25-year period during which the show aired. As to releasing too much information, that is generally a decision of the lead investigator. The relationship between law enforcement and
America’s Most Wanted was such that they would only publish or air the information requested by the lead investigator. Sometimes, it was advantageous to not release certain information such as a known tattoo or scar, hoping that an observant caller into the show would provide that information and validate their observation of a wanted person. As the show moved into the 2000’s and other similar shows began to appear on television, they became competitive, trying to be the source of the tip or lead that led to the arrest of a fugitive. This is where an investigator would be overwhelmed with tips and have difficulty sorting through what was immediately important, and what could wait. During the investigation for Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, more than 400 leads were received at
America’s Most Wanted in a single evening. However, after going through the information, only fifteen to twenty required immediate attention. In my opinion, this is the responsibility of the investigator to parse through the information. The public is merely trying to assist and provide information that they think may be important, and I would never turn down a lead from someone that took the time to call.
As to jeopardizing an investigation, this too is something that we had to deal with from time to time. Imagine that a good tip comes into the
America’s Most Wanted call center and law enforcement is responding in an effort to take the person into custody. Although
America’s Most Wanted took the stance that they were not part of the media, they often wanted to capture or film an arrest for the purpose of closing out the case and telling the end of the story. Having producers and camera crews in proximity to a surveillance compromised the arrest of an individual when he saw unusual activity near the hotel where he was staying, and fled before an arrest action could take place. After he was arrested, he told law enforcement that he knew he had been on
America’s Most Wanted, saw the television cameras, and fled the hotel.
Nastro di Mobius: One thing that struck me in your book is that in two cases you say that investigators asked for help from psychics. Is it common? What are your thoughts on this? Can they be even vaguely reliable?
William Sorukas: On one occasion during the investigation of Johnaton George when we went to a local psychic, it was based on a referral from a local detective. It was not a routine part of the investigative process for myself or the San Diego office of the U. S. Marshals Service, or the fugitive task force. The second reference that you make is where a psychic called into our tip line while we were searching for the Texas Seven. A psychic calling into
Crime Stoppers,
America’s Most Wanted, or a tip line is not uncommon. At some point during most high profile investigations, psychics will provide information that they believe may be relevant to the case. Although some of their information may have been consistent with the outcome of an investigation, I do not recall any investigation that was resolved based solely on information provided by a psychic.
Nastro di Mobius: Based on your experience who are the most difficult fugitives to catch? Escapees from a prison? Serial killers? Any other type?
William Sorukas: I have been asked similar questions during past interviews. In my opinion, determining the most difficult fugitives to apprehend is not based on the type of crimes they committed, but rather on several characteristics of the individual. How much time elapsed from the time of the crime to when the person was formally charged? A day or two usually did not matter much because the wanted person would not have had time to plan their departure. If a person had six months to plan their flight from justice, they would have had time to acquire false identification, and get rid of assets such as a home, car, or property and turning them into cash. In my opinion, the most difficult person to pursue and arrest is the fugitive that completely separates himself or herself from their past including families, financial resources, hobbies, and routines. It is a person that is on the run and does not know where he or she will land each night.
Nastro di Mobius: I would like to focus a bit on the DC Sniper, what made this case unique in your opinion?
William Sorukas: There are several unique characteristics of this investigation, not all of which are related to the law enforcement effort. The public atmosphere in the Washington D.C. area was something I had not observed and have not encountered since the Fall of 2002. There was absolute fear in the area to the degree where sporting events were postponed or canceled, routine schedules were altered, driving routes were revised, and temporary partitions were put in place at gas stations to shield patrons from potential threats. From a law enforcement perspective, the case continually expanded jurisdiction-wise and geographically as additional shootings occurred and were linked to prior crimes. Another unique aspect to this investigation for the United States Marshals Service was that there was no named suspects and no arrest warrants. Although the USMS does become involved in investigations where the perpetrator is unidentified, nearly 100% of its cases are based upon the issuance an arrest warrant which identifies an individual.
Nastro di Mobius: The Beltway Snipers tried to communicate with the police by leaving letters or messages close to crime scenes, in your experience is it a common thing for serial killers to try to establish a communication with law enforcement officers?
William Sorukas: There are documented cases, including serial killers, where the suspects have communicated with the media or law enforcement. The most well known of these is probably are the cases of the Zodiac killer, The Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski), Son of Sam (David Berkowitz), and Jack the Ripper, to note a few. I will defer to the criminal behavior specialists as to the psychological reasoning for communication by a murderer with the media or law enforcement. My opinion is that their communication with law enforcement is to take credit for crimes such as in the Zodiac case where a portion of clothing from a victim was sent to the San Francisco Police Department. Their communication with the media can be to take credit for killing someone, but my personal feeling is that correspondence with the media is an effort to portray themselves in a favorable fashion or manner.
Nastro di Mobius: What are your most vivid memories of the final moments when the tactical team arrested them after their car was found?
William Sorukas: I was not at the scene where the car was found, but rather in my office monitoring the circumstances in the event that Muhammad and Malvo had abandoned the vehicle. Once I was informed that people were observed in the suspect vehicle, I felt very confident that the end of the terror created by these two men was over. I remember watching the news and answering two or three different phones with updated information. The U. S. Marshals Service was monitoring and surveilling several relatives of John Muhammad, and I was reviewing that information to determine if anything unusual was taking place such as a late night telephone call to an associate from a number with a Maryland area code or a report of a stolen car in the Myersville, Maryland area.
Once I was advised that they were in custody, I knew that the next phase of the case would soon follow. That would include the prosecution of the two suspects federally, on in one of several states where they had committed crimes. I remember telling a colleague that the post-arrest interviews may be the most important evidence in the case. The firearm had been recovered, but now it was a matter of placing the rifle in one of their two hands during each shooting event.
