Nick, I've been following along on this thread for a few days now. I'm in Kansas so first wanted to say thank you for providing your insights.
As for your comment above - can we conclusively say the first for are all connected? - I feel almost like we're being given the runaround in KC. I've seen them (media and law enforcement) state the murders along Indian Creek Trail have similarities and a possible connection. And then I've seen them switch and say that there's no evidence linking any of the murders. They basically go back and forth between 'KC possibly has a serial killer' to 'nothing to see here, move along.'
I've seen some connect the most recent murder on Trolley Track Trail to the others at Indian Creek Trail. And then I've seen them say that because the man at Trolley Track was much younger than the other victims, and the death was on a different trail, there's no connection at all. I remember some were saying early on Monday morning right after the victim was found on Trolley Track that there was no connection. How can they deduce that so quickly? Maybe the perp changed his MO and locale because he saw all the news coverage about the investigations and the FBI coming in to help?
For example of the back and forth, there's the following article, which says that there is zero evidence linking any of the murders together in one section and something different in another:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article153222354.html
From the link:
Since August, four white males between the ages of 54 and 67 have been found killed on or near the Indian Creek and Blue River trails, in an area roughly between 95th and 110th streets. Three of the four were walking their dogs. The FBI has joined the investigations into those deaths.
“We’ve asked the FBI to come and look at it to see if they see something that we don’t. To get some different on eyes on it,” said Officer Darin Snapp, a KC police spokesman. “There is still zero evidence linking any of them together.”
And then in the next couple of lines in the same article, there's this quote from KCPD's Stacy Graves: “There is no indication (Monday’s) death is related to the homicides that share similarities in and around Indian Creek Trail,” she said.
IMO, based on what I've seen on the evening news and what I'm reading in articles like the one above, the KCPD needs to get their story straight. Either the murders have a connection, or they don't. People are getting nervous, thinking there's a serial killer on the loose. And based on what I'm seeing, there is. I understand that LE needs to keep a lot of information private to not give away their case, but the back and forth is a bit much.
Anyway, thanks again for taking time to provide your insights on these crimes. They're much appreciated.
Brother (Or perhaps Sister?) "Scout87,"
Astute observations, my friend. Let's be clear, I am all for the public requesting clear and concise information from law enforcement. Specifically, with regards to potential serial offenders, this is especially true. In the hours after an active killer incident such as Aurora, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech (years ago), information is nearly always conflicting. This is due to a myriad of factors such as the necessity to verify the suspect is neutralized, the number of patients hospitalized or deceased, potential other suspects and so forth. Timely, accurate information is not always available in those kinds of cases. On these 4 cases as you mentioned, it should be. I agree.
I asked the members of this forum if we can say conclusively that the first four are connected. You turned this question back over to me, thus I'll do my best to answer. No, I can not conclusively say the first four are connected. The only facts I have are those available in the various media reports. I can opine on this information; quite simply, I can analyze the same things you all know.
As a good rule of thumb, analyze the newest statements from law enforcement in possible serial cases. Ideally, commanding officers or public information officers have a good understanding of these cases. In turn, they can present basic and consistent information that would say something to the effect of, " I do not have that information at this time." Yes, that is frustrating. If a true serial offender has perpetrated these crimes a press conference would be most beneficial, I believe. The press conference could include members of the investigative team and law enforcement leaders. If it is unclear whether these first four crimes are connected, a press conference or public statement saying, "We are actively exploring any possible connection between these cases," would suffice in my mind. That way, information could be presented that keeps the public informed. A fine line exists between maintaining the investigation's integrity and keeping the citizen's up to date.
To analyze the aforementioned statements with respect to this case, I would assert that it's possible that law enforcement truly doesn't know if they are connected. The first occurred in August of 2016. If the body was discovered along the trail and no witnesses were present the case could have easily stalled. The other two only occurred over the past couple of months. Looking back, it was probably realized that the victim's in each case were similar. Yet another victim matching this type was discovered, but it was outside of this first geographic area. The dots may just now be getting connected, so to speak.
With everything I have read, it's a pull between two types of offenders or completely unrelated. Those that commit crimes in a serial manner either do so over a long period of time or a short period of time. In this situation, it would appear both are present. Methodical versus thrill. On the other hand, they could all be unrelated. Neither can be determined without cause of death and individual case information. That information should be law enforcement knowledge only until it is suspected with a high degree of confidence that the cases are connected. The smaller the circle, the more likely only the true offender knows what occurred.
On the most recent case, information can't be deduced that quickly, usually. The FBI's involvement is likely for investigative resources and may be a signal of well; mixed signals thus far. As I stated above, law enforcement may too be confused by evidence that would suggest they are all unrelated. On the contrary, evidence may also be present that would suggest they are all connected. FBI personnel can provide expertise and resources that may clarify this.
On your last point, for that matter your whole post, I agree with the need for greater transparency. It could be said, "based on the information developed at this time, we are investigating the possibility that these cases are connected." That way if they don't suspect or have evidence that suggests a connection the public can at least know they are inquiring on the possibility of it.
Great thought provoking post. I'll do my best to answer any questions you all ask.
- Nick
