The Q I was replying to, and I am paraphrasing now, was "did the killer prepare an alibi if s/he was discovered in the house, such as 'oh, I was just returning your dog...'" My thought was that the killer would be in the house at 3 a.m., brandishing a large knife, so if s/he had some 'explanation,' it would not sound convincing. Plus, I was saying, IMO, the killer was not into verbiage- not a talker, not a writer- s/he was a slasher IMO.yes, if you go to kill someone with a knife at 3 am then indeed you will be standing there at 3 am with a knife. I am confused
Guns leave a lot more evidence to work with than knives. Knives are quiet. Those are my first two impressions. Could also be a million other things. Maybe it’s more related to the killer’s psychology and the murders were more personal.First-time-poster here. Not really a true crime junkie or armchair sleuth. Haven't been this interested in an unsolved crime since the initial mystery of the Boston Marathon bombings many years back. Saw the documentary on Patton Oswald's deceased wife awhile back, which left me with a poor impression of amateur sleuthing as something possibly addictive, but something about this Idaho case has drawn me here. Thank you to everyone who has shared information, data, personal experience, etc... This is a really neat community, and the moderators are doing a great job - thanks mods!
I've read through almost every post here about this case, and my personal suspicions have never wandered toward a strong feeling that I really have a sense of who may have done this crime. I think there just isn't enough information available to the general public to get a good sense of what transpired. Take for instance the food truck video. We see a handful of people and anyone can wildly speculate anything about anyone present in that clip. But if instead of that Twitch clip we were presented with a 30-minute clip from the neighbor's Ring camera or a 10-minute clip from the Corner Club I'm sure we would have wildly different suspicions. I just am not seeing enough actual evidence to begin to piece any significant part of this together. The suspect could be a 16-year-old girl or a group of middle-aged men or a serial killer or anything imaginable. No concrete idea from my perspective.
A lot of the same ideas are being treaded on, so I'll try to think of something new to add. Just quickly: Does the use of a knife instead of a gun say anything about the killer's income status or ability to procure a gun? Does not using a gun say anything about the suspicion that there may be a hunting or military background? What does it say about the suspicion that it may be an incel, which we typically have seen use guns and with little or no regard for their own personal outcome?
I have a million other little details bugging me, too many to write into one post. So I'll leave this one as-is for now. Man, this is a disturbing mind-bender and my condolences to any friends or family of the deceased and anyone who has been personally affected. Nothing but love and peace your way from here.
I meant if it had turned out that they were not asleep and they caught him say near the slider then he could have aborted with an excuse. I never heard 9” knife. it could have been 4”The Q I was replying to, and I am paraphrasing now, was "did the killer prepare an alibi if s/he was discovered in the house, such as 'oh, I was just returning your dog...'" My thought was that the killer would be in the house at 3 a.m., brandishing a large knife, so if s/he had some 'explanation,' it would not sound convincing. Plus, I was saying, IMO, the killer was not into verbiage- not a talker, not a writer- s/he was a slasher IMO.
Let's say the killers target was dog owners and the police knew this but kept it to themselves. Then another dog owner was attacked by the killer before they had enough to arrest him. Would the investigators bear any responsibility for not informing the public of something important to their safety? How much of a pass is it appropriate to give the police on holding back what they know?What type of information would protect the public though? The public knows there's a killer on the loose, the person broke into the home, stabbed 4 people, and left without being detected. What more would LE have to share to keep people safe? I think short of naming a person or motive, there's nothing they can do/say to keep people safe and they likely can't reveal a person or motive yet or else they'll jeopardize their case.
@OldCop I’m repeatedly grateful you’re here with us and share your perspective. Thank you!I agree. I can certainly understand the frustration of friends and family of the victims. We are starting to see more and more criticism of law enforcement on this case. People want answers.
A few things to consider when we discuss the early days of the investigation; what was said, what was done, was the crime scene compromised, etc.:
When LE are dispatched to a scene, they basically arrive with a blank slate. They are responding to the information given by the 911 caller. This is why the call is so important. There would certainly be a different approach to, “My roommate is unconscious.” as opposed to “My roommate is locked in the bedroom and there is blood everywhere.” The number 1 priority for LE is always preservation of life. Did an officer approach one of the victims to see if he could get a pulse? It’s very possible. In doing so did he step in some blood or other evidence? Maybe. Does that make him useless or stupid? I don’t think so. If your loved one was laying on the bed unconscious wouldn’t you want them to be checked, just in case?
Now we have LE’s earliest statements. When you arrive on scene, you use your training and experience to make a preliminary assessment of what happened. A patrol officer in this situation would immediately call a supervisor and detectives to the scene. Within a short time the word has gotten out, you have 4 dead students, people are alarmed. You have to say something so you make a statement releasing basic facts and present your earliest theory of what you think happened. After a vicious quadruple homicide you can’t go out and say “No comment.” so you tell them your best theory based on what you know at the time.
An investigation is a fluid journey taking twists and turns as evidence is gathered, suspects are ruled out, and new information comes to light.
What is taking so long? These cops must be incompetent.
Sure, if you go to a scene in a pristine environment with a single victim and find dna and fingerprints and know there has been a recent bad divorce and the ex’s cellphone was at the home at the time of the homicide and he has no alibi, you might get a quick solve. Or what if you arrive at the scene and a suspect is standing over a dead body with the proverbial smoking gun?
But what if you go into a fairly large home, that is known to be a gathering spot and it is filled with red cups and party remnants and you have four victims spread out over two floors, and there’s dna but it doesn’t match anyone and you have to wait for all that digital data to come back and you start the labor intensive task of identifying friends, acquaintance, stalkers, exes and most of these people have left the area due to the Thanksgiving holiday or just because they are scared it could happen to them? Will that take some time? You betcha.
And you can also believe that these LE officers are working their butts off to identify this killer because they never ever want to have to respond to a scene like this one ever again.