MI MI - Alexandra Brueger, 31, Fatally Shot While Jogging, Rose Twp, 30 Jul 2016 #5

Can anyone post a summary?

F/Lt. Michael Shaw, public information officer with the Michigan State Police, had very little to say about the case this week. “Yes, this is still an active case. Anyone with information is asked to call the MSP tip line at (855) 642.4847.”

“We are so disheartened that it’s been three years and we still have no justice or truth in our daughter’s case,” said Ally’s mother, Nikki Brueger. “We have dealt with inconsistent and conflicting statements made by the detectives, which I refer to as their ‘double talk.’ This insensitive behavior makes you feel very powerless, and it grinds away on any optimism or hope that we try and hold on to.
 
Parents seek information on 3rd anniversary of daughter's death
July 30, 2019
After three years, the person who killed a woman jogging along a rural road remains at large.

Alexandra Brueger was 31-years-old when she was gunned down from behind during her daily jog. On the third anniversary of her death, her parents are still searching for answers.
[...]

Who Killed Alexandra Brueger? Police Still Seeking Tips 3 Years After Jogger's Death

July 30, 2019
[...]
Police have received multiple tips over the years and the investigation is still active, but Brueger's killer remains at large.

"We still have our detectives that are working on this case almost every day but, again, we're still looking for tips from the public," said Michigan State Police Lt. Mike Shaw. "We're hoping that somebody has some information that they haven't shared before or kind of kept to themselves and decided that now is the time that they want to come out and say something to us."
[...]

VIDEO at link:

Posted on Jul 30, 2019
Parents seek answers on 3-year anniversary of daughter's murder
 
Not really a summary, but here is an article from last March. LE stated that there are more than just one suspect
Who failed polygraph in case of murdered nurse?
Unfortunately lie detector results are not admissible in court so they need more than that. They surely have other evidence that they can use to rule in or out, if they haven't then I am not sure what tip they are looking for. They need to identify the vehicle and the weapon at the very least. MOO.
 
Unfortunately lie detector results are not admissible in court so they need more than that. They surely have other evidence that they can use to rule in or out, if they haven't then I am not sure what tip they are looking for. They need to identify the vehicle and the weapon at the very least. MOO.
Based upon what I've read, I think the only people who've come forward with information on the shooting are residents in the vicinity of where Ally was shot. But, Ally ran several miles and IIRC, she was at about the ½ way mark on her run that day. It's very possible the shooter followed Ally in his car for a while (especially if he wasn't too familiar with the area) until she reached a sparsely populated area where there would be no eyewitnesses.

Maybe someone remembers seeing a car that day and the driver was acting odd, like pulling over and waiting to allow Ally time to gain some distance before proceeding. Surely, someone was outside or even inside with a view of the road and noticed something out of the ordinary. Hopefully, someone who has held on to information of that nature because they didn't feel it was relevant to the shooting will finally step forward and speak to LE.

Ally needs justice!
 
Just an aside based on a couple of the posts above, but lie detectors are a howling fraud. It's way past time that they cease to be mentioned in relation to any investigation. The only place for those devices is collecting dust in county museums.
 
Just an aside based on a couple of the posts above, but lie detectors are a howling fraud. It's way past time that they cease to be mentioned in relation to any investigation. The only place for those devices is collecting dust in county museums.

They apparently used them in the Delphi case too, early on to discount people. :-(
I agree with you. What's the point of using them if they don't stand up in court. MOO
 
They apparently used them in the Delphi case too, early on to discount people. :-(
I agree with you. What's the point of using them if they don't stand up in court. MOO
They're typically used to eliminate suspects, as they did in the Delphi case. The fewer suspects in the pool, the more LE can concentrate their efforts on viable suspects. LE also use the polygraph to focus on specific areas where a suspect shows deceit. It led to a confession in the Watts case, and he led them to the bodies of his family. Polygraphs have led to suspects revealing information pertinent to the crime in other cases, too. While polygraphs are not permissible in court, the resulting evidence can be used in court.
 
Last edited:
They're typically used to eliminate suspects, as they did in the Delphi case. The fewer suspects in the pool, the more LE can concentrate their efforts on viable suspects. LE also use the polygraph to focus on specific areas where a suspect shows deceit. It led to a confession in the Watts case, and he led them to the bodies of his family. Polygraphs have led to suspects revealing information pertinent to the crime in other cases, too. While polygraphs are not permissible in court, the resulting evidence can be used in court.
The thing with the Delphi case is they are now going back to an early sketch which was discounted initially, but we don't know why. In this case a suspect was discounted early on too. Perhaps they should re-examine all previous suspects again and review others convicted in other jogging cases. It just seems like they're doing nothing. I also wonder what the recent Brueger comments mean re double talk by the detectives? What does that mean? LE said they have received "multiple tips" so what does that mean, multiple suspects or all tips about one person?
It is not enough, whatever they are doing. MOO.
 
The thing with the Delphi case is they are now going back to an early sketch which was discounted initially, but we don't know why. In this case a suspect was discounted early on too. Perhaps they should re-examine all previous suspects again and review others convicted in other jogging cases. It just seems like they're doing nothing. I also wonder what the recent Brueger comments mean re double talk by the detectives? What does that mean? LE said they have received "multiple tips" so what does that mean, multiple suspects or all tips about one person?
It is not enough, whatever they are doing. MOO.
In the Delphi case, I don't think LE had identified the person in either sketch, so neither one may have been questioned and polygraphed. Or, maybe they have now identified and interviewed the person in the first sketch and ruled him out, and that is why they have resorted to focusing on the 2nd sketch. JMO

IMO, LE has a suspect in mind in this case and many of the tips they've received apply to that one suspect. Maybe people close to Ally have voiced their suspicions about a certain person, but there was no confession and no solid evidence to conclude he was the one who murdered Ally. I wouldn't be surprised, too, if some of those tips are suspicions people unassociated with Ally have about some random person.

I think they are following multiple leads, though. And detectives usually do question POI's repeatedly if a case grows cold. Hopefully, they are doing that here, but I'm not sure what the Bruegers mean regarding the "double talk."
 
Then why are many people cleared as suspects after passing a polygraph?
Most of them are innocent as there is only one perp usually. However, lie detectors are often inconclusive which doesn't prove guilt but means real police work then has to kick in like alibis, fingerprints, ballistics, DNA, phone evidence etc. That's when an arrest would happen in normal circumstances IMO.

ETA. Unfortunately, if this is a random crime then they will not have the suspect available to give a lie detector to. This is what I suspect, that the shooter was not known to Ally and it was a random abduction attempt and/or drive by shooting. Hence difficulty solving it.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately lie detector results are not admissible in court so they need more than that. They surely have other evidence that they can use to rule in or out, if they haven't then I am not sure what tip they are looking for. They need to identify the vehicle and the weapon at the very least. MOO.
All we have from LE on the vehicle is a white car. (Yeah, that is very specific.) Since LE has the empty shell casings they at least know the gauge of the shotgun. The casings would have distinctive extractor, ejector and firing pin marks but until LE finds the gun that is no help at this time. To the best of my knowledge they have not released what gauge - 20, 12, 3"12, etc. - of the shotgun.
 
Most of them are innocent as there is only one perp usually. However, lie detectors are often inconclusive which doesn't prove guilt but means real police work then has to kick in like alibis, fingerprints, ballistics, DNA, phone evidence etc. That's when an arrest would happen in normal circumstances IMO.

ETA. Unfortunately, if this is a random crime then they will not have the suspect available to give a lie detector to. This is what I suspect, that the shooter was not known to Ally and it was a random abduction attempt and/or drive by shooting. Hence difficulty solving it.
I've seen more than one article where LE believes it was someone Alexandra knew. I agree with you in that this is most likely someone she didn't know, ALTHOUGH the killer probably knew her. I find it strange that the one POI LE grilled (outside of WS) and was made public was someone who claimed he did not even know who she was.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
4,353
Total visitors
4,454

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,700
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top