Alan Gardner in The Weirdstone of Brisingamen.
There’s complete confusion here between killing from the POV of the perpetrator vs from the POV of the victim.
Modern industrial mass-production warfare is about distancing the killer from the killee. BTDTGTTS.
From the killee’s POV it’s the same as it ever was: I was minding my own business when this sharp stick / rock / projectile tore through my guts & suddenly I hurt beyond description, followed by unconsciousness & death. Sucks to be me.
It would have helped if the Penn surveillance team had intervened before Kohberger cleaned the car and destroyed evidence.
They did retrieve the trash thrown in a neighbor’s can.
Yes. That was his point. If you’re not face to face with the person you’re trying to kill, you’re less affected by the act of killing.
It’s really bizarre to me that Mr. Master Criminologist was so scrupulous about cleaning the car, wearing gloves, putting his trash in the neighbor’s can, etc, but left the fricking knife sheath at the scene of the crime. Even in the heat of the moment, how could he leave the house carrying the knife and forget that it had been in a sheath?
He has multiple personalities and is trying to frame himself.
One is an amateur, and amateurs make amateur mistakes. It takes practice to kill a bunch of people in cold blood and remain unruffled. Practice he hoped to acquire over the next few “perfect crimes” but did not yet have while perpetrating this one.
Now that we know one of the survivors saw the perp walking the halls, I wonder how he managed to keep the victims silent while stabbing / slicing them? Typically that’s rather noisy business, and the roommate might have been roused thereby to bother dialing 911. Which is, after all, not all that darn difficult once your bedroom door is locked.
I would say that evidence is going to be significant.
If it was a party house, as people have consistently said it was, seeing strangers walking around may not have been abnormal.
If he left the knife sheath then what did he do with the knife?
They have a good guess of the car travel, he probably chucked it out a window into a creek or river.
Yes but her reason for checking in the first place was the sound of crying.
And I was right, so far.
This wouldn’t fit for this crime. I believe unlawful flight requires you have to have been charged with a crime. The murderer wasn’t charged with anything when he left the state and drove back east. Therefore, no federal crime.
Of course, a lot of this is splitting hairs. The FBI often works local crimes at the request of local police. It’s usually reserved to lab work and evidence processing, but there is always going to be liaison agents on the ground. The only real difference is the FBI does not take charge of the case.
I’m not so sure this is true. Humans have been killing each other up close in mass lots for centuries, if not longer. You don’t have to go as far back as WWII to find mass killings up close and personal. Rwanda and Cambodia come to mind, I’m sure there are many others. Humans seem to have no problem killing face to face.
I didn’t say it was true, I said it was his theory. Or one of his character’s theories, to be more pedantic about it.
Regarding motive, means and opportunity - you don’t need to prove each of these things in order to get a conviction. You could have a murder recorded from 20 different angles that show 100% that a defendant committed the crime and never know (or be able to prove) why he did it. Present a theory? Sure. Prove motive, beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t think so.
Means? If the prosecution can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer owned or possessed the murder weapon, does that mean no conviction? Nope. People get convicted without a weapon ever being identified.
Opportunity? Placing the accused at the scene at the time of the crime is very important but not an absolute requirement. Showing that he could have been there may be enough when combined with all the other evidence. The defense may argue that the accused could not have been there - an alibi. The state has then try to poke holes in that. Ultimately, a jury will decide whether they believe an alibi or not.
Each element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but motive, means and opportunity are not elements.
Also, upthread someone (an actual lawyer, I think) said something like ‘it more more than just balancing possibilities’. Sorry, I can’t find the actual post. Respectfully, I disagree. That’s what its all about. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt allows for “possibilities”. Just how likely is the possibility that, given all the evidence, a particular defendant didn’t commit the crime. To have a zero possibility would be proof beyond any doubt and that’s not the law. I apologize in advance, if I am mis-remembering the quote or context.
And wars don’t seem to have become more common due to “distance killing”, while world wars have ceased. For now, anyway.
Sorry, didn’t mean to reply as if it was your idea. I’ve read the same thing from several sources and I just don’t see it being true. If gunpowder disappeared tomorrow, I have no doubt people would go right back to killing people with rocks and pointy things.
S’aright.
It shouldn’t be hard for LE to trace the IP address.
The person was posting about a knife sheath and other details.
Watching talking head crime experts on the news, I heard a couple of instances of jumping to conclusions:
-
That returning to the vicinity of the crime several hours after the killings showed the suspect’s arrogance and feeling that he felt he could not be caught. As I suggested previously, a practical reason would be to search for the missing knife sheath, maybe not into the house, but at least from where he’d parked the car to as close to the house he felt he could go without arousing suspicion.
-
That cellphone records showing that the suspect was in the vicinity of the house a dozen times in the months leading up to the murders, between late evening and early morning, meant that he was stalking the victims or staking out the house. It could be, but he could also have been visiting someone he knew who lived nearby. In any case, these visits to the area may lead to information about how the suspect came to know of the victims.