readingrain
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2024
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 9
Hello, everyone. I'm from a country far from you, so I apologize for my english. I would like to say thank you to everyone who has been thinking about this case for more than 10 years and collecting the facts. I have read many articles about Comeans and all 58 pages on this forum and I have my own version of what happened.
I don't want to go into detail about the first two attacks because that would make my post too long. I would like to talk about how they differs from the last, third:
- The latest attack took place much closer to Bill's home than the previous two, and Bill was taken away from the house while he was busy. He helped his father, he looked after his sister, he ate ice cream. In my opinion this is a significant difference. Criminals take a very big risk and there must be a very serious reason for this, but in fact, in 58 pages, we really haven't found one that can be associated with any fact in this case, there are many theories, but we never found out why Bill got so much trouble. They could have just waited, as always, for the moment when Bill would be out of the house and that’s it, he would have left tomorrow, I’m sure.
- In the last attack, they or him, used the victim's item, Bill's scarf, which was not the case in the previous two. It's not that important, maybe, but one way or another, it's a difference.
- A knife was found at the crime scene, but no bladed weapons or firearms were used in the previous two attacks.
There are also common things, such as strangulation and the fact that the attack happened in the evening. But I believe that there are already enough facts to think that this attack could have been carried out by someone other than the one who planned the first two.
Now I would like to talk about who would be more comfortable committing this crime and what arguments there are for this. I think it was a neighbor or a family friend, maybe a close relative, someone much closer than just two psychopaths from the streets or from school. Something similar has already been said, but it seems to me they have not said it in detail. And I have arguments and facts:
- If a neighbor or family friend decided to kill W., then it is quite understandable why he did it so close to home, there is simply no other suitable place, and of course he knew the ditch with garbage near the railway and this is quite suitable for quickly taking him away from home . Then he could quickly return, for example, to his neighboring house or to a party.
- This person, if he is close to the family, could know about what is happening in the house, for example, observe from a nearby window, that is, understand the situation, choose the right moment, etc. This is much easier and much more likely than very risky and desperate criminals, for whom there was no point in taking risks, they just had to wait until tomorrow.
- A person whom W. trusted could almost easily take W. away from the house for any reason, he could say that he wanted to talk about something important or show something, here trust means more than words and this is more understandable than a reckless attack by mysterious killers. Moreover, this person could have easily tied a scarf around William’s neck, for example, offering to explain what happens during strangulation, as some kind of experiment or how to fight in such cases, and this may explain why they found no signs that W. resisted. The killer took advantage of the trust.
- The presence of a kitchen knife at the crime scene may indicate that the killer simply took it from his house, just in case, it is a household item, it is not a gangster weapon, that is, he simply took what was available, and this may indicate that he lived somewhere very close and observed, I don’t think that a random murderer or gangsters would use such a knife, it’s uncomfortable to carry and doesn’t fit well in a pocket.
- The fact that the last attack is different from the first two is also an argument that something different happened, not like before, perhaps the killer was nearby and the family knew him, I think that this cannot be ignored.
The motive of the killer known to the family could have been a personal dislike for W., or perhaps he simply did not like W., he was inspired by previous attacks and could have thought that, because of this they would not know about him, or maybe he believed that W. , lying about previous attacks and this annoyed him, or vice versa, that everyone loves W, but he doesn’t... In fact, I still have to think about possible motives, but we know that there are often very strange relationships between those who are closest to each other .
Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere or broke some rules, but I only tried to use the facts, thanks again to everyone.
I don't want to go into detail about the first two attacks because that would make my post too long. I would like to talk about how they differs from the last, third:
- The latest attack took place much closer to Bill's home than the previous two, and Bill was taken away from the house while he was busy. He helped his father, he looked after his sister, he ate ice cream. In my opinion this is a significant difference. Criminals take a very big risk and there must be a very serious reason for this, but in fact, in 58 pages, we really haven't found one that can be associated with any fact in this case, there are many theories, but we never found out why Bill got so much trouble. They could have just waited, as always, for the moment when Bill would be out of the house and that’s it, he would have left tomorrow, I’m sure.
- In the last attack, they or him, used the victim's item, Bill's scarf, which was not the case in the previous two. It's not that important, maybe, but one way or another, it's a difference.
- A knife was found at the crime scene, but no bladed weapons or firearms were used in the previous two attacks.
There are also common things, such as strangulation and the fact that the attack happened in the evening. But I believe that there are already enough facts to think that this attack could have been carried out by someone other than the one who planned the first two.
Now I would like to talk about who would be more comfortable committing this crime and what arguments there are for this. I think it was a neighbor or a family friend, maybe a close relative, someone much closer than just two psychopaths from the streets or from school. Something similar has already been said, but it seems to me they have not said it in detail. And I have arguments and facts:
- If a neighbor or family friend decided to kill W., then it is quite understandable why he did it so close to home, there is simply no other suitable place, and of course he knew the ditch with garbage near the railway and this is quite suitable for quickly taking him away from home . Then he could quickly return, for example, to his neighboring house or to a party.
- This person, if he is close to the family, could know about what is happening in the house, for example, observe from a nearby window, that is, understand the situation, choose the right moment, etc. This is much easier and much more likely than very risky and desperate criminals, for whom there was no point in taking risks, they just had to wait until tomorrow.
- A person whom W. trusted could almost easily take W. away from the house for any reason, he could say that he wanted to talk about something important or show something, here trust means more than words and this is more understandable than a reckless attack by mysterious killers. Moreover, this person could have easily tied a scarf around William’s neck, for example, offering to explain what happens during strangulation, as some kind of experiment or how to fight in such cases, and this may explain why they found no signs that W. resisted. The killer took advantage of the trust.
- The presence of a kitchen knife at the crime scene may indicate that the killer simply took it from his house, just in case, it is a household item, it is not a gangster weapon, that is, he simply took what was available, and this may indicate that he lived somewhere very close and observed, I don’t think that a random murderer or gangsters would use such a knife, it’s uncomfortable to carry and doesn’t fit well in a pocket.
- The fact that the last attack is different from the first two is also an argument that something different happened, not like before, perhaps the killer was nearby and the family knew him, I think that this cannot be ignored.
The motive of the killer known to the family could have been a personal dislike for W., or perhaps he simply did not like W., he was inspired by previous attacks and could have thought that, because of this they would not know about him, or maybe he believed that W. , lying about previous attacks and this annoyed him, or vice versa, that everyone loves W, but he doesn’t... In fact, I still have to think about possible motives, but we know that there are often very strange relationships between those who are closest to each other .
Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere or broke some rules, but I only tried to use the facts, thanks again to everyone.
