I'm realizing that my previous post might have been a little too much (meaning, a little too direct about sensitive subjects) and therefore I have decided that unless addressed directly, I will speak no more of it and draw my own conclusions.
Speaking of something different, what I would like to do is contribute to the thread with a couple of observations as well as some questions.
Again, these points may have already been answered or talked about previously, but admittedly it is difficult to keep track of everything after 150+ pages.
RSBM: Thanks for joining the discussion,
@Eliver. Welcome! And thank you for your ideas, I'll answer as best I can.
1. The killer staying in the house for hours:
I believe that the fact that the killer staying in the house for allegedly a couple of hours was a combination of factors: the spite he had for the family (or rather, what they represented to him) but also because he was wounded.
There are some things backing it up and I would like to know everyone's opinion.
The killer might have expected to kill them and just leave (I mean, I guess we all agree that he went there with the sole intention of murdering them). I strongly agree with Nic's theory that the killer did not use a metro but rather a bycicle, a motorbike or a car. It doesn't make any sense to me that he would go so late at night to murder a family and just casually hope to catch the last train.
Let's assume the premise that the killer went to the house that night with the sole intention of destroying the family. I've heard a million other theories or possibilities but none have dissuaded me from goal vs outcome. To me, it makes the most sense that he wanted this outcome given his actions / the information we have. So, with that out of the way, it's possible his initial intention was to murder them quickly and simply catch the last train. But, as you know, the nearest station isn't super close to the house.
Now, if the TMPD are correct on the killer's age range, he's young. Possibly very young. So, being blasé about the time it would take to murder and make it back to the train, free of any injury or blood staining could well be in keeping with that. If he's as young as 15, it's entirely possible he has an unrealistic conception in terms of plan vs reality. That said, I have two main problems with it. If he plans to escape via public transport, it's likely this was his means of arrival too. The TMPD could not substantiate this. Second, he's cutting it very fine, given the time of his intrusion. If he's entering the home at around 11pm and, let's say, the last train is around midnight, his window to carry out the murders and get back to the nearest station (20 minutes away) is very slim. Even if he's only 15 years old, and even if he's below average intelligence, or suffering from sort of cognitive deficiency, that's cutting it very fine.
His wound might have slowed him down and therefore he decided to patch himself up before going back (if I'm not mistaken, the reports have basically confirmed he lost a lot of blood, therefore the wound(s) might have been pretty deep). So, my theory is: of course, the killer didn't have any issue with staying in the house with four corpses, but it seemed to me he purposedly spent time there to rest and his subsequent actions (the feces, the rummaging, the clothes, the ice creams, etc) were because of the wounds (and the blood).
Ultimately, we have no idea why he spent that time in the house. It seems like a ludicrous risk, on the face of it. Particularly given the proximity of An Irie's family / the neighbours opposite. It could well be he wanted that time alone in the house, either for material reasons (an object or document or some such that he held to be important) or for his own homicidal drivers (he wanted to luxuriate in his work etc). Though, I can tell you that the TMPD have categorically ruled out a sexual motive for this time. We could argue that either way and all around.
To my mind, I think it's very telling that he's able to pivot. Either, demonstrating a clear head in the face of a sudden problem (injuring his hand quite badly). Or, demonstrating that he's in too deep now but, considering the sirens aren't approaching, he has no better options so he decides to stay put. Maybe, he's lost enough blood that he's not making good choices. We've had users here with apparent medical backgrounds who've seemingly cast doubt on that possibility. But then in my own experience, when I've lost a fair amount of blood, I was deeply delirious and absolutely not making good choices.
Another option is that he simply had to kill time between Point A -- 11:15pm approx and Point B -- his safe haven. Let's assume that place has a curfew, such as a base or a dorm. Maybe he was unable to return there at 1:30am (the last confirmed time-stamp of the killer in the house is 1:18-1:23AM -- that is the ONLY certainty on time frame here). So, let's pretend that he lived a few blocks away and he left the house at 1:23 and was able to reach his home or safe haven within a few minutes. Why not simply do that. Even bleeding, you'd think that would be his impulse: to flee. My point being, if it was an option, it would be one he would take, almost certainly. But now let's say that safe haven is a 40-minute drive away and there is some kind of regulation or observation at the door. Well, now that delay in the house explains itself a little more.
To sum up, yes it's possible there is a nightmarish goldilocks scenario here, he's enjoying being in the house or defiling them somehow. Often people latch on to the toilet as evidence of this. My argument is, there isn't actually a great deal to tell us
that is why he's there. Certainly, after they are dead, the TMPD tell us he doesn't touch the bodies. To me, and this is total guess-work, what I intuit from his actions are little more than a cold disdain for the Miyazawas once they're dead. They are simply irrelevant to him, as they were in life. Yes, his rage erupted in killing them, but afterwards, why does he stay in the house? Maybe it's to luxuriate, or maybe it's simply because he has no better choices. My money would be on that second one.
2. The point of entry/leaving:
This has been discussed previously but to me, based on the facts that were presented up until now, there is no doubt that the entry point was not the rear window in the bathroom. Not only it was difficult to reach, but even to squeeze through.
It has been stated in previous pages that the police never confirmed that was the entry/leaving point but rather that it was just accepted as such (perhaps because of the net found on the ground, outside the house? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do remember the net was removed).
The net was found outside on the floor, yes. The TMPD have never said he didn't climb up the wall. What they have said to me is that they have no proof he went into the house through the window. Also, bear in mind his shoes would've likely been muddy. Yet zero traces of that in the window-frame or bath which he would've basically been climbing into or at least brushing up against. As you say, I find the bathroom window unlikely.
Entering by the head would have meant making a lot of noise by landing in the bathtub, and leaving through it wouldn't make any sense since there were zero clues left by the killer (no blood, no nothing). Yes, he may have attempted to leave from there, but after surveying the situation, he might have changed his mind.
I have two theories on this:
-The window on Rei's room balcony.
-The front door (I know it doesn't make much sense, but please bear with me).
The window on Rei's room balcony.
As Nic also observed, the balcony in Rei's room would seem to be the one that makes the most sense.
However I do have some questions about it. If memory serves me right, by climbing the car it wouldn't have been that difficult to reach the balcony (conversely, it wouldn't be so difficult to leave the same way). But then again: were there any traces left on the top of the car?
I don't recall anyone ever mentioning this when discussing this possible way of entry/leaving.
Did I just miss this detail or nothing was ever found/the police never shared this?
I would find it very weird the killer climbed/landed on the car and left no trace.
Also: was it ever shared by the police if that window was locked or not? This could be so important.
To me, this entry point has the fewest numbers of problems and fits the evidence best. Certainly, I'm yet to hear a convincing point against. I also think it's telling that the TMPD have not discussed it openly. To your question, yes, the height between the car roof and the balcony was a very negotiable gap. We don't know if the killer left traces on the car, that's never been confirmed. But I would assume it's likely. Same goes for the lock. My guess would be that, given how frequently those doors would be opened and closed, they would be unlocked.
We know that the TMPD were dusting the car and inspecting it. That they have never confirmed or denied anything about this is puzzling. It's possible they're lying about not being certain about the killer's entry point and that, in reality, they do know how he got in. We know they've kept crucial information in other cases out of the public ambit for years after learning about it. Information that would've changed the public perception of a case and possibly helped identify a culprit. Or, it's also possible that they have *technically* told the truth, w
e do not KNOW how he entered; but they're fairly certain. My money is on this.
The front door.
Ok, hear me out.
I don't believe this was ever brought up and if it was, I apologize but I really don't remember it.
There was often speculation about the killer being a student of Yasuko's cram school and therefore knowing the house/have a somewhat easy access to it.
Instead, my theory goes in a different direction.
Is it correct that the Miyazawas had a piano?
Is it correct that said piano was in Rei's room?
Was anyone in the house (Yasuko or Mikio, for example) giving piano lessons?
Let's imagine for a moment that one of them were.
Let's also entertain the idea that the killer played the piano and/or was learning how the play the piano.
Could it be that he met the Miyazawas this way? And that because of something he noticed during his time with them triggered him to kill them?
Let's assume that all of the above is correct: the killer knew the house to some extent and would have needed to go upstairs everytime for a piano lesson.
Let's now assume that the killer showed at the front door, Mikio could have known the person and the person might have said something among the lines of "I apologize for barging here so late but I was around and I have an emergency/I need to use the bathroom/I have this problem".
Now let's also imagine that the killer goes inside, Mikio locks the door once more and the killer, with the excuse of using the bathroom starts by killing Rei.
Niina was taking piano lessons, yes. And, as I understand it, there was an outside teacher for this. The scenario is, of course, possible. But I have a lot of problems with it, beyond all the ifs and buts you mention below.
1) The TMPD know that there is a piano teacher. There are payments. Mikio is a meticulous bookkeeper. I find it frankly inconceivable that this piano teacher could go unseen by anyone else except the victims and for his details not to be written down anywhere. Of course, he's likely being paid in cash. But I would imagine that, after 280,000+ personnel on this case in Japan's largest unsolved case, the idea that they simply have had no luck in tracking him down is unlikely.
2) If he met the Miyazawas through the offering of lessons, how would this remain untraceable? Particularly given Yasuko's line of work. I would imagine there would have been SOME kind of referral or reference for this man if they're going to let him into their home. We know that Mikio and Yasuko were attentive and protective. I find it hard to picture them snagging a flyer from a lamppost and inviting the guy into their home without him ever being seen by a soul. Or, even if that were the case, he would also have to remain incognito in Setagaya's musical community. Now, if he's 15, offering piano lessons locally, that isn't going to be some long con to get into the house. Moreover, the intrusion suggests he's not concerned with confidence tricks. He intrudes and slaughters.
3) Also salient, I feel, is that Mikio is connected to his local theatre group. It's also possible the piano player came through this. And we know this is an area the TMPD checked out extensively.
4) Let's go with the scenario above and the killer, who is also their piano teacher, arrives late one night, when Mikio's family are sleeping and asks to use the toilet in his home (when there is a public one mere metres away outside the house). Firstly, I am not convinced that anyone could solve that logic problem. If Mikio knows him well enough to grant him the trust to go into his home at night unsupervised, then he knows the killer. And if he knows the killer, the TMPD finds him. Of course, it's possible they simply missed the guy. But based on all the interviews I've conducted with them, comparing their efforts with police investigations I've seen up close in the UK, the USA, and Spain? I would be utterly astonished if Mikio knew him that well the TMPD simply overlooked him in plain sight. I don't say it's impossible. But I do say that I'm convinced that this guy isn't hiding in plain sight. Moreover, returning to your scenario, secondarily; if Mikio did let him go upstairs, the killer is wearing his shoes. The footprints in the blood start above going down. Which makes sense given where the stabbing begins. Did the killer, barefoot at this point if he leaves his shoes in the genkan, somehow float over Mikio's body to retrieve his footwear, then float back over him to the stairs to then walk in the blood pooling? Perhaps there is some scenario wherein this is possible that I haven't considered. But from what I've seen. No.
I understand that there are a lot of ifs and buts in the above reconstruction, but the entry and leaving point is something that has always bothered me.
Of course my theory is not bullet proof: why would Mikio lock the door again if it was just for something quick? Why would the killer go upstairs and kill Rei instead of dispatching Mikio right when he would lock the door so that the major threat in the house is eliminated?
5) In such a scenario, this would assume the killer's 'true' motive is killing Rei. Or, at least, his priority. I have no solid evidence for saying this but my guess would be that he would be the least 'important' victim to the killer given the boy had the most limited exposure to the outside world. I've heard some BS about the killer going after the boy because he hated disabled people or felt he was 'doing him a favour.' If that's true then A) where is the evidence for it and B) someone that mentally unwell is on record somewhere, likely before and after. The killer is not. While I can't discount the possibility that this is how it played out, there is nothing to convince me of it. Whereas entering through the balcony and killing Rei first because he is the first victim you come across and you want to preserve silence? That fits very well.
One could say that by going upstairs and killing Rei in silence he would have still have the element of surprise when going back down on Mikio, but then again: the reconstruction suggests that after strangling Rei, he fought with Mikio on the stairs. But strangling does not necessarily produce noises, could it be that Mikio didn't hear anything but rather just went upside to check on his unexpected guest? At that point, the killer might have resorted to his original plan: the knife.
We simply don't know. If I were a betting man, I would assume the killer, if he was young particularly, probably assumed that strangling someone to death -- even a sleeping child -- would be easier than it is. From the image of his body, he's lying at a strange angle that locks unnatural for sleep suggesting, to me at least, that he moved around while the killer was strangling him. Or, let's turn this around, if the killer WAS able to strangle the child in total silence, then he has pretty bad luck seeing that Mikio comes up the stairs in that very moment. More likely there was some noise, shoes on the floorboards displacing weight, bed creaking possibly -- that led to Mikio checking.
If this would be correct it could also explain why they didn't manage to track him down: a random guy taking private piano lessons and only known by the Miyazawas themselves and with only unofficial contacts with them (it doesn't take much nor particular ways of communication to just randomly get in touch with someone that posts around an announcement stating they give piano lessons).
As above, this is not impossible. I just think unlikely to the point of flirting with impossibility.
My imagination even flies further: the fact the killer took just a small amount of the money in the house and left even more behind would mean something like "Take that you fool, I'm gonna take back the money I wasted on your stupid piano lessons".
Again, just a theory.
I can't discount it.
3. The Jizo statue
Compared to the two points above, this is minor, but to me, the all statue thing always seemed completely irrelevant.
I always had the impression that the statue was linked to the murders, but not for the reason most people believe.
What I mean is: I think the statue was indeed left not far from the crime scene because of the murders, but just by someone that was paying respect/homage to the victims, especially the kids since the statue's meaning.
It would seem absurd to me the killer would go out of his way to go back near the scene and carry something so heavy, nor that someone would do that in his stead.
Of course I believe the TMPD did the right thing when including it in the investigation and in the murder paper found online, but I also think it doesn't need all that attention.
Like you, I don't discount its connection to the murders. But nobody here has proved or even good evidence for one. Clearly, the TMPD want to eliminate it from the case otherwise they wouldn't be asking about it. But if it were the killer leaving it behind, as you say, then not only is he taking another insane risk but it also requires that Jason Bourne sort of killer; able to live off the grid for years, walking amongst us etc. I can't disprove that, I can only say that there is nothing the killer does in the house that suggests he's that kind of man. Thus, far more likely in my view, he simply left the nation or he died. He will almost certainly be an unremarkable man when he is found. And I'm willing to bet his reasons, such as they were, for murdering this family, will be utter garbage. To finish on the statue, anyone saying they think it's the killer leaving it must then, not only embrace the idea of this Jason Bourne-type mastermind, but also give a credible reason why he would do this. I've seen users do this in the thread. In my estimation, nobody has achieved that.
Finally, re: your previous post. Obviously, I've said what I've said about my POI. Nothing that I've posted can be tied to one single individual and I write about him in generality. I'm not going to confirm on updates and so on. Feel free to check with me if the name you have lines up with mine. Thanks again for your ideas!
