somequestions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reaction score
- 6,952
JMO: someone comfortable being out late at night(darkness), familiar & comfortable with handguns(experienced), someone conifdent that they can move freely in this area(local or works locally), someone that has killed before ( former military, LE, or sociopath). Also why does he have to be a young man? Where does this dog with the briars fit in?? Was it just luck leaving so little clues behind?
I based the young single man on the FBI profile of the killer. I tend to think FBI has some intelligent people working for them. It does not have to be a young man. It does not have to be someone with a dog. He could be old and single. He could have a wife and kids. He may or may not own a dog.
Yes, it was luck leaving so little clues behind. I really would not say that he did not leave any clues. DNA, possible palm print, are things that can definitely tie you to the victims or their car. In my opinion, this seems like a rather lazy killer. I think where this case went wrong was Johnny Berentine. Police probably thought they had their suspect and with a confession that made it even stronger. With so many false confessions these days the police probably should have looked a little closer at the crime. Maybe they did and maybe I am wrong, but I have come to one solid conclusion after looking at cold cases, watching investigation shows, and reading Websleuths posts:
1. Criminals are not that smart.
What hurts this case is 16 years. Maybe police did ask the right questions. The one question I would have asked after trying to turn the conversation to religion would be "Did you go to church on Sunday?" And go from there.