I lost all my multi-quotes when the thread was closed....
Anyway if they were alive for a few days in the bush, to me that indicates this wasn't planned as a suicide mission. Otherwise they probably would have killed themselves sooner rather than endure those conditions. Their behavior indicates to me that they were trying to get away, until they realized it was futile. Also, they wouldn't have been so panicked about being caught during their cross-country drive if this was a suicide mission. Now, as I said before, I think the concept of suicide was one they were very familiar with for years leading up to this...but I think they at least had a part of them that wanted to remain alive. I think they were also huge cowards overall (don't do the crime if you can't do the time) and maybe it took them a few days because they were too afraid to kill themselves (ironic!)
The police may have used insect activity on the remains (lifecycle of eggs laid, etc.) to determine length of time they had been deceased.
I'm still not sure it was planned as a spree killing either. It's possible. But if it was, why didn't they wait for the police to show up and try to take some of them out before being taken out? And why no additional victims after the 18th? Unless they ended up regretting what they did.
It's possible the guns came from Kam's family. I still don't think it was necessarily weird to bring a gun up north because of bears and so on. But, as far as we know, they had no gun licenses. And having two guns is a greater indicator that something nefarious was planned the whole time. Whether that was killing, robbery, or whatever. I still think there's a chance it started out as robbery because Lucas' father (a top police officer) said at first he thought it was a robbery gone wrong.
Even if both of them had guns, one of them could have still gone to the police and pinned the blame on the other, claiming some kind of "forced into doing it" thing, or tried to testify in exchange for a deal. It's worked before (Karla Homolka). Plus they were pretty dumb so who knows if they even knew that much about ballistics and all that. It's actually very common in dyad killings for the two to turn on each other and blame each other. The fact that they didn't, and yet there's still evidence to indicate this wasn't a suicide mission the whole time, indicates to me that they were so close, that was never an option for them.
As I said before, these guys were really sloppy with everything, so if it was planned I expect evidence of planning will come up (JMO). Even if they planned a killing spree this whole time, I still think it was preventable for the reasons which I have stated many times.
I also morbidly wonder what their conversations were like during their long drive across the continent, and in the woods. Like...what do you talk about after killing three people with your BFF and heading off to near-certain death? I feel like it would be...kind of awkward??...but who knows, I'm not a psycho killer. Also, did they listen to any music in the car, and if so, which music? Am I a total weirdo for wondering about stuff like this?
Also comment I read elsewhere, along the lines of morbid speculation:
Morbid, but I've always wondered how double suicides actually play out. Is it a "1 ... 2 ... 3 .. GO!" or is it a "OMG he just killed himself I'm all alone now what do I do I can't do this alone". Or maybe it's a mixture of both. "1 ... 2 ... 2 and a h--oh, wow, he actually did it. Guess I have to do it now too".
I guess this all just rephrases the overall question of what the hell were they thinking....
I also am very interested in the toxicology results.
Also I know someone posted this article:
Why Spree Killers Kill Themselves and this article has some really interesting stuff. This also fits with my "us against the world" theory of their mindset from a couple of days ago, and Bryer's "militia" being a metaphorical representation of his feelings of alienation from society and lack of control over his life.
Criminologist Jack Gibbs’s theory of social control suggests that when an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its responsibility to control the behavior of others and thus protect that individual’s rights. Unable to rely on broader instruments of social control, the murderer tries to “correct” past injustices by employing his or her own direct control over others, which manifests itself through violence.
Gibbs’s theory of social control applied here suggests that offenders who attack random victims at open commercial sites are responding to perceived failures of social control at a societal level, and are thus the most universally hopeless about their future. In contrast, offenders who target victims at schools or office buildings would be responding to failures of social control at a much smaller level, and would not be as hopeless about society at large and therefore would have less desire to die.
