One of the housemates disposed of the takeaway container from the food truck in the bin outside the glass sliding door. So at some point they had opened that door since they got home.
The kitchen stools obstructing the glass sliding door bother me, I listened to one news story and it it was mentioned that the glass sliding doors were now open and they weren't when the reporters got on the scene. I feel like the perp may have put those kitchen stools there and it's creepy as hell.
Is it possible that’s how he gained entry by breaking the lock and that’s LE’s way of on-the-fly securing the door without tampering with it?
Trying to see connections is hard because of high risk activities that may make a person more vulnerable to attack. Do they know people who deal in drugs, or an addict who steals.
It takes time for LE to figure that info out, and it may not be released.
We hate to imagine it is random, so lean on stats- and stats don’t work with serials.
How did these persons even get on the radar of a killer?
SLadd was 71 yrs old, retired school district employee, mother, grandmother
JMO
*I thought the same, that the killer broke the lock to enter and it was a way to keep the door shut without tampering with the door and preserving the scene— but, then remembered LE said there were no signs of forced entry? I’m sure that could have changed but I have not seen or read about it. It makes sense they’re securing the sliding door, though. Maybe he did break the lock and LE didn’t notice it? Or maybe the door was broken and didn’t lock all the way or something? IDK. Someone in the press should ask.
As for your second response: and I agree— they work with stats and probabilities first and then work their way out— It’s harder to comprehend, especially at first, when the killer has a known motive and methodology that isn’t readily apparent to LE. And working in this way makes the most sense because of stats and Occam’s razor. For example: They would waste a lot of time in other crimes immediately considering a serial killer when the husband has a history of beating his wife if she was found beaten to death in the home after a restraining order.
Obviously, and usually, statistically speaking, most people are usually victims of interpersonal crimes.
Once family members, significant others, friends, family, coworkers, and/or people who have close contact with the victim have been ruled out, the net becomes a lot wider and the understanding of the crime goes down to theories instead of direct knowledge of quarrels, bad relationships, suspicious friends, odd coworkers, etc… and that’s when a “true victim” crime happens.
True victim crimes are not common and random in the sense of it’s a stranger to the victim or someone they have maybe met or was seen by the perpetrator only once. And the victim in no way put themselves in a position to be vulnerable to a crime.
This type of crime gets very difficult to solve and then SK’s, if it matches the evidence and profile, should then be considered. But of course, there are different subtypes and motivations for them as well.
www.ci.moscow.id.us
