You do realize that Brian’s source here is most likely K’s dad? This is all stuff K’s dad has said in previous interviews, being delivered in such a way that makes it look like confirmed facts from an anonymous LE source.
I recall early on that it was reported that the downstairs roommates had been out of town and returned around one that morning.
I actually recalled this, too. However, I can’t find where I read it to post the source. I’m wondering now if it was an error by a reporter in the early days.
I believe they meant “out on the town”, separately.
That’s why I’m taking it all with a grain of salt. Nothing regarding the location(s?) of the two upper floor victims have been confirmed by LE.
IMO this is a big leap. And I almost want to do the case law research, but this is not the reason we're here, and I'm not taking the mods' or readers' time with it, but I think that this is debatable imo. And editing to add that I do not mean a snarky tone with this. just saying that it's not so simple, imo, but this is not the place imo.
Yes. A mentally disturbed (paranoid schizophrenic) individual might make some sort of weird connection where there is none. Did the roommates know any mentally ill or DD individuals living in that neighborhood in a group home perhaps? A young male news carrier/paperboy? Perhaps the roommates were extra nice to the wrong person? That would definitely be the right time of the night for a news carrier to be awake
What about the 1st floor girls? Until you got rid of them you wouldn’t be working undisturbed on the (supposed) intended victim.
In my opinion, LE has a duty to the victim first and foremost - to see they get justice for what was done. That means an arrest with successful prosecution leading to a guilty verdict or plea. The family is ancillary - the duty to the victim is primary. If it is in the victim's best interest for LE to withhold information, then the family's wishes/desires/needs take a backseat. Just my opinion based on interactions with various LE, Prosecutors, Judges, Attorneys over many years. For reference, this quote: "It is helpful to keep in mind that apprehension of the suspect is the primary duty of law enforcement and that accomplishing this task helps not only the suspects current victims but potential victims as well." is from this: First Response to Victims of Crime - Basic Guidelines on Approaching Victims of Crime
IMO I think that he determined they were not worth the risk and probably wouldn't hear and it would be too easy to get trapped down there. IMO they could, if awakened, lock themselves in and call 911 and E could've blocked the one exit. he had to take e out first. Also, just my opinion, I believe that this was a powerfully enough built man, and he probably felt confident to handle the women. I do think it's likely he'd been in the house before, testing his plan, installing AV to monitor.
What you didn't say is whether the person that did the stabbing was a student. That's the key factor.
Many threads back, it was reported mistakenly by a newspaper, that the surviving girls had been out of town and had both returned home that night. However, what was actually said was the girls were “out on the town“ separately, and both had returned home by 1 a.m.
In my theory the first floor tenants were sleeping, the second floor tenants were sleeping, but the third floor tenants were awake and keeping noisy ruser upstairs with them and away from sleeping tenants. Third floor tenants were obviously awake to make phone calls. Don't like wording it like this, but possibly the third floor tenants were awake until their last breath. I'm one of millions who've hung out with a gal-pal and another person in a bedroom all on a bed in a strictly platonic manner (in my case that was the only seating surface). Just saying that could be a possibility. But, in this instance, only one person (the culprit) was able to leave the room afterwards.
Also, a young newspaper boy delivering papers in the neighborhood on a bike possibly?
And likely with some degree of intoxication as well.
