Makes for a great read, with interesting points - but I think it’s a stretch. Could be simply the case of a killer, targeting a home, and planning to murder the likewise “marked” four people inside. For whatever reason, (perhaps because if he had watched the home at any time from the back or side, he’d only see M&K on the third floor and X&E on the second) he followed through. The positioning of the home left it vulnerable to such a mission and attack. Exposed yet surrounded by other apartment complexes. The perfect oxymoron and setting befitting a stealth killer’s agenda. JMOO
Yep. Could be. But that word "simply" doesn't exist in my vocabulary, as you can tell. And that's because every single forensic case I've worked (mostly not murders) have had unexpected twists and actual reasons that form a narrative. Always. There's no such thing as a "random human choice." In your example, it's a private residence that's chosen - near a university campus. Already complicated. Why not go out in the countryside and murder an elderly couple on their farm? Why an urban space? There's never any "for whatever reason" in my work, because I get hired to brainstorm reasons - many of them. And to research past cases where a lot is know about the case and the perp. To interview people in prison and jail about why they actually did what they did (after conviction).
It's true that there's a voyeuristic impulse, and such people can zero in on a particular house (just a coincidence that it's mostly young women in a fairly open party house? in that case, I'll switch to a voyeuristic/sexual sadist hypothesis - BUT in the meantime, I'm still totally stuck, as you can tell, on there being FOUR murders. With a knife.
In your version, this person did watch the house all that much - because he didn't know there were two more people in the house. Maybe he didn't care? Maybe four was a magic number (literally, to this person).
This was, I believe, a rapid attack with an escape route and method thoroughly planned.
I'm trying to think of examples of stealth killers - Joe DeAngelo comes to mind (a rapist as well). I have some doubts actually, about whether all of Joe's victims were chosen merely because of closeness to certain escape paths and being single story dwellings (mostly). But there are parallels with this case and you could be right - we might eventually find a Joe DeAngelo out there somewhere (he actually drove or flew pretty good distances to choose his later victims, as he realized the Sacramento area people were getting to be onto him), So far, though, this is not a serial killer.
If you're right, this is an exceptionally scary - and not just for people in Moscow, because this person is probably not done, if that's the profile. If one reason the place was chosen was "young people" and another is "university town," then hopefully LE will eventually see their way clear to at least theorizing in public as if it's that random-ish, then there's no guarantee it won't happen again - somewhere.
There is a reason the Coroner said "stab wounds." That is a specific term. It is in contrast to "incised wound." Both are sharp edged weapon injuries, but inflicted differently, with different wounds. We have, to the best of my knowledge, no indication of the size of the wounds. We have Mr. G's use of the word "gouge". That tells us nothing. Additionally, the Coroner is not the medical examiner. The Coroner would have issued the Death Certificate, which would have little detail. The ME would issue the autopsy report. Bottom line is that we have very little information about the actual injuries of the victims. They were stabbed to death, in the upper body area. Speculating is fine, but we should all refrain from turning speculation into "facts."
I understand the terminology. You and I will have to disagree about ignoring the victim's statement (Mr G). I've come to put pretty good stock in a victim's family member, especially when they stick to the same story. I have no reason to doubt him and generally am trained to listen carefully to what victims are trying to say. It does tell us something, not nothing.
I too am awaiting the ME - as I have stated several times. Of course the DC has little detail - it has basically two slots and I did find it online. I am well aware of forensic procedures, having worked in legal anthropology (and medical anthropology) for more than 40 years. I know who issues autopsy reports. I have been at autopsies. I have done forensic photography as well.
I never said facts. I don't need the warning. I pretty much always remember to put MOO or SPECULATION or "In my opinon" or "my belief is." I am sure you didn't mean to say that Mr G's statements telling "us nothing" is a fact. That's *your* belief and mine is somewhat different.
I have almost no facts in this case, but lots of forensic experience. The Coroner has been a problem (they were all sleeping, then only some were sleeping; one had defensive wounds, some had defensive wounds, didn't suffer - how did she know?)
I do believe that Mr G saw his daughter's body before cremation. I am glad he's reined himself in, but I will never entirely discount anything a victim says in a case. His comments need to be addressed and it must be torture for that family that that hasn't happened.