My theory still remains the same days after I originally posted it- this was done by someone the girls knew (either really well OR just very casually in passing). This wasn’t the work of a sophisticated serial killer or efficient murderer trained in the military. This was sloppy and careless, fueled solely by emotions such as jealousy, anger, and pure rage. The crime scene investigators have said the scene was very sloppy with tons of evidence left. The longtime FBI profiler also agrees. None of the facts as we know them line up with a well-prepared and trained serial killer. They instead point towards a more immature individual who was more concerned with exacting revenge and brutality than not potentially getting caught or hurt.
A military trained killer would have killed with precision, not multiple haphazard and angry slashes and stabs to the torso. That many stabs indicates someone who has zero anger/rage control. Military assassins are disciplined and efficient killing machines.
And serial killers almost always have a signature or calling card MO. Most involve luring or tricking victims into close contact with them so that they can abduct and/or torture their victims. Most serial killers aren’t into rage killing houseloads of victims. I’m aware it’s happened before, so it wouldn’t be unheard of. But it’s just incredibly rare. A serial killer could strike any time he wanted to do so. But some vengeful and scorned incel wanting to punish Kaylee might have had no other choice than to murder her that night before she moved back in with her parents and out of state for good.
Maybe I’m just a boring and unimaginative slave to statistics, but I keep going back to the overwhelming percentage of murders being committed by someone acquainted with the victim.
Also, I think there are a few discussion points which others on here seem to find critical, but which I find completely inconsequential. For instance, the whole 911 call/unconscious person debate seems like a big nothing to me. There’s no way the roommates had anything to do with this. And there’s so many ways either they or their friends who made the 911 call could have used the phrase “unconscious”. Maybe it was the 911 operator who paraphrased that. Maybe the 911 operator asked them point blank if the person appeared conscious and they replied no. Maybe they didn’t even get a close look at their deceased roommates at first and just thought one or more were unconscious. There’s no malice or importance to the crime there, at least IMO.
And then there’s the dog. Kaylee’s dog survived. Not a big deal as it relates to the crime. Doesn’t necessarily signify anything at all. Pets survive murders all the time. Some dogs don’t bark at all. Most killers have no interest in killing a dog, especially if it’s just sitting there. If someone targeted one or more of the victims, the dog was not the aim of their rage. The killer murdered the object or objects of his rage, then killed anyone else he encountered who got in his way. Just like the girls downstairs shut up in their rooms, the dog posed no threat to him.
I’ll say lastly that so much seems to be focused on the inconsistencies and confusing statements coming from law enforcement. That really isn’t a surprise for three reasons: a) as investigations develop, theories change, b) law enforcement often says things and lies to confuse, frighten, or comfort the suspects, and c) much of what they’re saying seems confusing to us because we haven’t seen what they’ve seen (if we had walked the crime scene, seen the evidence, and talked to witnesses, a lot of our confusion to their statements and theories would be cleared up). I think it’s unfair to judge law enforcement’s inconsistent and sometimes illogical statements as proof they don’t know what they’re doing or have bungled the case. There is so, so much that not even the families have been told as of now that the police do know. I guarantee that there are very specific reasons they are saying what they’re saying.
www.ktvb.com
