There are quite a few little nuggets in this interview, some of which we have not actually discussed here yet.
The interview is with the reporter/producer of the DTH podcast as well as Dr. Casey Jordan, criminologist. HLN viewers were asked to submit questions. Here are some of the interesting things discussed - this is all paraphrased from what the reporters and experts said and their opinions. If you want to skim, look for the items in italics:
Does the case need a fresh set of eyes? The investigators working on the case have told the DTH reporters that
they ask other people to look at the file and give opinions on what they might have missed, and they’ve done this many times. "Nobody is too proud to ask for help." They have and will take the file to anyone else at another agency who agrees to take a look.
Carter has told the reporters that they have gone all the way back to the beginning multiple times. There are other agencies who are helping with the case file. The FBI was involved from the beginning and continues to offer up every resource they have. Every test, every resource that they've needed has been given by the FBI.
Investigators presented this case to an entire class of agents at Quantico to try to get ideas. Maybe getting more outside criminologists or behavioralists who’ve worked other cases and can look at it from a behavioral rather than evidentiary standpoint would be a good thing. Many cases are solved because a person remembers something four or five years later but keeping it in the media is the best hope.
Is the killer watching the documentaries? Yes, definitely, according to the criminologist. She doesn't think he has killed before. But if the news continues to cover this, it will put a damper on his fantasies, might lead to a change in the trajectory that could lead to a repeat of that pattern, the fantasy of abduction and so on. The news coverage chills his future thought pattern because it reminds him he
can get caught.
If he is still fantasizing about hurting little girls, things like the DTH podcast may be stopping it. Carter engages in dialog with the killer. He is speaking directly to him. The reporters think that on some level LE were waiting for some kind of response.
One reporter asked Carter directly if the killer has responded or sought communication with LE and at that time he said he didn't think so. But maybe he will do so in the future, and investigators are ready for it.
Genealogical DNA - LE confirmed to reporters that they do have DNA. They don't say what kind or if it's a full profile. TL says that they are aware of investigative genetic genealogy technology and
at this time have decided to stick with other testing. We don’t know the state of the DNA, or if the profile is complete. At the time of the last presser, in the opinion of the experts LE had certainly had time to run all the DNA tests that they could do. She wishes they were more forthcoming about what they are doing with DNA but understands why they don’t say more.
Why didn’t the girls run? We don’t know what happened from the south end of the bridge to where they were found. They may have run. One of the things that led investigators to the body was the black Nike shoe that Libby had been wearing so it's entirely plausible that it came off of her foot in an escape effort. The families have expressed their belief that Abby and Libby were very close and neither would have left the other. One reporter feels based on his knowledge of the video that there was a decision to go through this together.
He’s not going to say whether it’s Abby or Libby who made this decision.
Have police searched and tried to match the signatures at the scene with other crimes in the area? Think of signatures as something, not necessarily unique, but specific to the culprit and it reflects - criminologists sometimes call it “leakage” - the inner workings of their brain. Sometimes we call it ritual but that’s not a good word because it speaks to exact repetition, which signatures are not. T
here is an amount of behavioral satisfaction or arousal that offenders are getting that leads them to behave in certain ways before, during and after the crime. This is very often sexual. Police admit they have two or three things they would characterize as signatures that are specific to that offender that you could expect to see repeated in future crimes. They are afraid of tainting the prosecution’s ability to prosecute the case if they let the information out. But you can be sure that they are consulting with criminologists and the FBI to try to ascertain what the signatures mean and they are certainly looking for them to appear in similar crimes.
If this was the first homicide this perpetrator committed, then these signatures were things that emerged during this event and if he doesn’t go on to commit another homicide like this, you may not see them repeated. It’s difficult to get information from other agencies. Not all violent crimes are represented in VICAP. Of the 18,000 law agencies in America only 1400 are using VICAP. Personnel have to be devoted to maintaining the database and most agencies do not have the manpower.
What type of evidence could police be hiding? They have to have holdbacks. They want to make sure that when they get the perpetrator, that person will be saying unique things that have not been out in the public. They say the video is not as long as people think it is. The sheriff says its not anywhere near 8 minutes long.
The suspect says no other words on it. They are still doing testing on the cell phone and video. They are exploring items within the video. A lot of blue jackets have been turned in and LE has said they don’t have THE blue jacket yet. Usually cause of death is not a holdback. Why is it held back in this case? Possibly the COD has a connection to the signature. Maybe they weren’t both killed the same way. The behavioralist says if LE wanted to let one piece of information out, it should be COD.
Who are the witnesses? Witnesses are not speaking to the press. The trails were not completely isolated. People were walking the trails that day. There are primary witnesses who’ve enabled the sketches. We only have a vague understanding of who they are. There is a tangible fear considering the guy is still on the loose. Did anyone speak to the suspect?
We understand that a young witness, still in high school, may have said a few words to the suspect. He said a few words to her and she was able to turn around and go in another direction. We don’t know how long he was out there looking for victims, or if he had been there in days prior. We don’t know where he came from or went to when he was done.
Did he know the girls? The reporters have not uncovered any evidence that he knew them. It’s a small town so maybe he or his family knew of the girls, doesn’t mean they knew each other. The reporters' belief is that he didn't know them. The behavioralist doesn’t believe he knew them at all. She thinks LE should look at people who lived in this area over the last twenty years. Did he hang out there for days? The reporters believe that everything was set - location, time, etc. - and the only thing that wasn’t set was the identity of the victims.
Who would cover for him? Someone probably knows some critical piece of information but doesn't yet realize they know it.
