assuming that you think BG used weapon(s), what did he do with them?
no one seems to have seen anyone carrying things out (?). wash things off? discard or bury them? no mention of any items found at the crime scene or in the creek. I just started thinking that everyone sees concealed items in the video, but nothing about them after that.
Very interesting question. I am thinking about potential killing instruments, and "no DNA"
Imagine common versions, knifed or strangled,
A) a knife or a machete was used
B) something was used as a garrotte
I am asking myself the same question, times and again, how there would be no DNA left inside the knife wound? If the knife was brought on the killer, what about the body cells...and during murders, shouldn't he be standing close to the girls?
Now, the garrotte. From Wikipedia- "usually a handheld ligature of chain, rope, scarf, wire or fishing line". So, if a garrotte, did he bring it in a vacuum-sealed plastic pouch? And if not, then, how was there no DNA left on it to be transferred on the victims?
We discuss the odd shape of BG's upper body, alleging that he was wearing "a kill kit". If he later used it - how come there was no transfer DNA found on the victims? How did he need to seal that kill kit, to leave nothing? (And even if he did...didn't he later have to open the package? Or did he do it all in the river).
I can't imagine that a murder, being a physical interaction, will leave no traces of the murderer's DNA inside a victim's wound.
If the killer works in an operating room, a hospital or a dentist's office, and can sterilize and package the instruments, then, he can get rid of the DNA. But everyone says, "unusual weapon", not a scalpel. (I am even thinking, maybe that hog factory had UV light and some steri/packaging sets? But would a worker there be aware of the newest genetic criminology achievements in 2017?)
So my questions are not only where they were killed and how come no one left own DNA on the weapons, but also, who, in 2017, would be that aware of genetic criminology? Paul Holes, GSK, Barbara Rae-Venter, that case got big in 2018. What does it tell us about the killer? There has to be some very in-depth knowledge of very professional aspects in early 2017.
So, the killer
- is very organized and kills fast and quietly
- thinks in advance and prepares the spot beforehand
- whether it went according to the plan, or not, he regained control soon
- knows about the potential of genetic criminology about 18 months before it becomes mainstream knowledge
- knows how not to leave DNA
And it is not about just DNA. Consider this, GSK case was a huge secret before it exploded. I doubt all policemen knew what Paul Holes and his group were doing.
The question is not "is there DNA left, what is wrong with the DNA?"
The question is, who, in the beginning of 2017, knew enough not to leave any DNA?
