I have been keeping lists and using the evidence to narrow down the possibilities. Some of what I have found so far is below. This is the only method I can think of for honing in on the killer and vetting POIs.
Thoughts?
1. Who would not be working on a Monday afternoon?
2. Who would know that the school was closed or had a planned early dismissal?
3. Who would know this location well enough to be comfortable abducting the girls and dumping their bodies there, and potentially assaulting and/or killing them there as well?
When I consider all these factors, logic leads me to believe that the killer:
- Is local to some degree
- Planned the crime to some extent
This has yet to bring me closer to knowing a viable suspect, but as we discuss and debate various possibilities, I believe it is critical we keep our lists in order to avoid going down unnecessary rabbit holes, especially in a case with as little released information as this one.
Any other thoughts on this presentation? Am I missing important factors? Are any of my assumptions inaccurate based on what little evidence we have?
SBM
I'll try to come up with some you may have missed, although you were pretty thorough.
1. - Someone who works the graveyard shift. He could have done it, removed an outer layer of clothes, cleaned up and gone to work a couple hours later.
- Mail carrier. Unless they've changed things since I had the job, they have rotating days off. Every few weeks, the days would be Sunday & Monday.
- Teachers, aides and kitchen staff from the school.
2. - Anyone working for that school district, from janitors and bus drivers to administrators.
- Parents, grandparent, other relatives of students.
- Spouses, friends and relatives of staff.
- Neighbors of students or staff
3. - Hunters
- Fishermen
- Surveyors
- Children or grandchildren of locals/former locals
- Cemetery workers (grave diggers, groundskeepers, etc.)
- Frequent visitors to cemetery (possibly exploring area at times to work off grief)
- SK checking out potential crime spots?
I agree that it's good to keep some order to our facts and speculation so we don't start confusing which is which. You seem to have done a very good job to me. Thanks.
Eileen, can you theorise why you think it is important? Everything is important imo but what are we missing?
I think it's important because it affects the ways the girls could have been seen, and where BG may have been when he first saw them. It would also help determine how long it took to get to the point they were when AW's picture was taken (was it shortly after getting to the spot or had they wandered other parts of the trail first?
There are times when I don't either! :thinking:
Perhaps initially LE felt that statistically, victims are generally known to their killer, but have since changed their minds. We don't know if they now feel this was random, a chance meeting. They probably thought a solid suspect would emerge quickly. Since that has not happened, their theories of whether or not it was random may be different by now. Jmo
I think one thing to remember (that I remind myself of) is that just because the victim is known to the killer, it doesn't mean the killer was known to the victim/s. A young lady may never notice the guy stocking shelves at the grocery store, but he may be fascinated by her and learn a lot about her by watching what she buys and hearing what she say to friends and others while shopping. Same thing with people like the mail carrier, gas meter reader, trash collector, etc. A lot of people are basically invisible to the majority of the people they encounter on a regular basis, but it doesn't mean they are blind to those around them.
Iowa case-
I've never discounted the fact they could be related. However, I've never had this gut feeling that says - Yep! Completely related. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised either way.
What the Iowa case and Delphi case do not have in common is foliage. Next to my office there is land exactly like that of Delphi and RL's property. In the winter, I can see so many things and also far off into the distance.
Today I stepped outside and I couldn't see a thing because of the leaves on trees and blooming bushes. Iowa perp had foliage to camouflage his crime. Delphi perp did not. If it's the same guy, wouldn't he wait until summer so no one could look into the forest and possibly see something? Delphi perp seemed to want this done at a certain time. As if he was on a timeframe. He's lucky someone like me wasn't around who likes to simply stand and look at things in the distance.
Actually, there wasn't that much foliage where the IA girls were taken. If I remember correctly, you could see across the lake/pond from where their bikes and EC's purse were found. I don't think he picks that kind of place to commit his crimes because of the foliage, I think he's just more comfortable in that atmosphere than in a city/town surrounded by a lot of people.
As always, this is all MOO
