As I finally caught up in the threads yesterday I came across some comments by a professional tracker. While I’m not a tracker myself, I wondered if I could verify any of the things he was stating at a gross, amateur level. I re-examined the photos we have of prints on the driveway and concluded that we can probably verify that:
1. The tire prints in the soft section of the driveway are not consistent with a Grand Prix.
2. The tire prints in the soft section of the driveway are rare because they are narrow.
3. However, I am not convinced the make and model of auto can be discerned based on the quality of those pictures.
4. It is important to be clear that this road was a packed, mixed gravel and dirt driveway. Therefore, over time, a hard packed tire “trail” formed so that driving off that “track” would be very noticeable to a driver and not natural. A person would normally be compelled to stay on that track if driving the full ¼ mile span of the driveway, and especially if transiting it by entering and leaving.
5. The tire track laid next to JEW’s last impression occurred at roughly the same time as JEW’s impression.
6. The odds of this configuration appearing randomly are very low.
7. It is true (I was not convinced earlier) that there are not enough adult prints near JEW’s to explain their presence, since this is a soft area of soil which should have taken the adult’s prints. Any narrative must account for a perpetrator acting in “stand-off” by walking and standing on a packed gravel track. This also makes sense if the perpetrator is taking a dominant stance to the victim.
8. JEW’s last print indicates that he was lifted up to a height he could not himself reach, that he did so under his own power as well as the assistance of a person standing inside the car. This is why the professional tracker noted exhibition of traits such as “balance and control” and a fore to back tension (relative to JEW) in the last impression. This is natural when being assisted upward and toward the car. The disproportionate depth of the toe section and heel section suggests center of gravity was forward, as expected for being lifted.
9. The only explanation for the stand-off position of the perpetrator outside the car is that he was armed, or carried that pre-text, which is consistent with what the other 2 victims (witnesses) stated. This perpetrator likely used psychological means to control the victim.
10. While it is possible the car departed and the person outside the auto, known to be male, simply continued walking on a packed section of driveway, it is more likely he would have simply walked over to the car and climbed in, also leaving several clear prints.
11. The absence of a full set of clear, fresh prints near the victim’s indicates the perpetrator identified by witnesses did not enter the car, but rather continued walking on the packed section.
Assume:
1. Kevin and gf existed
2. Kevin or gf drove a Grand Prix into DR’s driveway, all the way to the top and back out
Then the Grand Prix most likely followed the packed tract, leaving tire tracks in the turnaround area at the top, but not others. The professional tracker believes the vehicle involved was a volkswagon. I do not have an opinion but think the vehicle, whatever make, continued up the driveway and:
1. Likely did not turn around due to the lack of a fresh print of additional tire tracks
2. Likely continued forward, up the driveway and not out.
3. Likely continued thence to a structure on the property driving over packed tracks and not leaving a tire print.
I am now left to explain this collusion between two adult males. It must have been at least 2 because the prints require this. It could be more, but to assume that is an unnecessary assumption for now. Finally, now that I know the fulcrum of the event at the moment of JEW’s last impression, I can begin tracking the personalities with greater confidence.
The person who witnesses saw I will designate S1 (Suspect 1). I don’t need to know his name just yet. The driver of the car I will designate S2 (Suspect 2). I do not need to know their rationale for using a car; they just did. But it isn’t all that shocking to imagine their reasoning being consistent with the preoccupation of most persons engaged in serious crime:
Flight was their primary objective, and it might have been believed by one or both S1 and S 2 that using a car would aid in flight over a length probably equal to or greater than ¼ mile.
S1 and S2’s personalities are considerably different given the behaviors now identified at the crime scene. Their Axis II presentation was likely not as severe as would be the case in a single actor narrative, or in the case of the involvement of a 21 and 22 year-old male and female. This means we should be looking for personality disorders in the mild to moderate range rather than the moderate to severe. This, and the presence of both S1 and S2, has major ramifications for how I understand JEW’s disposition.
S1 likely knew S2 for at least a few years, was likely a close friend or intimate, likely harbored an Axis II Histrionic Personality with features of Axis II Anti-Social Personality. S2 likely harbored an Axis II Narcissistic Personality with features of an Axis II Histrionic Personality. S1 was likely experienced in the terrorizing and control of persons of the victim’s age range and his movements and actions before and after this crime should be scrutinized and investigated. Rare in this case, is that S1 appears to not be socially incompetent, two males are involved, not one, and both S1 and S2 likely worked in professions that gave them access to children in the same age range as the victim. S2 was likely a confederate and S1 likely the primary actor. The pair likely parted ways after JEW’s last impression, but likely rejoined a distance not greater than 300 meters from JEW’s last impression, but probably less than 100 meters distant.
S1 was most likely intending to remove evidence of this crime from the property of S2 very soon, including JEW himself. S1 sought a live captive, also rare but supported by the personality I think I can now start tracking. This is working out to be an odd case, imo.
~ svh
Note: that this was S2's property is an unnecessary assumption, but what matters is that S1 likely intended to remove evidence from the property where the driveway was located.
