Ok, as always it would be best to do a victimology assessment on the victim, prior to any type of investigative analysis .
What on the outside appears to be nothing more than a kid going to play tennis (albeit by himself) has raised some interesting questions , at least in my opinion.
In investigating ANYTHING we always start with the victim we look at those close to them, and continue to work outward, using the evidence as our guidelines.
It also helps to define a baseline family dynamic, in other words what was out of the ordinary for this specific family. Now its important to not some things that appear odd to one may not be so to another, it depends on what is normal or "normal" within their interpersonal environment.
So lets look at the facts as we know them
-We know that Michael made a habit of leaving notes to let his family know where he was at all times, however on this date, he didn't, he chose to do so verbally , which may account for his not doing so prior to leaving for the tennis courts. This could mean nothing on its face other than he spoke to his mother instead of leaving a note.
-I don't know much about tennis, but I cant understand how someone could practice alone , im not saying they cant , im just unaware how to do so , unless they are playing against a wall or something or just practicing serves.
-He stops to speak with friends at approximately 2:30 but left his house at 2:00pm, the distance on the maps doesn't seem to reflect such a distance , that he would still be "near his home" after walking for 30 minutes already, unless he moved very slow. The map I saw of the route most likely taken to the Tennis courts doesn't have a legend to indicate distance so its tough to determine actually how far he had to walk to get where he was going, this would be important to verify with the individuals he supposedly spoke with.
-Though a maid claims to have seen a person matching Michaels description playing by himself there's no way to determine whether or not it was actually Michael or someone else nor does it give a time when she supposedly noticed this individual
-Upon arrival at the tennis courts at approx. 3:30 his mother arrives waits for a short period of time before leaving to drop her other kids off at a swimming pool. She then goes to attend a school board meeting, which is interesting, though she hasn't found her son who usually is so meticulous he leaves notes to let his parents know where he will be, there is no sign of him, she in turn drops off her other kids before attending a meeting.... again may or may not mean anything on its face but should be looked at . So far twice today her son has broken rank from his normal behavior, and with him nowhere to be found, yet no red flags are raised. It would be important to know the normal family dynamic .. has he done this before?, was it common for Michael to not be where he said he would despite the fact he would leave notes telling where he would be ?. Again this seems somewhat to the contrary given what his parents described to the investigators.
Again could simply be coincidence.. but interesting it coincides with the day he goes missing
-When his mother gets home she discovered no one has seen Michael , and later that evening she and her husband call police.
-Police discover a single "odd brand" tennis ball that was given to Michael by his father, 4 feet from the gate at the Tennis court, this apparently wasn't noticed by his mother earlier upon her arrival at the tennis courts to pick up Michael earlier that day. His parents surmise Michael must have "left in a hurry because he would never have left his tennis balls behind". However he and all the other items he had with him at that point are missing .
-Now I could be wrong but I believe I saw somewhere that his body was discovered 25 miles away from where he was last seen can that be confirmed ? if so it would indicate an individual not just with the means but of age to drive a vehicle to transport the victim . (no **** right?)
-The body is found not too far from where his belongings are found, strewn about, which given the spatial relationship found consistent in virtually 99%of all abduction homicides according to a 2006 study, is most likely where the murder actually occurred.
-Its important to note that even though the body was concealed inside the shed which itself was out of plain sight, the offender(s) still felt they needed to burn his body to destroy any possible evidence, though his belongings, including his clothing were not destroyed, and were left where they were .
-Autopsy reports indicate that the victim was stabbed approx. 25-26 times, with a concentrated pattern of wounds, to the upper left chest (heart region) numbering at least 10 wounds in that specific region, while others are scattered about his torso in no particular pattern. Its determined that the stab wounds other than the ones concentrated over the upper left chest acme from a variety of angles, indicative of frenzied stabbing . A lot of overkill to take down a 12 yo .
-Later the coroner surmises the weapon was a butcher knife , due to the thin single edge, and blade length to inflict such wounds, which is an oddball choice of weapon, not something you usually see anyone carry (though it has happened) but more along the lines of a "weapon at hand" if you will .
Though an eyebrow can certainly be raised at some of the actions of the victim prior to and by his family post disappearance, and though I feel these need to be thoroughly dismissed before an investigation can proceed on this cold case. Remember in Cold Case investigations, we have to go back and RETHINK all the old evidence, if someone was cleared we look at them again, if something is dismissed we look at it again until we can say with todays certainty it has no bearing .
In this case, id question Michaels not leaving a note, even if he told his mom, Id question as to why it ok to let him walk over 30 minutes away alone, Id question and seek verification as to be certain what time he spoke with friends on his way to the Tennis courts. Id question why his mother didn't go look for a kid so particular about letting his parents know where he would be that when she showed up at 3:30 looking for him , she was so unalarmed, that she not only dropped off her kids at a pool, but then attended a School Board meeting.
I would do all that prior to continuing to look any further in this case, when that is ruled out again THEN we look outside
In a 2006 study done by the Washington State office of the Attorney general a 3.5 year study found that the likelihood of the killer of a child being a stranger, is virtually equal to that of the killer being a friend or acquaintance. 44% for a stranger, 42% for Friend or acquaintance, 14% Family.
Was it a Predator?
Though we cant determine whether or not the attack was sexual in nature, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that it COULD be, as the predominant governing factor in stranger abductions is sexual, with homicide secondary to eliminate a living witness.
I will state right now that I feel this WAS NOT A PLANNED event, at least not beyond the point of a few minutes
In cases, of Stranger abduction, (if this is what this case is ) the victims are usually victims of circumstance, their personal risk factors usually elevated by nothing more than being alone in the wrong place at the wrong time (Ex Amber Hagerman).
The vast majority of the time in stranger abduction/murder cases, the offender comes upon their victim by happenstance, they aren't out patrolling looking for a victim, but the opportunity presents itself.
The average of the offender of a child abduction /homicide is 27yo
They usually live alone or with parents.
in 80% of cases the initial contact site between victim and offender is within .25 mi from the victims residence
As I've said in previous analyses usually the offender in stranger abduction/murders of children, have a legitimate reason to be in the area where the child is abducted. they live or work nearby in unskilled or semi unskilled labor positions.
These events are usually the result of a stressing event prior , it could be almost anything, but most often it seems to revolve around an intimate, family, or work.
The victim is often transported greater than .25 mi from where they are abducted, and the relationship (mentioned earlier) between the body recovery site, and the site where the victim is killed closes into less than 200 feet.
In this case, I feel its safe to say that the location where the body was recovered most likely holds some significance for the offender, due to its out of the way location some 25 miles from where Michael was last seen .
The most common method of victim acquisition is con or ruse, with a vehicle being used in the majority of cases. (this is why you teach your kids to stay away from vehicles at ALL costs)
If this was a stranger , I feel it was most likely his 1st homicide (I feel the same no matter who the offender was), there's WAY more violence needed than what would be needed to control a thin 12 yo . The Wild stabbing could be indicative of victim resistance (Ex Ron Goldman), possibly with a flailing aluminum tennis racket, however its also possible (and more plausible) that this was an attack by an individual unfamiliar with murder. Once the victim was weak from his injuries, the offender, then stabbed him in an area he knew would bring about the victims demise more rapidly
This notion is furthered, by the face that though the body was hidden , the offender still felt it pertinent to burn the body, however, the victims belongings clothes etc, with possible transfer, etc.. were left where they were, which seems to indicate an offender uncomfortable even in a remote area, or in a panic .
The victim is most often murdered (74%) within 3 hours of the abduction
Most of the time this offender has prior arrests, or at least a recorded history of violence, and most often it will reflect a propensity toward children, the most common reported crime was rape amongst offenders with previous criminal histories against children.
Usually the killers name is known to law enforcement within the 1st week of the investigation this fact is however changing in recent.
Was it someone he knew?
This also cannot be ruled out
According to Michaels parents he was uncomfortable with unfamiliar people, meaning that strangers would most likely meet with at least some resistance, however, its still entirely possible he was fooled by a ruse (most common)
If it was a friend or acquaintance, a victimology report would indicate things like recent behavioral changes, enemies he may've had, fears , especially recent ones that have materialized.
Though its "less likely" a friend or acquaintance cannot be ruled out either... there have been cases, of parents aiding their kids in homicide cases, in the past otherwise, you have to assume the offender responsible was of legal age to drive, and in possession of a vehicle.
That's the best I can do with what we have here ... hopefully someone will dig back into this case, to bring this victim justice
