bessie
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 31,771
- Reaction score
- 1,700
respectfully snipped for focus|
1. Your observation of the term "was" as opposed to "is" casts a new light on the circumstances. I've been sitting in this corner with my thoughts, struggling to move forward, and I think this will be a big help. I have the highest regard for all of the ideas and the effort that have come forth so far. The focus has been extraordinary, and I'm sincerely humbled. I think it's fair to say that most of our theories have arisen from the consensus that Bill was in some fashion, or to some degree, a voluntary participant. And from what I can tell -- family excluded -- that has been par for the course since 1980. It's not my intent by any means to persuade or influence "thought". Personally, however, I'd like very much like to give Bill a voice and follow his direction. But you see, I've been trapped in that corner until just now when you lit the way for me to step out. So we'll see where it goes from here, but I did want to share that and to say thanks.
2. So moving on to the first attack, I wasn't going to comment until I'd had a chance to study an historical aerial map and/or photographs from the time. Because as you said, focusing on different views one can assess the possibilities, and envision a scenario as it played out. At any rate, I'll wing it for now, and tweak later. I suspect the first attack was spur of the moment. There might have been previous intent, but when Bill was spotted riding alone across the field, a window of opportunity presented itself, *I think*, and the killers acted in haste to seize on it. Alcohol certainly might have been a factor, and then along comes poor Bill. The killers either are in a car, or they jump in a car, and circle around the field, pulling up pretty close to where they meet his path. The younger (or less dominant) one grabs a plastic bag lying on the back seat, and runs out in front of Bill. Bill might have stopped; I think he recognized him. He at least slowed down enough for the guy to grab him and wrestle him off of his bike. Meanwhile, the other rummages the trunk to select the right weapon. A tire iron would have done the job efficiently, but this perp enjoys contact and a struggle, so he chooses the inner tube.
3. Which brings me to the note. I wish we had photographs. Perhaps Bob or Kat can fill us in on the description of the paper. Was it note size? Letter size? Ripped? Colored, white, ruled? And was this note handwritten, or typed like the ones at school?
Anyway, I don't want to run ahead of myself, so that's all for now. It's time to ponder for awhile.
Excellent post, Methodical. I'm sure I'll have more comments when I've had time to give it more thought. For now, I'd like to note just a couple of points.Use of black plastic bag & inner tube (attack #1):
1. IMO, does not afford any justification or reason as to why Bill did not see his attackers. Even in situations attacked "from behind". Probably the best way I can demonstrate this is a real life recreation of the event. Since surprise would be a necessary key element, it's hard to recreate. However, hypothetically, if you were riding a bicycle and have two people jump out from a concealed area (say a tree/bush) behind you: First, unless you were riding a bike at a bare crawl (most kids don't), you would be a fair distance ahead of them by the time they jumped out. Most trees wouldn't afford 100% concealment for a very "close up" victim.
But mainly, in the act of anyone attempting to place a bag over your head, even by surprise, there is almost always ample time to react and see that person's face.
Simply put, I place myself in any victim's shoes. I'd feel comfortable challenging anyone to be able to do it successfully to me, and not have me see their face.
It's been asked "Why those two items? Why the need for the bag? Why not just the inner tube for strangulation?"
I'm not a doctor, medical examiner, nor killer, but will provide the following info from what I know.
1. Both items would be needed for maximum asphyxiation in the shortest amount of time, thus reducing "struggle/consciousness" time to a minimum.
2. Quite simply, the bag limits breathable air to virtually close to zero air. The inner tube (or any tying item) seals the enclosure and maintains the seal. It's rather scary just thinking about it, I know. Just trying to explain.
3. But this allows use of the victim's hands (unless they are held/tied) before the point of unconsciousness, to tear off the items
4. The note left said "He was warned". Keyword is "WAS". Not "is". If Bill didn't fake that note, then to me that significantly indicates they intended him NOT to walk away alive.
5. All of these are reasons why I said in my very first post that I believe the intent of #1 attack was to kill on that date, rather than scare. I also can't answer why they used an inner tube, rather than say rope or duct tape, other than 1. possibly handy for the perps to have. 2. Due to the stretchy material, it actually would be the best material to both seal and ADD/maintain compression pressure to the throat/neck once it is tied off.
1. Your observation of the term "was" as opposed to "is" casts a new light on the circumstances. I've been sitting in this corner with my thoughts, struggling to move forward, and I think this will be a big help. I have the highest regard for all of the ideas and the effort that have come forth so far. The focus has been extraordinary, and I'm sincerely humbled. I think it's fair to say that most of our theories have arisen from the consensus that Bill was in some fashion, or to some degree, a voluntary participant. And from what I can tell -- family excluded -- that has been par for the course since 1980. It's not my intent by any means to persuade or influence "thought". Personally, however, I'd like very much like to give Bill a voice and follow his direction. But you see, I've been trapped in that corner until just now when you lit the way for me to step out. So we'll see where it goes from here, but I did want to share that and to say thanks.
2. So moving on to the first attack, I wasn't going to comment until I'd had a chance to study an historical aerial map and/or photographs from the time. Because as you said, focusing on different views one can assess the possibilities, and envision a scenario as it played out. At any rate, I'll wing it for now, and tweak later. I suspect the first attack was spur of the moment. There might have been previous intent, but when Bill was spotted riding alone across the field, a window of opportunity presented itself, *I think*, and the killers acted in haste to seize on it. Alcohol certainly might have been a factor, and then along comes poor Bill. The killers either are in a car, or they jump in a car, and circle around the field, pulling up pretty close to where they meet his path. The younger (or less dominant) one grabs a plastic bag lying on the back seat, and runs out in front of Bill. Bill might have stopped; I think he recognized him. He at least slowed down enough for the guy to grab him and wrestle him off of his bike. Meanwhile, the other rummages the trunk to select the right weapon. A tire iron would have done the job efficiently, but this perp enjoys contact and a struggle, so he chooses the inner tube.
3. Which brings me to the note. I wish we had photographs. Perhaps Bob or Kat can fill us in on the description of the paper. Was it note size? Letter size? Ripped? Colored, white, ruled? And was this note handwritten, or typed like the ones at school?
Anyway, I don't want to run ahead of myself, so that's all for now. It's time to ponder for awhile.