I agree with Sjoberg that I don't think the killer did anything unusually special to avoid detection. Nothing here shows that this person used special skills. In particular, the second pass with the truck seems really inept. I think they were very, very lucky.
For me, it comes down to the question: how does an ordinary person without special skills (ninja, sniper, special forces, etc.) and without accomplices commit the premeditated murder of someone who doesn't live in their household?
You can't rely on overpowering the person (knife, strangulation, bludgeoning) because that requires access, strength, and prolonged contact. Yes, I know that that many killers do in fact use these methods, but my premise here is an "ordinary" person who isn't a serial killer or a sexually motivated killer, just a regular person who has a grudge that has made them homicidal or who is acting on behalf of a third party.
You can't rely on kidnapping the victim and taking them to a second location because even with a gun you may have trouble controlling them. You might not even own a gun yourself or want to do the paperwork to acquire one, so you take grandpa's old revolver out of the box on the top shelf of the closet. Maybe you practice a little at a range or out in the woods, but you are not a marksman so you are going to have to shoot them at point-blank range. You are going to have to break into their home, find them in a public or semi-public place (MIssy Bevers), or ambush them in their driveway or at their doorstep (Sheila Keen-Warren). And you do some reconnaissance first (2 a.m. pass).
I can't decide whether Liz being outside for the garage sale was part of the plan or simply luck on the perpetrator's part. If she hadn't been outside, would the murderer simply have rung the doorbell and said "delivery for you"? Were they confident enough in their disguise that they could disregard the possibility of a doorbell cam and suspicion of a visitor/delivery so early in the morning?
This is why I think that Liz was targeted by an "ordinary" person.
The one thing that gives me pause on that theory is the new involvement of the gang unit. I know we hear a lot of urban legends about gang initiation shootings of random people, but to me this seems like an odd fit. In my locale we see drive-by shootings associated with gang territoriality or retaliation, but those are typically in areas of gang activity even if they actual victims themselves are not involved in gangs.
MOO - it may be not that difficult to kill a person if you are an immature teenager and the pay is good; or, if you were at war. You might be desensitized by hunting from the age of twelve.(Not everyone , but the brain finishes developing later, so, possible).
One can practice shooting at a rifle range, or hunt. Those slightly far-sighted usually make the best shooters; with age, vision declines, but in youth, they can read road signs from afar.
MOO - the perps counted on LB being outside, but what if she wasn’t? Ringing a doorbell during a yard sale is enough. The murderer needs some disguise. Liz is holding a sale, and if an “early bird” emerges on her doorstep holding a bunch of dollars, Liz probably would come out. All they need is to look like customers. (Liz probably didn’t want to leave her table unattended, and a yard sale guaranteed her being out.)
My question, why start so early. It would be important to see whether in the past, Sergio helped her, and if this sale was in any way different? Change of patterns?
I am not convinced in the need to provide alibi for SB. JMO - they wanted as few people at home as possible; either Liz alone was a target, or simply, two first-degree murders are a higher risk. But, the person did get some insider’s information, only we don’t know if it was from S, Liz, or maybe, unbeknownst, from the relatives. People talk, all the time, and with a degree of separation the police may not even factor someone in.
(does anyone remember the case of a Canadian girl killed at home? The perpetrator heard from his then-wife (a friend with the child’s mom) that they were asking her to babysit. Case solved much later when the perpetrator already was divorced and committed suicide. He was never known to the family of the child and off everyone’s radar.)
JMO - LB’s murderer has similar degree of separation, too. Close enough to hear the news but not too close to be in someone's view field. I am seriously wondering if a teenager or a very young adult is involved, and not necessarily a male. Kids are malleable, plus, less criminal responsibility, also, a teenage girl generates some trust. So it may be a case of two women, one driving, and her kid, shooting.
Now, that school. Did someone work there, or drive a younger sibling there, or was it a bus driver, or married to a schoolworker? Technically, they were not risking much by that stop. Imagine they drive in and see a working camera. Well, they haven't killed anyone yet, they can drive back home till better time. In general, it was pretty dark, and what people are doing in the darkness, in a dark car, is hard to see on the camera. And I am almost sure that the plates were stolen.
However, what is interesting is the internet in the school. I am thinking that switched on phones could have left a "trace". Options are:
- the phones were switched off
- the router in the school was switched off (for the night, or just in AM)
- maybe the camera was simply switched off, especially easy if connected to wifi
- the phones that are registered in the school vicinity that day belong to one of the school workers and don't look suspicious
