beubeubeu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2019
- Messages
- 903
- Reaction score
- 1,934
Only with the assumption that she got murdered cause she went to investigate and that perp was not there to kill her.The point is, she could have left the building. If her being killed hinged on her decision to investigate what she heard, when she could just as easily have went back to her car, it is logical to conclude that this was not a planned killing.
Not so much if considering that perp, aware of the surveillance location and the way the cameras work was trying to lure her into the area where they wouldn't catch anything or will end up not triggered - and that he wasn't willing to let her go in case that she'd turn back. Knowing her he could more or less predict what she's going to do and conclude that there is a big chance that she won't run away instantly - and that he'll be able to get her even if she will (while if not, his luck, cover up done perfectly).
If he was waiting to ambush her straight after she entered the church the whole supposed cover up of it being made to look like interrupted burglary would go straight into the sewer. Who would discuss it as possible burglary if perp would enter the church and lay low, waiting for her car to arrive, attacked, murdered her and fled? It's not how burglaries look like, 100% of investigators attention would be focused on looking for murderous loon with petty personal vendetta, not for a burglar.
The theory that those, believing that Missy was targeted are buying into is not that it was (A) professional hitman, nor that (B) it was clear cut targeted murder. Theory is (C) that it was meant to look like a burglary to cover up the fact that it was all about murdering Missy.
Listing arguments on why it was clearly not (A) or (B) is not the same as disproving (C).