Well, I shouldn't have used the word : facts. However, I did end my post w/ JMO and speculationAll due respect, these are not facts. They are your opinions.
The way LE described the malfunctioning outside cameras - they were only intermittently not working. It seemed to be a total guessing game as to when they would work and when they wouldn't. So it doesn't sound like there is any way the perp could have known they wouldn't work in this instance.
It's still very possible that this was a burglar. The timeframe of around 4 am entering the church - he could have been so nonchalant because he thought he had hours before anyone would be there at a church on a Monday morning. Burglaries in general tend to happen after midnight and before 5 am. I'd say 3 to 4 am is the real sweet spot for a burglary.
And as for a member of the church, you do know MB was not a member there, right? She just used the church for the fitness class.
We can't rule out that this was just a random burglary that was incredibly lucky for the perp and incredibly unlucky for MB. The camera range issue - in the end does it really matter whether the attack was on camera or not? Doubtful it would solve the case.
But while we can't rule out random burglary, I still lean now toward a targeted attack by someone who didn't know MB but was able to learn that a woman was alone at that secluded place at particular times. So he did his research. And he jumped on the opportunity because he wanted to experience the thrill of killing someone.
unlike (with respect) yours.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk