Here is why I asked about the video and what we thought, if there wasnt any indoor surveillance tape:
Without the tape this would
almost certainly look like an
interrupted burglary. Some would come up with the theory of a
targeted hit. I think it wouldnt be that many.
What we would not know without the tape:
- · We would not see the individual all dressed up in a police-uniform-like outfit toe to head.
- · We would not know how much time the perp had spent inside the church.
- · We would not notice their calm wandering around swinging their hammer.
- · We would not observe just 1 individual (supposedly).
- · We would not have seen the type of tools the perp was carrying and how he was utilizing them.
- · We would not have noticed a strange object in the perps left hand.
- · We would not know about the perps (most likely) handedness.
- · We would not have noticed their characteristic gait.
- · We would not consider any possible ankle/foot/leg/hip injury or weakness.
- · We would (most likely)not debate about the gender.
- · We would most likely not debate, whether the perp was familiar with the churchs layout or not.
- · We would most likely not even debate the layout (just the entry/ exit point and the immediate crimescene)
Mathematically seen, the video is actually
against the perp.
So much more we are privy to than without the tape. So, why the risk? What happened here?
The perp either did
not know the
outdoor surveillance camera(s) were
not functioning, in which case he would most likely not be affiliated in any way with the church. He could be a
local or an out-of-towner.
Or, he would have been
privy to the fact, that the outside cams had been malfunctioning (for a while now, as reported by MLPD during the presser), in which case he may be a
church member/ local, or an out-of-towner being informed about the detail by another individual.
The one group, that may have access to either information (outside cams malfunctioning/ inside surveillance/ motion detector operated system active and operative) without involvement of a third party would be
church-members.
Consequently any other group would require insider knowledge in order to know about the malfunctioning cams.
Then we have of course the option,
that it did not play a role to the perp, whether the outdoor cams were working or not. This is the most feasible possibility to me, as it covers any group of individuals. It would also support the theory, that the perp realized there were surveillance cameras inside the building.
So what does that mean? It means several things to
me, MOO, IMO etc
1. The burglary aspect does not make much sense for all the points being discussed ad nauseam over 31 threads,
one main reason being against such burglary that the individual did not go straight to the offices (signage outside and inside the church) trying to gain access to any stored funds/tithings, IMO. Would a burglary still be possible? Yes. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish burglary? No.
2.If this was a
targeted (paid) hit, the video camera recorded a lot of characteristics of the perp despite the cover.
How could the killer be so sure about what LE would have on him in the end or not? There are other ways much more efficient and less risky. If this was a hit for hire, I am almost certain the perp had a look-out, a driver, an accomplice. Would it be possible? Yes. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish hit? Possibly so. Yes.
3. If this was a
revenge killing (lover, spouse, camper, somebodys BF), a hate crime (hate-group, church member), a drug or money related crime ( victim was witness of illegal activity, was involved, victim needed to be eliminated due to money/insurance etc.) then the individual could be highly motivated and could operate by her/himself. That individual would be close to the victim and may be privy to last minute decisions of the victim. That individual would also most likely be familiar with the church and the layout thereof. Would this be possible? Yes
. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish the deed? Possibly so. Yes.
To me option 2 and 3 are making the most sense mathematically speaking. If the perp was some LE hate- infatuated individual, option 1 could still apply. Then the perp was in for
vandalism and not necessarily
burglary. However, a burglar could not be sure
about what LE may have on them and they would be charged with an additional
impersonating a police officer if caught, so, not sure about it. All IMO.
Therefore I am still opting for 2 and 3.
What are your thoughts?
-Nin