VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #2

[wadahoot]

Sorry to rebut your statement, I'd like to make a point. Several people have suggested that because the victims were sleeping, he DEFINITELY had the requisite intent for first degree murder. This is simply not true. While the fact that they were asleep suggests intent, it is not "for sure."

Example: McCroskey is awake while the women are asleep. Emma's phone goes off with a text message. He goes into a rage, kills them all or kills her, panic and kills the rest.

In this fact pattern, McCroskey does not have the requisite intent. He also certainly did not "plan' this.

If he, as is alleged, lied in wait for the father, he would have the requisite intent for first degree murder with regard to the father. But again, we don't know that.

But most girls don't have a wood maul sitting around their bedroom (well, 'funny' but true, perhaps Emma did, as 'decoration'). But, assuming the wood maul was stored in the garage and/or a shed and/or outside, the time it took to go get the maul shows intent by law. Nancy Grace always points out (ad nausum) that intent can be in the snap of the fingers, while choosing to reach for a weapon, much less making a specific trip to other parts of the house.

 

[Heroine]

Also helps explains why he out there at 4AM...

Actually I remember reading somewhere that someone did call the police to report a suspicious vehicle out there. If he was scouting for a disposal site he might have driven slowly, stopping to look for a good location, and thereby aroused suspicion from the residents out there. Haven't had my tea yet this AM so I may be mistaken about this point.

No you're right someone called the police saying there was a suspicious vehicle on that road.

 

[dangrsmind]

Is he wearing a jacket in that picture, that covers up all but a V-shaped upper area of his shirt? Maybe the jacket is over the soaked-in blood, making whatever's there really hard to see in that picture.

I agree. You can't assert either the positive case (there is a blood stain) or the negative case (no stain) based on this image or the others I examined. That's what I mean when I say examination of the image is "inconclusive". (FWIW part of what I do professionally involves examination of surveillance video)

The point is the blood does not wash itself off or just wipe off easily from fabric of this sort. He's wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a cotton hoodie. He's going to have to launder this stuff to get the blood off if he was wearing any of it during the murder.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to get dry blood off of some surfaces. As an example, a fellow was robbed and shot on the corner of my street a few years back. There was blood splatter on the base of the streetlight for months and it was there even after several rains. Eventually someone painted over it, but it never wore off to my knowledge. The lamp post is made of concrete.

 

[dangrsmind]

But most girls don't have a wood maul sitting around their bedroom (well, 'funny' but true, perhaps Emma did, as 'decoration'). But, assuming the wood maul was stored in the garage and/or a shed and/or outside, the time it took to go get the maul shows intent by law. Nancy Grace always points out (ad nausum) that intent can be in the snap of the fingers, while choosing to reach for a weapon, much less making a specific trip to other parts of the house.

Some fans of ICP keep small hatchets, but a maul is large and you'd typically keep it in the garage, shed or near a woodpile. The father was apparently also hit with a log or piece of wood. So I vote for woodpile.

 

[gxm]

Why the expedition to Poorhouse Road?

The main thing that bothers me about this theory is that usually an effective alibi would entail constructing a story where the person is somewhere else at the time of the murders rather than at the scene calling the police. But maybe he is just this stupid or out of reality. I don't know.

I guess we also still don't know if he had the murder weapons in the car or not. Perhaps he intended to stash them out there, then almost got caught and decided to get out of town.

Yeah. I don't know what to make of the Poorhouse Road outing. He got stuck out there around 4:30 Friday morning, a few hours after he had the cops over to check for a basement intruder. I'm guessing he either got lost trying make his way to Richmond, or he was looking for a place to dump evidence. Or, yet again, he was working on his alibi… Hey, how could I kill them when the cops were hauling me out of a ditch at 4 AM? Must have been that dude who broke into the basement earlier.

 

[dangrsmind]

Yeah. I don't know what to make of the Poorhouse Road outing. He got stuck out there around 4:30 Friday morning, a few hours after he had the cops over to check for a basement intruder. I'm guessing he either got lost trying make his way to Richmond, or he was looking for a place to dump evidence. Or, yet again, he was working on his alibi… Hey, how could I kill them when the cops were hauling me out of a ditch at 4 AM? Must have been that dude who broke into the basement earlier.

Well at least that's an alibi that places him away from the scene, but since he killed the women (apparently) days earlier, the time of death wouldn't work out. He's a fan of serial killers with a TV set and Internet access. Hard to believe he doesn't know about time of death estimation.

 

[gxm]

Have you ever examined a crime scene photo from a murder where someone was brutally bludgeoned to death? There is a lot of splatter. I posted a link yesterday from this same site couple of pages back. A lot would depend on the exact circumstances I imagine.

To be honest, I didn't look at the image you posted earlier. I'm rather squeamish but I'll go back and look. (Hope it doesn't give me nightmares.)

I have seen crime shows where they use computer illustration to show the splatter, and yes, it can go just about everywhere. And I can't really imagine Sam cleaning anything up. The most he would have done is wash his clothes and even then there could be trace evidence. Especially on his shoes. Most criminals seem to forget about the shoes.

 

[magnaccia]

Maybe he was a poser? Lots of people pretend to be into this and that, yet dont know the first thing any true fan would know.

Just because he had an obsession with serial killers doesn't mean he had the intelligence to do what they couldn't, not get caught.

 

[dangrsmind]

To be honest, I didn't look at the image you posted earlier. I'm rather squeamish but I'll go back and look. (Hope it doesn't give me nightmares.)

I have seen crime shows where they use computer illustration to show the splatter, and yes, it can go just about everywhere. And I can't really imagine Sam cleaning anything up. The most he would have done is wash his clothes and even then there could be trace evidence. Especially on his shoes. Most criminals seem to forget about the shoes.

I advise against looking then.

He moved and manipulated the bodies. The scene was described as horrific, which I assume means blood (and other related goo) everywhere.

 

[gxm]

Some fans of ICP keep small hatchets, but a maul is large and you'd typically keep it in the garage, shed or near a woodpile. The father was apparently also hit with a log or piece of wood. So I vote for woodpile.

Yep. And some people keep the woodpile close to the back or side door. So it may not have even required a walk to the shed.

 

[dangrsmind]

Maybe he was a poser? Lots of people pretend to be into this and that, yet dont know the first thing any true fan would know.

Just because he had an obsession with serial killers doesn't mean he had the intelligence to do what they couldn't, not get caught.

Sure I agree. But he sure went to lengths to craft a lame *advertiser censored* alibi if it is true.

FAIL

Edited to add: I'm wondering if there was any evidence of breaking and entering at the house? The fake intruder theory sort of requires some evidence of forced entry to be present at the house. But again, maybe just that dumb.

 

[tapu]

Maybe he was a poser? Lots of people pretend to be into this and that, yet dont know the first thing any true fan would know.
.

Yes, poseurs. One runs into them quite a lot, in S&M for instance. :yes:

 

[tapu]

I agree. You can't assert either the positive case (there is a blood stain) or the negative case (no stain) based on this image or the others I examined. That's what I mean when I say examination of the image is "inconclusive". (FWIW part of what I do professionally involves examination of surveillance video)

The point is the blood does not wash itself off or just wipe off easily from fabric of this sort. He's wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a cotton hoodie. He's going to have to launder this stuff to get the blood off if he was wearing any of it during the murder.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to get dry blood off of some surfaces. As an example, a fellow was robbed and shot on the corner of my street a few years back. There was blood splatter on the base of the streetlight for months and it was there even after several rains. Eventually someone painted over it, but it never wore off to my knowledge. The lamp post is made of concrete.

Yes. I understand the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. I was just thinking that the jacket might help explain why Sam's presentation in that screenshot you have shown does not appear, at least to your practiced eye, to show blood such as is known to result from bludgeoning, and such as is shown in the crime scene photo of Jay Sebring.

 

[gxm]

is there any information in which part of the house the bodies were found?..

I recall folks mentioning earlier that the house appeared divided into two parts with a breezeway separating the two sections. But I'm wondering if that "wing" off to the left isn't the garage. And I'm also wondering if there was a room, possibly a guest room, above it. Can any locals answer this question?

The only thing that I recall is that the women's bodies and the pastor's body were in separate areas. IIRC, LE went in and found the pastor's body first and then got a search warrant before they found the women. (Or maybe it's the other way around and they found the women first.)

 

[dangrsmind]

Yes. I understand the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. I was just thinking that the jacket might help explain why Sam's presentation in that screenshot you have shown does not appear, at least to your practiced eye, to show blood such as is known to result from bludgeoning, and such as is shown in the crime scene photo of Jay Sebring.

FWIW I am not saying I have a lot of experience examining video for blood stains. First time for that, but I have done a lot of work with faces including identifying people wearing disguises from video.

 

[dangrsmind]

I recall folks mentioning earlier that the house appeared divided into two parts with a breezeway separating the two sections. But I'm wondering if that "wing" off to the left isn't the garage. And I'm also wondering if there was a room, possibly a guest room, above it. Can any locals answer this question?

The only thing that I recall is that the women's bodies and the pastor's body were in separate areas. IIRC, LE went in and found the pastor's body first and then got a search warrant before they found the women. (Or maybe it's the other way around and they found the women first.)

Yes, but I think they found the women first. That might support the theory that he moved them near to the door supporting that idea that he was planning to dispose of them later. Not enough information to say for sure on this I think.

 

[Heroine]

Well at least that's an alibi that places him away from the scene, but since he killed the women (apparently) days earlier, the time of death wouldn't work out. He's a fan of serial killers with a TV set and Internet access. Hard to believe he doesn't know about time of death estimation.

You know I was thinking, maybe he was there long before 4AM? He could have just been stuck in that ditch for a while wondering what to do next until police showed up.

 

[maunsapt]

Hi, i'm new here and have been following this story from the beginning, i think. I was wondering why Sam made the phone call to the police too, saying he heard a noise. You would have thought, he would have had the owners make the call. You would have thought the LE had inquired about the owner of the home, why they had not made the call or where were they? Now, If I was staying at a friend's home, I would surely have awakened them and mentioned the noises and then made a phone call. When cops come to investigate, they also ask if others are in the house, etc. I find this interesting that it is not mentioned at all. Do you get what I am asking?

 

[tapu]

Yes, I do, Maunsapt. And welcome!

Maybe the cops really, really blew that one--like, took Sam for just some druggy slacker, went to the basement with him and saw the animal waste and everything, and just blew it off as some nut case call.

I have to agree with you though that it's highly irregular for them not to have inquired and investigated a lot further than that, but maybe LE is like that there.

It's another puzzling detail in this case.

 

[AndresEscobar]

In that case, there would need to be a second text message. One in addition to the first one that he and Emma had already argued about.

Based on the little we know of the case, it looks to me that the murders were premeditated. Sam told the cab driver that he waited for Emma to go to sleep before he "left the house." I think he substituted "left the house" in place of "bludgeoning her death" because he was still trying to cover up his crimes.

"McCroskey said his girlfriend got angry when he confronted her about the message, accusing him of invading her privacy. He told Gibson he didn’t want to argue so he waited for her to go to sleep and left the house."

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/n...nted_girlfriend_over_text_message/295462/P10/

I still believe he called the police to investigate the basement because he wanted to use the non-existent intruder as an alibi. He called the cops to the house in the early morning hours of Friday, September 18. By 6:20 AM he was in the cab heading to the airport. In the cab he tells the driver that he had a fight with his girlfriend and left after she fell asleep. IMO, he was trying to create a suspect other than himself.

I'm sorry to argue this with you, but we do not know that there was premeditation. Premeditation is a legal term, and there must be a basis to prove premeditation beyond that it "possibly" or "looks to be" premeditation. We do not know the facts of this case well enough to conclude that this was a premeditated murder.

The flaw with the scenario you're proposing proving premediation is you're using the statement McCroskey made to a cab driver then adding in your own supposition (that instead of "left the house" he meant "killed her") as the basis. First, there is no way to verify anything McCroskey said to the cab driver is true. Second, even if it is true, or partially true, it still does not prove the requisite intent, premeditation.

There could have been a second text, or he could have read something on myspace, or in a diary, or he could have just realized she had lied to him, which could have put him into the rage to cause these murders. If something set him off and he killed all three women in a fit of blind, uncontrollable rage, legally it's not premeditated murder.