GA - Katherine Janness, 40, fatally stabbed and dog killed, Piedmont Park, Atlanta, 28 Jul 2021 #3

[BGGS]

The interview is from 1/4/2022 and the link is in my post.

My apologies -- the first time I clicked on the link, it didn't load completely, and I didn't realize there was more to the story than what I was seeing. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[dlc]

My apologies -- the first time I clicked on the link, it didn't load completely, and I didn't realize there was more to the story than what I was seeing. Thanks for letting me know!

Actually, it's a little confusing. I don't think that the quote that people are referring to, the one that references DNA, actually came from the press conference that is linked. Rather, I think it was a comment from a former police officer, made after the press conference. Hope that makes sense.

 

[ArmchairDefective]

I'm astounded that there's no full sample of DNA (according to the quoted person). Not on KJ, not on Bowie, not anywhere from the crime scene?

This to me seems to indicate a planned attack. Unless the killer got extraordinarily lucky, it would seem virtually impossible for an unplanned blitz to have not left a lot of evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a change of clothes and maybe even gloves of some kind involved. I wish we knew if they found anything in the pond when they searched there.

I too am "cautiously optimistic" after this update and very hopeful that they aren't just saying things to placate the calls for updates. Still praying every day for an arrest and justice for Katie and Bowie.

 

[dotr]

rbbm.
'We are getting close': Atlanta police say Piedmont Park murder investigation still 'very active'
''Bowie's necropsy
Authorities are examining the dog that belonged to the woman stabbed to death in Piedmont Park.

A retired investigator said some valuable evidence could have been gathered from Bowie's corpse.

APD ordered an examination looking for potential DNA that may have ended up on, or in the mouth of Bowie.

So far, police have not released information on the necropsy. ''

''Criminologists have been trying to come up with a profile of the person who murdered Katie Janness based on what is known about the murder and the evidence. Investigators believe a profile and good old-fashioned police work will be what solves the case.

"There is no full sample of DNA, there is no DNA from what I know to test, so this is really going to be a case, I think, where old school detective work where leather hits the pavement," said retired Atlanta homicide detective Vince Velazquez, who consulted with the lead detective on this case.''

''Velazquez said right now there doesn't seem to be an intimate connection between Janness and the killer.''

 

[FonescaFan]

Sort of interesting words used by the police. But it sounds like they are optimistic. If the killer is someone close to Katie, I wonder if that person may try to flee soon.

I am wondering the same thing. Could LE have held the press conference more to scare the killer/cause a reaction than to reassure the public?

 

[FerrariRose]

I think the attack was planned. The killer knew where she would be in the park. The killer may have used the Find My Phone app to pinpoint her location in the park.

Based on the medical examiner's report, the deepest injury was to the left side of her back. IMO that was the initial injury and the injury that contributed to her death. IMO, the killer first approached her from behind and stabbed her.

Based on the medical examiner's report, the knife went in to a depth of 3-3/4 inches, causing a hemothorax (bleeding in the space between her lung and the rear chest wall) and nicking her descending aorta, causing internal bleeding. That injury alone is fatal but not immediately, since the aorta wasn't severed.

The next deepest knife wound, based on the ME's report, is 2 inches. IMO, a man would've caused a lot more damage than that. Just my observation that the killer is a woman.

 

[GeorgiaPeach1]

Vince Velasquez (the former detective that was interviewed yesterday) was one of the best homicide detectives that APD had. He was there for almost 30 years before he retired. APD still consults with him even after his retirement and I’m sure they are picking his brain trying to figure this case out. That is more than likely the reason he was discussing this case with the lead detective. He’s very, very intelligent and there is usually a well thought out plan behind everything he does.

 

[ELepo]

Vince Velasquez (the former detective that was interviewed yesterday) was one of the best homicide detectives that APD had. He was there for almost 30 years before he retired. APD still consults with him even after his retirement and I’m sure they are picking his brain trying to figure this case out. That is more than likely the reason he was discussing this case with the lead detective. He’s very, very intelligent and there is usually a well thought out plan behind everything he does.

Here's the link to the raw interview with Vince Velasquez talking about the lack of DNA and his other thoughts regarding the case.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ElectricZZ]

Here's the link to the raw interview with Vince Velasquez talking about the lack of DNA and his other thoughts regarding the case.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

FOX 5 Atlanta sure cut out a lot of this interview. I think it's interesting that they only pointed out the "not an intimate attack" part of this interview where he clearly states that an intimate partner can't be discounted and we won't know until the case is solved. Maybe it was the investigative team's way of giving EC a means to confess and claim insanity? Or, maybe Fox 5 wanted to paint a different picture than what CBS46 did bc CBS46 definitely made EC look guilty AF.

 

[ElectricZZ]

FOX 5 Atlanta sure cut out a lot of this interview. I think it's interesting that they only pointed out the "not an intimate attack" part of this interview where he clearly states that an intimate partner can't be discounted and we won't know until the case is solved. Maybe it was the investigative team's way of giving EC a means to confess and claim insanity? Or, maybe Fox 5 wanted to paint a different picture than what CBS46 did bc CBS46 definitely made EC look guilty AF.

I wanted to also point out that at minute 4:19, the interviewer says "SHE was stabbing..." when asking about the tattoo on KJ's back....

 

[Jenorlatl]

It's weird how I waffle back and forth on stranger vs known killer in this case. Yes, it seems unlikely a random psycho could want to erase her identity. But, on the other hand, the killer could want to erase what they "perceived" Katie to represent (a strong woman who jilted them in the past, an LGBTQ advocate, etc etc.). Heck, I've probably read too many crime/mystery novels and watched too much Scandi/Nordic noir (just watched season 2 of "Those Who Kill") to settle on a solid theory.

Yeah, but if it was someone she jilted know the past, then it wouldn’t be random. It would be a targeted kill.

I am thoroughly confused about how the interview made it seem like they had a solid lead and we’re just working out the details, and now after reading what he act

I think the attack was planned. The killer knew where she would be in the park. The killer may have used the Find My Phone app to pinpoint her location in the park.

Based on the medical examiner's report, the deepest injury was to the left side of her back. IMO that was the initial injury and the injury that contributed to her death. IMO, the killer first approached her from behind and stabbed her.

Based on the medical examiner's report, the knife went in to a depth of 3-3/4 inches, causing a hemothorax (bleeding in the space between her lung and the rear chest wall) and nicking her descending aorta, causing internal bleeding. That injury alone is fatal but not immediately, since the aorta wasn't severed.

The next deepest knife wound, based on the ME's report, is 2 inches. IMO, a man would've caused a lot more damage than that. Just my observation that the killer is a woman.[

I wanted to also point out that at minute 4:19, the interviewer says "SHE was stabbing..." when asking about the tattoo on KJ's back....

Uhh this! I heard that and was like WHAT. Most people have been referring to the killer as a “him.” Or “they” Like….nearly everyone. This guy said her. Who is interviewing the detective? Is it a news anchor?

 

[Jenorlatl]

FOX 5 Atlanta sure cut out a lot of this interview. I think it's interesting that they only pointed out the "not an intimate attack" part of this interview where he clearly states that an intimate partner can't be discounted and we won't know until the case is solved. Maybe it was the investigative team's way of giving EC a means to confess and claim insanity? Or, maybe Fox 5 wanted to paint a different picture than what CBS46 did bc CBS46 definitely made EC look guilty AF.

I thought that too, kind of, but I would be completely shocked if this was a random psychotic killing. I still believe it’s very intimate and personal. If this person was random and just mentally ill, there would be more victims. Or at least another attack of some sorts. You don’t just attack and kill one time and then all of the sudden you are better, sans a mental illness. When you’re sick like that…..people notice. And you do odd things everywhere…

 

[fred&edna]

Yeah, but if it was someone she jilted know the past, then it wouldn’t be random. It would be a targeted kill.

RSBM

No, I was suggesting the killer "perceived" Katie as someone who jilted him/her in the past. Perceived as in reminding or representing. Not someone who Katie had actually jilted in the past. I hope my meaning is coming across... I have trouble expressing myself sometimes.

 

[ArmchairDefective]

I wanted to also point out that at minute 4:19, the interviewer says "SHE was stabbing..." when asking about the tattoo on KJ's back....

Sounds like a Freudian slip!

 

[MadisonS]

I wanted to also point out that at minute 4:19, the interviewer says "SHE was stabbing..." when asking about the tattoo on KJ's back....

IDK, I heard "she was stabbed in her face and neck..."
The interviewer's audio quality was terrible, and he spoke so quickly that it was always somewhat garbled.

 

[mickey2942]

This attack seemed extremely personal to me, with a lot of rage. The violence against the dog, and the fact that the killer was able to do this attack so quickly, and brutally looks like it was well planned, not random, and more than likely familiar to both the victim and the dog.

Have you ever felt rage against someone? A very personal rage? That is what this killing indicates to me.

 

[fred&edna]

Rage murder with mutilation in a public setting without being sloppy (leaving evidence)... interesting yet very scary combo.

 

[ElectricZZ]

IDK, I heard "she was stabbed in her face and neck..."
The interviewer's audio quality was terrible, and he spoke so quickly that it was always somewhat garbled.

yes, obviously the audio was bad. I heard "She was stabbing her face and neck and things like that."

 

[EGirl]

I am way behind on this case, so I'm hoping someone can refresh my memory.... Didn't EC call her dad and brother that night and they arrived at the park? If so, what time did they get to the park? Were they together?

 

[ELepo]

I wanted to also point out that at minute 4:19, the interviewer says "SHE was stabbing..." when asking about the tattoo on KJ's back....

Who cares what the interviewer said. People misspeak all the time. I think that was just a mistake when asking the question. I know I would be a little excited and nervous to be asking Vince Velazquez the questions we are all dying to know. IMO what Velazquez says is what's important. How HE answers the questions.
As for the intimate attack part--- The detective makes it pretty clear that he doesn't think she knew her attacker. He has to add that LE can't rule anyone out because that's the way investigations work. The focus of the FOX 5 story was on the lack of DNA evidence, which is really the biggest piece of new information to come from the interview. Apparently they couldn't pull an adequate DNA sample from Bowie's teeth for testing, which is a huge disappointment.