IA IA - Rose Burkert, 22, & Roger Atkison, 32, Williamsburg, 12 Sept 1980

[mysterymike]

Your conclusion is pretty understandable and I my opine in your favour. But if Floyd Hatcher, lead by his sister Marcella, convinced CRH, we must ask ourselves the question of how much FH thought CRH reliable and rational to go along in a killing spree. If you read the timelines in that document, you will notice CRH is a very unstable, psycopath, deviant individual, committing alot of sexual crimes and getting caught many times, not spending more time in prison because of law process holes and police incompetence. In my last post I dismissed the bartender incident because I do not have many solid info about it. But one thing is clear. Rose didn't know FH and CRH. I still do not know if the mortician convention took place within the motel or a place near it. If that night the motel was packed with morticians and other guests, maybe FH and CRH could have blended among them while following Rose upstairs to the room. But then again, there was the possibility that someone later could remember such singular troupe, especially CRH who was typecasted as having an antisocial personality and a mentally disturbed sex offender. This is a big question those who play in favour that FH and CRH murdered Rose and Roger that night. How much percentage or margin of error could have happened if CRH went along with his brother to kill two people in an overbooked motel? How much FH trusted his own brother? Maybe the soap bits, the scribbling and the savage overkill blows could possible go in the direction of a deranged person, not a profissional, cold and rational killer. These two personalitties might be really the prime suspects and maybe the real killers. FH could have done it for money and familiar issues, on the other hand, CRH could have it gone all along just for fun, blood and maybe familiar justice too. Of all the people suspected, except for Rose's ex-bf, none of them fit so promising and well in the equation as these Hatcher brothers. One question: There is some data concerning Floyd being interrogated by the Missouri or Iowa police?

You bring up some interesting and good points. It is very possible though that CRH may have gotten an earful from FH about how his daughter was being treated by Roger, and therefore, CRH himself may have suggested to RH how he should handle the problem with Roger. And from there, the planning began. Just a theory.

Yes, there's no doubt that CRH was an unstable psychopath.........on his own. But in this instance where there would have been an element of stability and control with the added addition of RH or maybe another H member, I believe it was possible to do the murders with whoever CRH came along with, making sure there were no mistakes and that they covered their tracks well, which they did. It is likely CRH was the brawns while whoever he went along with was the brains and kept them from making too many mistakes. For all we know, CRH could have been a completely different person when around his family. Even psychopaths can control themselves in certain environments and with certain people.

Until someone can come up with a better scenario, I tend to believe the killers gained entry into the room by way of Rose. Now, whether they just followed Rose somewhat closely back into the hotel and back by her room acting like they were already guests and were just going back into the hotel and pass her up and continue on walking down the hallway to their room there, and when she got to the door of her room they forced their way in. or by the way you suggested, a gun, having abducted her outside the hotel. Either way is a possibility, but so are other ways through Rose too.

Like Mcbrainder said, we could get a clearer picture of the scenario if only we knew exactly how the bar and bartender fits into all of this, and why left so abruptly the next day. I wish we knew his name and how to find him.

 

[mysterymike]

I know I put alot of emphasis on CRH being one of the killers, but I believe it's just too much of a coincidence here. Roger's own wife just happens to be the niece of a serial killer. That serial killer just happens to escape from the facility he was in 6 days prior to the murders with his whereabouts unknown during that time. And Roger (an in-law of CRH) just happens to be murdered during this time frame at a time when he was cheating on his wife and divorce was imminent. I'm sure there are other coincidences too but they're not coming to mind right now.

The coincidences are just too strong for CRH (and family) not to be involved.

 

[mcbrainder]

I know I put alot of emphasis on CRH being one of the killers, but I believe it's just too much of a coincidence here. Roger's own wife just happens to be the niece of a serial killer. That serial killer just happens to escape from the facility he was in 6 days prior to the murders with his whereabouts unknown during that time. And Roger (an in-law of CRH) just happens to be murdered during this time frame at a time when he was cheating on his wife and divorce was imminent. I'm sure there are other coincidences too but they're not coming to mind right now.

The coincidences are just too strong for CRH (and family) not to be involved.

I agree. It fits together too neatly.

Makes me think LE knew from the start and could never find proof.

The thing is that they have DNA from the scene. If our scenario is right, it can be proven.

I heard that last year, LE was taking DNA samples from some of Rose's family members and I THINK, some of Roger's (I'm not positive on that).

Supposedly, Rose had a brother who was in the area that night. He's a whole different story, but interesting. A professor came forward last year and said the brother came to see him the day after the murders and that's how he knew he was around. This is the same guy who raised Rose's daughter and had never agreed with her parenting. I don't know what ever came of that or if it's still being tested. I bring it up because if this case is active enough to test DNA against Rose's family, I wonder when the last time, if ever, they did the same for Roger's family.

 

[mysterymike]

I agree. It fits together too neatly.

Makes me think LE knew from the start and could never find proof.

The thing is that they have DNA from the scene. If our scenario is right, it can be proven.

I heard that last year, LE was taking DNA samples from some of Rose's family members and I THINK, some of Roger's (I'm not positive on that).

Supposedly, Rose had a brother who was in the area that night. He's a whole different story, but interesting. A professor came forward last year and said the brother came to see him the day after the murders and that's how he knew he was around. This is the same guy who raised Rose's daughter and had never agreed with her parenting. I don't know what ever came of that or if it's still being tested. I bring it up because if this case is active enough to test DNA against Rose's family, I wonder when the last time, if ever, they did the same for Roger's family.

If LE does, in fact, have DNA from the crime scene, then why isn't this case solved yet? All they have to do is test the suspects and/or family of both sides, and they could always dig up CRH and test him too, and family. Maybe they have to go through alot of red tape, I don't know, but if any of these suspects don't have anything to hide I would think they would gladly give their DNA to clear their name.

Anyway you look at it, this case should have been solved by now if they got the killer's DNA, or at least ruled out all the known suspects.

I wonder why Rose's brother would have been in the area. I just couldn't imagine why a brother would ever do that to a sister no matter how angry he may have been with her. I have my doubts that he had anything to do with it, but I guess we really don't know absolutely everything about all the suspects to know that for sure.

If we had all the access to all the evidence that LE has, I believe we could probably come up with a legitimate scenario that would really sound plausible.

 

[mcbrainder]

If LE does, in fact, have DNA from the crime scene, then why isn't this case solved yet? All they have to do is test the suspects and/or family of both sides, and they could always dig up CRH and test him too, and family. Maybe they have to go through alot of red tape, I don't know, but if any of these suspects don't have anything to hide I would think they would gladly give their DNA to clear their name.

Anyway you look at it, this case should have been solved by now if they got the killer's DNA, or at least ruled out all the known suspects.

I wonder why Rose's brother would have been in the area. I just couldn't imagine why a brother would ever do that to a sister no matter how angry he may have been with her. I have my doubts that he had anything to do with it, but I guess we really don't know absolutely everything about all the suspects to know that for sure.

If we had all the access to all the evidence that LE has, I believe we could probably come up with a legitimate scenario that would really sound plausible.

I'm talking to someone tonight who may be able to give me details on the bartender encounter.

What other questions would you like me to ask?

Here's what I'm going to try to learn:

Was DNA ever tested to see if it matched Roger's wife's family?
What time was Rose at the bar?
Was a phone call actually made from the bar?
What was the content of the fight between the bartender and Rose?
Was Roger present for this?

I'm also going to ask what else this individual is able to share that would help piece this together, as well as who they believe the main suspects are.

I'm hoping this person will be a regular contact for me if something comes to me in the future. I'm going to share what I believe happened and see if he agrees. I'll give more details later if he's cool with that. I'm hoping this conversation solidifies my belief.

Nervous.

 

[4SAM]

Wow...Lifetime movie in the works...or ID Channel. I do have a question.....since Roger was known to roam, had he ever been to that motel before? Could his wife had seen a receipt from there and suspected that was where he liked to take his lady friends? I also agree with a lot of you, I believe that Roger knew the people and let them in, he was in his underpants. Rose was probably out of the room either at the bar or moving the car. They probably wanted to take care of Roger only but Rose returned before they could so they had to kill her to keep her from talking.

 

[mcbrainder]

Wow...Lifetime movie in the works...or ID Channel. I do have a question.....since Roger was known to roam, had he ever been to that motel before? Could his wife had seen a receipt from there and suspected that was where he liked to take his lady friends? I also agree with a lot of you, I believe that Roger knew the people and let them in, he was in his underpants. Rose was probably out of the room either at the bar or moving the car. They probably wanted to take care of Roger only but Rose returned before they could so they had to kill her to keep her from talking.

Good question about staying at the hotel. My guess is no, simply because Roger installed telephone lines and worked where he was told. I don't know if his company put him in hotels when he worked out of town, but for him to be in hotels may not have been unusual. In fact, the week leading up to that weekend, he was working out of town and holed up somewhere, but I don't know where.

That particular weekend and that particular hotel were really just a whim, since he had been working out of town and had decided to go with Rose to an Amish festival in the Amana Colonies. It's likely that wasn't a regular place for him. It may have even been the first time he went there. The fact that he got that hotel due to a last minute cancellation, tells me the hotel wasn't preplanned. It was just near where they needed to be the next day. The weekend plans seemed to have been on a whim. All I know for sure is that Rose met him where he'd been working, sometime mid-week. At the end of the week, they left his work-site to go somewhere else.

This is why most of my conclusions are what they are. This, to me, seems very much like a revenge killing. It's not a hit because it's too messy. It's personal and it's brutal, and the brother/serial killer combo sorta fits that.

If this hotel was on a whim, and it was a revenge killing, it had to be preplanned. That said, all that's left is for them to have been followed or for someone to know where they ended up. The killers would have no way of knowing that they'd actually be able to find them once they left town, which is why I believe they were followed.

The real missing piece is how the killers figured out the actual room number and that may have come about due to luck on their part (the movement of the car, or possibly just seeing through the window from the parking lot). My belief is that the hotel wasn't necessarily where they intended to kill, but saw the window and took it.

 

[4SAM]

someone had credit issues in the later years when they should have had a lot of money

 

[mysterymike]

I'm talking to someone tonight who may be able to give me details on the bartender encounter.

What other questions would you like me to ask?

Here's what I'm going to try to learn:

Was DNA ever tested to see if it matched Roger's wife's family?
What time was Rose at the bar?
Was a phone call actually made from the bar?
What was the content of the fight between the bartender and Rose?
Was Roger present for this?

I'm also going to ask what else this individual is able to share that would help piece this together, as well as who they believe the main suspects are.

I'm hoping this person will be a regular contact for me if something comes to me in the future. I'm going to share what I believe happened and see if he agrees. I'll give more details later if he's cool with that. I'm hoping this conversation solidifies my belief.

Nervous.

Good for you. I hope you're able to establish some kind of relationship with this person.

Very good questions you have listed to ask this person. Another one might be "Who told Roger and Rose to move the car?" "And was it a hotel employee that complained about the car or was it an unknown person calling the front desk to complain about it?"

They're probably lots more questions I could think of but they're not coming to mind at this minute.

Please let me know on here what you find out.

 

[mcbrainder]

accidental double-post

 

[mcbrainder]

Well...looks like I might have been going down a rabbit-hole.

Last night I spoke with one of the detectives who worked the case on and off over the years. He never owned the case. As he put it, police worked together on many murder cases. He did a lot of task-work on it, but he gave me the name of probably the most knowledgeable person to have worked it. He's retired now, and I suspect he won't talk to me, but I'm going to reach out anyway.

Here's what I did learn that was pretty discouraging.

There's a strong belief that the brothers did NOT commit these murders. Though father-in-law showed no emotion when he was told, it's believed he was not there. CRH, though out of the institution, was believed to be working at a Taco Pico that night. In hindsight, when the conversation was over, I did find it odd that CRH would be able to get a job and begin working within a 6 day period, but let's just say that the mention of those two names brought strong opposition. He said he's been wrong before, but was quick to say it wasn't these two.

A couple other worthy mentions:

I brought up the bar encounter. He didn't know anything of it or think anything of it. Again, he mostly did tasks over the years like respond to requests to meet family or friends to talk about it. In some cases, he would visit a nursing home of someone who was dying because that person may have known something.

He also wasn't behind the idea that there were two people in the room, despite the drawing of the crime scene. Either the artist got it wrong, there were two chairs for another reason (putting feet up on one maybe), or the room was staged.

The killer wiped his weapon off with a towel and threw it in the bathroom. There's probably DNA...he didn't know if it was ever tested.

He did give me the best lead they ever had, and unfortunately, there's very little information about this person online. It's a name I heard one other time in association with the case (I shouldn't say name. More a mention of a relationship, but I know the name). It was a lead that surfaced a couple years ago and if it's legit, this case won't be solved without DNA. There's a couple long-shots I can try to track down, and I'm working on a family tree to put together relationships (which I usually can do through memorial pages when someone dies), but without even a motive, it's all just a lot of guessing at this point.

The worst part is dismissing everything I've believed for quite some time and starting over with very little. There's always been a very long list of suspects and this person was never on it.

A couple things to know that completely turns this on it's head:

The target very likely was Rose if this scenario is right
The intent in the beginning may not have been to kill them (though there was a weapon)
The killer probably didn't follow them. They were probably told by someone who knew (This is what I'm going to go off of at this point because that person is still alive, but there's no way the police wouldn't have been able to put this together on their own, so there's probably more to it than simply telling someone where they were staying)

The brother theory isn't impossible. I'm just trusting that those who worked this and had inside knowledge for years dismissed it with good reason.

 

[mysterymike]

Well...looks like I might have been going down a rabbit-hole.

Last night I spoke with one of the detectives who worked the case on and off over the years. He never owned the case. As he put it, police worked together on many murder cases. He did a lot of task-work on it, but he gave me the name of probably the most knowledgeable person to have worked it. He's retired now, and I suspect he won't talk to me, but I'm going to reach out anyway.

Here's what I did learn that was pretty discouraging.

There's a strong belief that the brothers did NOT commit these murders. Though father-in-law showed no emotion when he was told, it's believed he was not there. CRH, though out of the institution, was believed to be working at a Taco Pico that night. In hindsight, when the conversation was over, I did find it odd that CRH would be able to get a job and begin working within a 6 day period, but let's just say that the mention of those two names brought strong opposition. He said he's been wrong before, but was quick to say it wasn't these two.

A couple other worthy mentions:

I brought up the bar encounter. He didn't know anything of it or think anything of it. Again, he mostly did tasks over the years like respond to requests to meet family or friends to talk about it. In some cases, he would visit a nursing home of someone who was dying because that person may have known something.

He also wasn't behind the idea that there were two people in the room, despite the drawing of the crime scene. Either the artist got it wrong, there were two chairs for another reason (putting feet up on one maybe), or the room was staged.

The killer wiped his weapon off with a towel and threw it in the bathroom. There's probably DNA...he didn't know if it was ever tested.

He did give me the best lead they ever had, and unfortunately, there's very little information about this person online. It's a name I heard one other time in association with the case (I shouldn't say name. More a mention of a relationship, but I know the name). It was a lead that surfaced a couple years ago and if it's legit, this case won't be solved without DNA. There's a couple long-shots I can try to track down, and I'm working on a family tree to put together relationships (which I usually can do through memorial pages when someone dies), but without even a motive, it's all just a lot of guessing at this point.

The worst part is dismissing everything I've believed for quite some time and starting over with very little. There's always been a very long list of suspects and this person was never on it.

A couple things to know that completely turns this on it's head:

The target very likely was Rose if this scenario is right
The intent in the beginning may not have been to kill them (though there was a weapon)
The killer probably didn't follow them. They were probably told by someone who knew (This is what I'm going to go off of at this point because that person is still alive, but there's no way the police wouldn't have been able to put this together on their own, so there's probably more to it than simply telling someone where they were staying)

The brother theory isn't impossible. I'm just trusting that those who worked this and had inside knowledge for years dismissed it with good reason.

[FONT=&quot]Wow, seems like you found out a lot of information so far.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
It is somewhat discouraging that the person you talked to doesn’t believe it’s CRH or any of his family. It does, however, give us a new challenge to come up with other plausible theories. But in order to do that we need to know who the investigators number one suspect is and why. Then, we can go from there. If you know that suspect and don’t want to mention him here, you can always send me a private email.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He didn’t know anything about the bar encounter? That’s in a few articles, how can he not know that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have a hard time making sense out of this. I just talked to the best friend of Rose (who is the most knowledgeable private citizen on this case) about a month ago and she told me that the investigators said they thought it was CRH and brother. So what am I missing here?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This suspect the person told you about, what does he think the motive was? And why would this person have been in the area to begin with. Is the person still alive? And id the motel was a spur of the moment decision, how did the suspect know they would be there? I’m very interested to know more so maybe I can come up with plausible theories.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While it is frustrating that what we have believed in this case is not what this person and others believe, I did say in the beginning of this thread that I was open to all theories. And while CRH and family will still continue to make strong suspects in my mind, it will be interesting to come up with other theories too. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I sure wish some of these investigators would come here to this thread and give us their take.[/FONT]

 

[CursSleuth]

Hello friends. Being reading your posts. Some questions concerning McBrainder's new findings.

Who thought the brothers were to be exonerated as suspects? This police officer you talked to or the whole investigation team?

CRH was working in a Taco Pic where? And approx when? Surelely nobody knew he was an escapee, right?

The bar stuff with the bartender. I think we need to clarify this issue once and for all. Had this alleged "lead" being the creation of some gossip newspaper? How come a officer working the case did not know about it, at least superficially?

The killer cleaned his weapon and threw the towel into the bathroom (maybe the towel on the floor as pictured in the police sketch). And what about the toothpaste? Does Roger and Rose had been sniffing it????

The new suspect. I hope you can tell us more about it, McBrainder (you don't need to say his name).

If police think they weren't followed and someone gave the killer the info of the location can only point to one thing:
Roger indeed had already thought to go to the Amana-Inn hotel but did not phoned there to make a reservation because he thought there would be a room available. What he did not know is that there would be a funeral convention on that day. Anyway, who could possible be the person Roger gave so intimate information???

If the intention wasn't to kill both of them why then carrying an axe-type weapon, even if small???? No gun, no knife?

I wrote here and started to convince myself maybe the two brothers did the job... and may they have nevertheless. But deep inside me there was always the question: How much Floyd Hatcher relied on the distrustful, maniac, impulsive brother of his?

McBrainder, can you at least tell us what was the real motive police thinks and keep steering into?

 

[mcbrainder]

Sorry for my delayed response. I've been digesting some things and trying to build a family tree, which has proven to be harder than expected.

I was also hesitant to post this, but for now, I'll leave the name alone. It won't do much good to say it anyway because there's really not much out there about this person. It makes me wonder how many murderers died a pretty uneventful life in the media and online, but were actually monsters in life.

The person suspected is Rose's half brother. He's also the man who raised her daughter after she died. I mentioned him in an earlier post but I hadn't really believed that rumor.

As to motive, I don't know. I can tell you that through the grapevine, there may have been some sexual abuse in that family that pointed toward the brother. He and his wife had wanted kids and didn't like how Rose raised hers. It's possible that he was angry that Rose had left her daughter and was with an older married man. I know who all his siblings are but I've been trying to find where Rose fit in and when their families combined. Rose's father died two years before her. I don't know if her mother remarried after that. I'm going to come back to her in a moment, because something was off in the conversation.

Last year, an Iowa professor was on a plane and sits next to an agent. The professor says something like "You guys ever solve that case?" They get to talking and the professor says that Rose's brother had come to see him the day of the murders. He hadn't seen Rose in a couple of months and was going to visit her.

He comes back to the professor the next day, acting hysterical and upset and saying Rose was murdered. The professor never told the police this and they thought it was odd that he admitted it a couple years after the brother died--like maybe he was afraid of him. All this was near where the murders took place. I didn't get specifics, but from what I was told, some of the brother's story didn't hold up or was proven to be untrue later. This is the same guy who ended up raising Rose's daughter.

Here's why this really blows: Rose's daughter won't talk about this. Her mother is still alive and she loves her very much. She probably loved the man who raised her too. Maybe she knows the truth. Maybe not. Who knows what she was told? My guess is she resents her mother for positioning herself the way she did with her choices in men...leaving her with a babysitter so she could be gone for a week and such. She seems to have grown up to be a well-adjusted person. If it proves to be true about the brother, then it could turn her world upside down. And it could be--since when LE got this tip, they started testing DNA. This is still happening, as far as I know.

Last detail, brother was a horticulturist. I don't know much about what kind of tools they carry, but LE believes he would have used a tool he worked with. This is why his intent may not have been murder. I think maybe if he learned where she was and visited, he might have gotten angry. I think he might have been in the room afterward, upset and trying to fix the scene. Maybe the message on the mirror was meant to mislead but he changed his mind.

Last interesting detail and the guy I talked to said this as if it was known, but when I said I had heard differently, he just said "I don't know. Maybe." Supposedly, Rose's babysitter was her mother.

Her mother had also spent some time with Rose that week while she was out of town. She knew where she was and she knew where she'd be, and if there were calls to "the babysitter," that could also be her mother. Now, if her mother really was the babysitter, that would also be reason to point toward the brother.

To sum up my thoughts though, if this is how it really went down, how is it possible this wasn't solved in 1980-81? Wouldn't it have been as simple as finding out through the mother who all knew they were there, gathering alibis, administering lie detector tests?

He said that was the best tip they ever got and made the most sense to him. He didn't believe it was the brothers at all. He also said that Roger's wife has tried to keep the case going for years, often calling and giving names of people to follow up on. He said the day she found out, she was too hysterical to believe she was behind it.

There are few living people who might know more about this:
The detective who worked the case the most
Rose's mother
Rose's daughter's mother
And even Rose's daughter. She was raised by the man. Surely, she must have seen certain tendencies in him. Maybe somewhere down the road, she'll come forward with a story.

 

[CursSleuth]

Fantastic piece of infromation McBrainder. Some questions:

Who is the false mother of Rose's daughter? How do you say it in english? The appropriate definition?
How the hell, all of this time, all the info about this case, including iowacoldcases, we are astounded to know the babysister was Rose's mother????
Well, I tried to picture an horticulturist rooming about the motel full dressed in typical horticulturist clothes with tools hanging from his belt or some heavy briefcase and nobody even mentioned it or remembered. He couldn't be hiding about the motel if he hadn't the intention to kill them... guess we need to recreate from the start all of this. You didn't answer if the brothers were singled out by the investigation team or just to that detective you spoke.
This is an U turn in the case. Your mention of Roger's wife's atittude after the murder is also important.

 

[mcbrainder]

Fantastic piece of infromation McBrainder. Some questions:

Who is the false mother of Rose's daughter? How do you say it in english? The appropriate definition?
How the hell, all of this time, all the info about this case, including iowacoldcases, we are astounded to know the babysister was Rose's mother????
Well, I tried to picture an horticulturist rooming about the motel full dressed in typical horticulturist clothes with tools hanging from his belt or some heavy briefcase and nobody even mentioned it or remembered. He couldn't be hiding about the motel if he hadn't the intention to kill them... guess we need to recreate from the start all of this. You didn't answer if the brothers were singled out by the investigation team or just to that detective you spoke.
This is an U turn in the case. Your mention of Roger's wife's atittude after the murder is also important.

If it was the brother, I think the DNA may come to solve this. It won't speak much to motive...we may never fully understand that...but it would place him there. The detectives have wanted this solved for a long time. There had been some excitement with the new tip, so I believe it will be followed up on.

I don't want to give the name of the brother's wife on here. I'm not sure that people who may have been innocent bystanders in all of this would want to be linked to this. I'm guessing Rose's daughter knows about her mother's murder. It'd be impossible to hide. She must know the circumstances behind who raised her and why. She probably doesn't know her father is/was a suspect. She may not believe it if told. Or maybe it would make perfect sense. If he truly was abusive to his family, I wonder if those traits would have been seen by her.

He wouldn't have been working but might have had tools in his car. I also was wondering about the police report that Rose filed about her ex boyfriend. She stated that if she turned up dead, it was him. I always thought that was just a bit of a coincidence, but now I wonder if the brother knew about that report and figured he was covered. After-all, if you knew someone who told the police that, wouldn't your assumption be that heads would turn in that direction if that person really did end up dead? Could the killer have done this under the safety of the first assumption police would make? Was the hope that it would be pinned on her ex? It seems to me that if the ex hadn't had a solid alibi, he most certainly would have been suspect #1 then and now.

I don't know if the brother was ever a suspect or singled out. I know that the professor gave this person's name. Rose had two half brothers. I don't know much about the other either. I imagine all siblings would have been interviewed but maybe not immediately suspected, especially without criminal records, especially since there were other suspects who may have distracted LE from the truth. Talk of a bartender and an ex and a serial killer surely kept eyes in more obvious directions than siblings without records. It kinda makes sense and to some degree, brother might have understood this.

I'd love to talk to immediate family about this, but I'm pretty sure this guy went on to lead a normal life. He may not have even meant to kill them. It might have been an angry reaction. Maybe Roger said something that triggered him and he went to his car to get something and came back. If you look at the crime scene though, this does change things a bit. Chairs on Roger's side....confronting the man he believed seduced her. Maybe lecturing sister about her awful choices. Maybe Roger says it's none of his business and F off. Roger protectively covering his head means he knew something was going to hit him. I still think he'd have to have died last, but would he have tried to overpower the killer? Did the killer have a gun and keep them obedient with it?

Some of these things will probably never be answered but hopefully the DNA matches.

 

[CursSleuth]

I'd love to talk to immediate family about this, but I'm pretty sure this guy went on to lead a normal life. He may not have even meant to kill them. It might have been an angry reaction. Maybe Roger said something that triggered him and he went to his car to get something and came back. If you look at the crime scene though, this does change things a bit. Chairs on Roger's side....confronting the man he believed seduced her. Maybe lecturing sister about her awful choices. Maybe Roger says it's none of his business and F off. Roger protectively covering his head means he knew something was going to hit him. I still think he'd have to have died last, but would he have tried to overpower the killer? Did the killer have a gun and keep them obedient with it?

Some of these things will probably never be answered but hopefully the DNA matches.

Yes, but we're jumping around over some new leads too soon like children with an ice cream and throwing it away while being offered a bigger one. We still need to focus on the brothers. Can you answer my questions before your post about Rose's mother being the babysitter?

I do not believe quite so in your description concerning Rose's half brother in the room.
Maybe he did not thought about killing them, ok. He has his tools in the car (maybe a trowel because most the other horticulturist utensils are heavy and large). Why did he brought a tool to the room? Thinking it could be handy if things got awry? It does not make sense. It would if he thought premeditated murder. But the motive is weak. Why to kill his half-sister over some romantic getaways? Forced murder? Involuntary manslaughter? Could he have take the weapon for his own protection or to make some point at them? Why the soap bits? Why the message on the mirror? Suppose he just killed his half-sister and goes around carving soap? And if he even did that (carving) while talking to Roger and Rose, they would suspect of his intentions or would not allow such person to bother them in a private moment and they would certainly try to throw him out of the room not permiting him sitting in a chair comfortably carving some soap (soap, which would have to be in the bathroom, which implies that he would enter the room and goes to the bathroom to pick up soap? Or at least got it at some point while arguing with them... Does this make any sense??? He could have written the message on the mirror with the whole soap... no need to carve it. Did Rose died while lying in bed? Did he moved the bodies and arranged the crime scene? Reports show there were massive blood in the wall and in the headboard that will probably points them being murdered while lying in the bed. But Rose was dressed, so she must have been coerced into lay down. Did her half-brother used a gun? If so, he was bringing in two weapons which clearly meant murder. I still believe a gun was involved in this case.

Why the bartender ran away after the murders? What was this discussion with Rose all about? Why your detective doesn't knew about this? If there is information that police caught up with the bartender much later and interviewed him... surely they had something on him and the whole discussion really did happened... some gross misleading lead? Something nothing out of the ordinary but police thought strange the guy running away? Why he ran away anyway?

And I'll leave this statement in the air: How about a meat clever as for the murder weapon? The blade looks 99% like of an axe's cutlass...

 

[mcbrainder]

Hello friends. Being reading your posts. Some questions concerning McBrainder's new findings.

Who thought the brothers were to be exonerated as suspects? This police officer you talked to or the whole investigation team?

CRH was working in a Taco Pic where? And approx when? Surelely nobody knew he was an escapee, right?

The bar stuff with the bartender. I think we need to clarify this issue once and for all. Had this alleged "lead" being the creation of some gossip newspaper? How come a officer working the case did not know about it, at least superficially?

The killer cleaned his weapon and threw the towel into the bathroom (maybe the towel on the floor as pictured in the police sketch). And what about the toothpaste? Does Roger and Rose had been sniffing it????

The new suspect. I hope you can tell us more about it, McBrainder (you don't need to say his name).

If police think they weren't followed and someone gave the killer the info of the location can only point to one thing:
Roger indeed had already thought to go to the Amana-Inn hotel but did not phoned there to make a reservation because he thought there would be a room available. What he did not know is that there would be a funeral convention on that day. Anyway, who could possible be the person Roger gave so intimate information???

If the intention wasn't to kill both of them why then carrying an axe-type weapon, even if small???? No gun, no knife?

I wrote here and started to convince myself maybe the two brothers did the job... and may they have nevertheless. But deep inside me there was always the question: How much Floyd Hatcher relied on the distrustful, maniac, impulsive brother of his?

McBrainder, can you at least tell us what was the real motive police thinks and keep steering into?

I'll do my best to address this, but I probably know no more than you do. It sounds like the police force didn't believe it was the brothers, though they were bothered by Floyd's lack of emotion when he was told.

I'm not sure where the Taco Pico was. That sounds strange. Their belief was that he was just a transient. He didn't drive a car. I personally find that to be irrelevant because my theory was he was just along for the ride, so that's easy to dismiss. I don't know how he could have possibly gotten a job and began working that quickly--especially as an escaped patient. That said, he'd dodged many bullets throughout his life.

The bartender thing still has me stumped. I think there's something there, but maybe was sensationalized by the media. However, if the bartender ran away from all this because he thought he'd be suspected, the argument must have been significant enough for him to believe that. I'm still working on contacting someone that might tell me more about this, but I suspect they won't talk to me.

The towel had wiped the weapon and was thrown in the bathroom. My belief has always been that the toothpaste was used to clean blood off the killer's clothes.

The police don't have an opinion one way or another whether they were followed or someone knew where they were...at least that I know of. If the killer knew where they were, I figure that eliminates just about everyone but a couple of people, which would only baffle me as to why this wasn't solved. I also don't know that Roger necessarily planned to go to that hotel. My opinion has always been they were driving and stopped at a hotel that was near where they needed to be. This happened in a time of maps and yellow pages. If they didn't call for reservations, they must not have planned much at all. I've always believed they just stopped somewhere they happened across and then called the babysitter to let them know where they were.

If the phone calls are how they were found, that points to Rose. If they were followed, that points to Roger. That's how I see it.

 

[mysterymike]

Interesting, very interesting.

So, are you saying that their top suspect (Rose's half brother) has already died? If so, when? I'm just trying to figure what would make him angry enough to kill them. Roger, I can maybe understand, but his own half sister? There has to be much more to it than just being angry with her over leaving her kids while she went away. You don't kill a sister and her lover in a RAGE (and that's what it was) just for that reason. There's something much deeper there.

Did you say the half brother just recently became a suspect for the first time? If so, when did LE first suspect him? Did they first suspect him because of the Professor? That's another thing, where does the Professor fit into all of this. How does a Professor that lives in the area where the murders took place even know Rose or her half brother? And why would the half brother even visit a Professor in the first place. I need some clarification on how the Professor fits into the lives of Rose and her half brother.

So now, who was watching Rose's kids the week she was murdered? I am a little confused on that. Did you say Rose's own biological mother was watching the kids, or was it the half brother? If it was the half brother, he would have had to leave the kids in someones care while he went to Amana, and that someone would have known he would be gone. I might be all mixed up on this, can you straighten me out on this Mcbrainder?

Also, as I have stated in my previous post, as you probably know, Rose's best friend probably knows almost as much as anyone on this case. And when I emailed her just recently she said that LE now thinks it was CRH and brother. She said she had thought otherwise for so long before that, but now believes the same. What's your view on that Mcbrainder?

This is such a complicated case, but that makes it all the more interesting.

One other thing for now, wasn't Rose and Roger's bodies covered up when found?
If they were, that is also an indication that the killer was very close to the victim/s and was covering up what he did.

It wouldn't have been all that easy for one man to kill two people without both the victims putting up a fierce fight, so it had to have been a RAGE killing. Just what exactly would make a half brother that angry to murder like that. It had to have been more than just Roger arguing with him. something deeper is there.

 

[CursSleuth]

MysteryMike, it seems Rose's mother was the one babysitting the child or children (how many children had rose anyway?) while Rose went with Roger near Williamsburg, Iowa.

We must always think and put all the things in perspective. I tend to ignore the fact the disposition of the chairs. That must have been mere coincidence. I think there was no talk of killers sitting in those chairs unless if it was CRH and FH. You must include the soap carving and the bathroom mirror... to me the must baffling thing within the crime scene. And we must remember the room was very small. Anyone thought that the carving could be made by Roger while Rose was getting the car outside? And, well, difficult to say this and very weird, but the soap bits could have been used as lubricant? Not recomended today, but in those days could have suited just fine if no other stuff was ready available. If the soap had no fingerprints than I will be incined it was the killer but I'll bet if police ran tests and found only Roger's... the soap bits are explained (even if not used to what I wrote).

If you take in consideration of Rose's half-sister being the killer you must put all the piece puzzles we know about the case and trying to get them to fit properly. The soap bits, how he killed them with a axe or a trawler? If Rose and Roger were shot with a muffled pilllow outside the bed, the things could be more easy for any killer. But then you have Rose dressed in bed, roger in shorts, both lying down with their heads cut deep till death...blood everywhere in the wall and headboard which definitely points to them being killed while laid on the bed. What is the motive then concerning the half-brother? Something more deeper than we know? It was really an accidental, unintentional murder?

If you revise the crime scene and try to put the puzzles on, you clearly see this is very difficult for a involuntary murder. An accidental crime would lead to a messy crime scene and possible more alerts from other people in the vicinities. Why going with an axe or trawler or even a meat clever if you do not think you're going to kill people? Alot of things must be cleared out to fit this suspect or that suspect.