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

[mysterymike]

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.

Good points.

It's hard to figure out why the carved soap and exactly where it fits. I can't see Roger doing it. If he had I would think there would have been soap residue on his hands. I believe the killer did it, but why, I don't know. It could be that when he was talking to Roger and Rose he was so worked up, drugged up or nervous that he was constantly doing that while talking. There is even a possibility he may have done it after the killings, sitting there all worked up and nervous at what he did while carving the soap and thinking what to do next. Who knows for sure.

If it was Rose's half-brother, Roger being in underwear still poses some confusion. That still leads me to believe the killer/s gained entry through Rose.

This was still summer time and warm out. If the killer/s gained entry by a knock on the door, how would he have hidden the weapon/s he had? If it was a hatchet or a machete, there would have been no coat to hide them in. When Rose or Roger looked out the peephole to see who it was, the weapons would have had to been in a bag/sack or behind his back. If it was the half brother, I guess Rose probably would have felt somewhat comfortable letting him in as long as any weapons were hidden someway on him.

I don't see this murder as being unintentional. Like you said, you wouldn't bring any weapons with you if that were the case. And why even go to follow them where they went if you didn't have some kind of evil on your mind.

DNA is really the only thing that will probably solve this case, and if they have the killer's DNA, it should have been solved by now, or at least eliminated suspects.

I hope Mcbrainder comes on soon and answer some of my questions in my last post.

 

[CursSleuth]

Good points.

It's hard to figure out why the carved soap and exactly where it fits. I can't see Roger doing it. If he had I would think there would have been soap residue on his hands. I believe the killer did it, but why, I don't know. It could be that when he was talking to Roger and Rose he was so worked up, drugged up or nervous that he was constantly doing that while talking. There is even a possibility he may have done it after the killings, sitting there all worked up and nervous at what he did while carving the soap and thinking what to do next. Who knows for sure.

But do you have proof Roger did not have soap in his hands after being murdered? If it was indeed the killer, then I opt for your second argument. He did it after killing them. But he carved the soap with what? Some knife? The murder weapon? But why? You kill two people, possible freak-out and you go to the bathroom pick up some soap and think about of the whole situation while carving it up? Endangering yourself for possible clues the police may find afterwards? It does not make sense. If you see the soap bits, they are all near the chairs and Roger's bed side. It could be possible it was Roger carving bits (maybe with his fingers or something else) and when Rose checks in from the parking lot the killer enters with her already subdued or right away after Rose is opening the door. With the entrance of the killer off course Roger would jump in awe about it droping the soap bits to the floor.

If it was Rose's half-brother, Roger being in underwear still poses some confusion. That still leads me to believe the killer/s gained entry through Rose.

No confusion here. Off course Roger would be in shorts. It was already 9:30pm, hot and he was making himself comfortably. Rose was dressed because she went to the parking lot. When she arrived the killings could have started right away, so she doesn't had the chance to undress.

This was still summer time and warm out. If the killer/s gained entry by a knock on the door, how would he have hidden the weapon/s he had? If it was a hatchet or a machete, there would have been no coat to hide them in. When Rose or Roger looked out the peephole to see who it was, the weapons would have had to been in a bag/sack or behind his back. If it was the half brother, I guess Rose probably would have felt somewhat comfortable letting him in as long as any weapons were hidden someway on him.

The weapon could have been small, like a trawler, little axe or a meat clever which could be easily hidden behind the back or inside a shirt hold by the belt.

I don't see this murder as being unintentional. Like you said, you wouldn't bring any weapons with you if that were the case. And why even go to follow them where they went if you didn't have some kind of evil on your mind.

To me, it seeems this case does not fit properly in the involuntary homicide category. But if police suspects the half-brother there must be a real motive for the killings...

Another insight about the soap and the crime scene: Police found the soap where? The soap bits where found near the chairs, but where it was the rest of the soap? In the bathroom? The message was written with it or with some of the bits?

Whose boots were on the side of Rose's bed? Roger's? Did Rose being found dead laid down with her boots on? If so, there might be no doubt she was coerced into bed as Roger had. And how normally one can force another person into doing something? With a gun. Imagine: They are all laid down, the killer threats them not to move or scream, he goes to the side of Roger's bed, the killer hit Rose once and then immediately thrown another against Roger's head. Possible Roger had the time to put on a self-conscious defense by protecting his head with his hands, hence the severed fingers. This in a very, very short frame of time.

 

[CursSleuth]

Hello MysteryMike and McBrainder.
Maybe I have the explanation for the soap bits on the floor. Please give your thoughts and opinions about it.

Imagine Rose went to get her car out of the parking place outside. Roger had put himself at home. In shorts and because it might be hot. While Rose is outside he probably thinks about what to do in the meantime. He thinks something and goes get the soap. Sits in one of the chairs and carves the soap into tiny bits (all or half of it). Now, why he would carve some soap bits? Because he wants to shave in the morning but he realizes he doesn't have any cream left or forgot at home. He has his all fancy and costly hot lather machine to use but no cream.

Back in the late 1970s, (I know it is 1980, but is all the same like to be living in the late 1970s) you could pour regular soap in the water of a lather machine to make foam. He could had possible realized he didn't brought the cream and thought he could use some soap bits to find his own. He carves some soap to use with the machine for in the morning. It would be quick, just throwing the soap bits into the machine filled with water and turn it on to dissolve the bits. Or, he could have done that to have the cream ready the next day. The soap bits would dissolve in hours within water. Maybe that's when his doing this that the killer arrive with Rose from outside, threatning them and Roger, off course, drops the bits to the floor in panic or scare. What do you think about this theory?

 

[mcbrainder]

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.

It sounds like the brother was the best tip they got, and that only happened a year ago, so it goes to show that they must not have had anyone obvious in mind.

When we talk about soap carving and motive and who let who in, sadly I don't know how we could ever know that. DNA might point us to the right person. If it's the brothers, motive seems obvious. If it's Rose's brother, not as easily. My best guess would be he didn't like her choices and was fed up. I think he might have also intended on only hurting them or maybe a conversation escalated into a crime of passion. My best guess is that there was two confrontations. I don't know exactly when the first took place, but the first would have been her brother confront her and/or Roger about the fact that they were together. He's married. He's ten years older. Her last boyfriend was violent. She had a daughter at home and he and his wife had wanted kids but couldn't have them. There may have been more, but I think that was the core of his problem with her. I think in the first confrontation, Roger may have gotten him heated. I think Rose may have also played a part and threatened to tell things she knew about her brother--things along the lines of sexual abuse. Maybe Roger thought he was being protective of her by keeping her away from the brother.

If the brother was truly the killer, something caused him to go out of his way to see her that night. Something had to be dealt with. That said, I still believe the killer carved the soap. I can't help but think it was just something being done while talking/listening, or waiting after it was done.

Here's a theory I had quite some time ago, while I still believed it was the brothers, but could apply here too. Maybe Roger was killed and Rose locked herself in the bathroom. Maybe she wrote the message on the mirror and maybe it led to the killer, which the killer then later wiped out after coaxing her out. If it was the brother, the message on the mirror makes little to no sense. The only thing that would make sense to me is if he was trying to be misleading and changed his mind. Maybe he was trying to point it in the direction of the ex or someone else.

In answer to your other questions. I have no idea if the brother was ever a suspect. My guess is no, because there was already a rich list of suspects. I know the focus was on CRH for a little while. I know they thought the ex boyfriend seemed obvious until his alibi checked out. The bartender thing was suspicious. I bet the brother didn't seem like a good suspect, mainly because he didn't have a record, a known motive, and they had their hands full with a better more obvious list of people.

One discouraging fact about all cold cases, take Zodiac for example, is that there is often a handful of suspects and a pretty good debate over why I think it's person A and you think it's person B, and they think it's person C, but in the back of my head, I always wonder if the killer isn't even on the list. In this case, it may be possible. All the theories and guesswork are useless because the actual killer wasn't even suspected or mentioned.

I don't know what the relationship between half-brother and professor was. The man I spoke to thought it was interesting that he only said something shortly after half-brother died, as if he was protective, or even scared of him.

The man I spoke with also believed it was Rose's mother babysitting that weekend. He said she had been with Rose in the days leading up as well and knew where Rose was going. Rose called the babysitter according to articles at the time, so that means she called her own mother and told her where she was. Did her mother support what she was doing? It seems possible at this point. Would the mother have seen any harm in her own son knowing? Probably not. But then the question is when law enforcement questioned her on whether or not she told anyone else where they'd be, what did she say? Did she tell them she told her son? It seems to me that would have made him worthwhile of a look.

I know the men on Roger's crew also knew where he was going and there's been some implied issues between some of the crew and Roger, because of his infidelities. Maybe he'd gotten with one of their girls at some point. Still...how would they know the hotel? How would they figure out the hotel number? Goes back to the brothers possibilities we'd discussed.

I think part of this might be about Rose's daughter. I think someone, or some people, didn't like how she was raised. Half-brother probably acted alone but I'd guess the family would have figured it out, accepted it, protected it.

But this is all just guessing at this point. If the half-brother thing is true, DNA is really all that's left, other than someone to come forward from the family. Even then, how and why probably died with him.

 

[CursSleuth]

McBrainder, in the regard of the soap bits I am in complete disagree with you as well Rose escaping and locking herself in the bathroom. There are alot of details (even the smallest) that we do not have the answers, at least the 3 of us discussing here. We only guess and cannot make hard evidence to work out. There are alot of small questions that still have no answer. You guys seem to have more knowledge of the facts and have spoken to persons close to the case i.e. detective and Rose's best friend.

I would so much these details were clarified:

-The boots near the briefcase were Roger's?
-Where it was found the rest of the soap?
-The message was written with soap bits or the carved soap?
-The soap and the soap bits had fingerprints or none? Which fingerprints in general were discovered? Only Rose and Roger?
- I read somewhere that the splattered blood indicated that the blows to the head were committed while the victims were laid down. It is true?
- How many phone calls were received and answered by Rose or Roger?
- How many phoce calls were placed by the victims?
- The first phone call was inbound or outbound? If it was inbound this indicates that the victims spoke where they would be to someone, regardless if they previously had not rented the room in antecipation which it was what probably happened as there was no room available when they came to the motel.
- What is on the autopsy report concerning the type of weapon used?
- What kind of receipts were on the floor?
- What police thinks of the bodies being cover by the bedspread? The killer did it after the murders?
- In the police sketch we can see the description of clothes hanging in the closet (Possible Roger's clothes) and no clothes in the room unless inside the briefcases, which means they did not have many time to unpack any clothing. Is this true?
- Roger had other girlfriend? Some from his crew?
-The mortician convention was being held in the motel at approx 9:30? How much noise was diffused?
- The bartender excuse for running away to some place after the murders.

Have you thought about my theory concerning the hot lather machine?

I cannot believe the killer carving soap and resting in the chair while talking to the victims, UNLESS maybe if it was CRH and FH. This implies going to the bathroom, pick some soap, sit in the chair, carving soap, talking... it does not make any sense at all, really, even if the killer was Rose's half-brother let alone someone not very trustful or weird to be there talking. Imagine yourselves making some point to your sisters in a motel room with their bfs or lovers... would you enter, start talking, go to the bathroom, pick soap, sit, carve, talk... sorry but this is not normal. In a situation like that you do not think to go to the bathroom, let alone pick up soap to carve. I can only believe in soap carving if it was CRH along with FH. Plenty of control in the room and talk maybe with the wacko CRH snooping around while FH was talking, CRH picks the soap and goes to rest in the chair and start to carve it grinding or dead serious...

Rose locking herself in the bathroom would eventually lead to her scream beyond belief and the killer would have been much more stressed and he would attempt to shut her up no mattter what, even if that included tear the door down even if that would put the killer in more danger to be found. No, I think she was caught in the corridor by surprise when she was near Room 260 after coming from the parking lot or the bar.

 

[CursSleuth]

I went to iowacoldcases and saw some interesting people replying there. One is the brother of the girl that was at the front desk of the Amana-Inn motel the day Rose and Roger where found deceased. The other is the son of the maid that discovered the bodies.

Also, some good piece of information. It seems this case is huge, it could be read for months...

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/keeping-cold-cases-alive-20150816

 

[mysterymike]

McBrainder and CurSleuth, you both present good arguments for your theories.

CurSleuth, I still have to agree with McBrainder about the soap bits. Yes, I understand that the killer is not going to go to the bathroom and get soap and come back out and nervously carve away at the soap while talking. But who's to say that the soap wasn't already lying on the table or nightstand near the chairs (for whatever reason) and the killer just nervously picked it up and started carving it out of nervousness while talking away at the victims, or even after the murders. Like I said, the soap could have already been lying on the table near the chairs and the killer just conveniently picked it up and started carving away. These are all theories here, of course. I never heard of the soap bits for shaving cream before, but I suppose anything is possible. In all reality, I really need to do some more deeper thinking on this soap bits thing, I haven't really thought about it all that much so far, but I need to now.

CurSleuth,I definitely believe the bodies were covered up because the killer was someone close to one of the victims and maybe he felt shamed afterward and wanted to cover up what he did. I have heard this happening at other crime scenes too.

McBrainder, I have to agree with CurSleuth about Rose locking herself in the bathroom. If she had done that, she would have had time to scream at the top of her lungs, which would have definitely brought attention to their room. In the investigation this would have come up if anyone had heard the screams.

What we really need to do is start over fresh with the basic FACTS of this case. When you present theories about a murder case, you have to start with the facts, and only the facts, and go from there. Otherwise, it's all just a guessing game. that's why we need to know the real story about things like the bartender, who went to the bar (Just Rose or both), did Rose herself move the car, all the phone calls at the hotel room, etc. This is information that can be made available to us if we only could talk to some of the people who were there.

And the first FACT in my mind is that this murder was done by someone known to the victims. This was not a stranger. To me, that's the first fact in this very complicated murder case.

 

[CursSleuth]

MysteryMike. After I post here I went to iowacoldcases and I read an interesting post concerning the soap bits. One person had the theory that the killer may have carved it but after the killings. It is the only theory I could believe relating it. I do not believe carving soaps while a conversation was in motion. The killer hitting them with an axe or meat cleaver splattered many blood so he got dirty with blood. The toothpaste and the towels indicate cleaning. If he cleaned himself up, he had to wait a little to get dry. Maybe it was after cleaning himself that he sat in th chair carving soap out of the blue and watch a little TV. He felt comfortable because he knew he wouldn't be bothered. The sign at the door outside would allow privacy and nobody would importunate the guests after 9:30pm. But if this happened we're talking about a cold-hearted killer. I think more than half of the people that would commit this kind of murder would maybe try to clean themselves up but complete in distress and maybe they wouldn not stay in the room. What I think we do know is no doubt about the hour of the crime. The unopened briefcases, Rose being clothed and even with her shoes on and Roger in undershorts clearly indicates that Rose was the one to go get the car out while Roger roomed around in the room in the meantime in undershorts. The killer must have struck right when Rose was at their room door or some minutes after she got inside.

 

[mcbrainder]

I should probably clear up that I don't really believe Rose was the one in the bathroom writing with soap. I've just played many scenarios in my head and that was one that crossed my mind. The soap could have meant a lot of things and could have been done for a multitude of reasons. Whatever the real reason is would be telling. I wish I could see a picture.

I would agree that this is probably worth looking at from a factual way. What's tough is that there's not a lot that we know for sure. Here's a few things we could work on by breaking them down and eliminating possibilities. Please add to the list what you'd really like to know:

Who was the target? Rose? Roger? Was it random?

Who moved the car?

Who was at the bar and at what time? What was the nature of the fight with the bartender?

Were they followed? Did someone tell the killer where they were? (This, by the way, would eliminate MANY possibilities, depending on the answer)

If followed, how was the room number figured out? Were they followed nearly to the door? Were they confronted outside?

Did the babysitter (mother) know the room number? Did she tell anyone the room number? At what time would that person have been told?

Whose receipts were on the ground and what were they for?

Was the soap carved before or after the mirror message? Was it carved before or after the murders?


I was thinking we could work a list and create all possibilities and see if we can't do some research and eliminate a few possibilities. I agree that we could forget suspects for now and try to create a timeline. I'm trying to be bold enough to reach out to a couple of people, but I don't know how far I'll get.

 

[mcbrainder]

I went to iowacoldcases and saw some interesting people replying there. One is the brother of the girl that was at the front desk of the Amana-Inn motel the day Rose and Roger where found deceased. The other is the son of the maid that discovered the bodies.

Also, some good piece of information. It seems this case is huge, it could be read for months...

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/keeping-cold-cases-alive-20150816

I've read those comments and I tried to reach out to the maid. Her son asked for me but she didn't want to talk about it.

 

[CursSleuth]

Who was the target? Rose? Roger? Was it random?

The target switches everytime we think of some suspect.

Who moved the car?

McBrainder, I think that issue is almost clarified. It was Rose. She got there to take out the car, got to the bar, went to the room and that is when the killer striked. She was completely clothed and I think she was discovered dead with her boots on... obviously Roger was already in undershorts because he was the one to stay in the room.

Who was at the bar and at what time? What was the nature of the fight with the bartender?

If your detective does not knew about this issue it is because it was all cleared out as superficial or dismissed evidence.
But I leave you with this link where it says, rather ankwardly I'm afraid:
"Was it the hotel bartender who argued with Rose the night of the murder, disappeared without his paycheck, abandoned his truck in Iowa City 22 miles to the east, and enlisted in the military?" - If it is true, it is very strange indeed... - LINK

Were they followed? Did someone tell the killer where they were? (This, by the way, would eliminate MANY possibilities, depending on the answer)
If followed, how was the room number figured out? Were they followed nearly to the door? Were they confronted outside?
Did the babysitter (mother) know the room number? Did she tell anyone the room number? At what time would that person have been told?
Whose receipts were on the ground and what were they for?
Was the soap carved before or after the mirror message? Was it carved before or after the murders?

Those are some specific questions that the police may not even have the answer.

I was thinking we could work a list and create all possibilities and see if we can't do some research and eliminate a few possibilities. I agree that we could forget suspects for now and try to create a timeline. I'm trying to be bold enough to reach out to a couple of people, but I don't know how far I'll get.

I will add mine from a previously reply:

-The boots near the briefcase were Roger's?
-Where it was found the rest of the soap?
-The message was written with soap bits or the carved soap?
-The soap and the soap bits had fingerprints or none? Which fingerprints in general were discovered? Only Rose and Roger?
- I read somewhere that the splattered blood indicated that the blows to the head were committed while the victims were laid down. It is true?
- How many phone calls were received and answered by Rose or Roger?
- How many phoce calls were placed by the victims?
- The first phone call was inbound or outbound? If it was inbound this indicates that the victims spoke where they would be to someone, regardless if they previously had not rented the room in antecipation which it was what probably happened as there was no room available when they came to the motel.
- What is on the autopsy report concerning the type of weapon used?
- In the police sketch we can see the description of clothes hanging in the closet (Possible Roger's clothes) and no clothes in the room unless inside the briefcases, which means they did not have many time to unpack any clothing. Is this true?
-The mortician convention was being held in the motel at approx 9:30? How much noise was diffused? (I think this is also very important!)

 

[CursSleuth]

We also could do a reharsal thing like:

If the killing was random how the facts we know fit in?
If the killer was Rose's half-brother how the facts we know fit in?
If the killer was CRH and FH how the facts we know fit in?

In that link I presented you earlier, McBrainder, is there this revealing argument:

"Raymundo Esparza, who committed a similar murder in a hotel near an Illinois interstate two months before and was in Iowa City that night?"
LINK (very interesting)

The image of the crime scene:

 

[mysterymike]

While it's certainly possible that the killer could be a stranger, I still prefer to go forward with my theory that the killer was known to the victims. I base this on the following reasons:
1. Both of the victims were covered up with a sheet, which has shown in other murder cases that the killer knew the victims.
2. Both victims had people in their personal lives that they could have easily angered.
3. The crime scene spoke of a rage-type killing.
4. And quite frankly, this was just an area where murder is basically non-existent, so if a person was murdered there, it would almost have to be someone known to the victims that had an axe to grind (pardon the expression).

Can we assume that the car was moved after it was dark outside? If this was the case, then I believe if Rose was the one to move it, this would have been a great opportunity for the killer to make his move, abducting her outside and forcing her back to her room. If this was a stranger, more than likely he would have just killed her outside and not forced her back to a room where he may not have had any idea where it was, unless he had been watching her and following her at the hotel.

Either way you look at it, Rose moving the car in the darkness by herself created a good opportunity for the killer to make his move. But, like I said, why force her to her room when you had no idea where that room was and you didn't know how far you had to go to get there, and taking a huge chance of being caught. Unless someone who knew her approached Rose when she moved the car and got her to agree to let him come to the room.

This case is actually so complicated it gives me a headache. There is so many possible scenarios that it's mind boggling.

How I wish I could talk to the bartender, which would clear alot of things up. If only I knew his name and where he lived.

Also, is the hotel still basically the same as it was when the murders happened? If so, I would really like to go there sometime and take a look around. That would help. I only live about 100 miles away from Amana.

 

[mcbrainder]

While it's certainly possible that the killer could be a stranger, I still prefer to go forward with my theory that the killer was known to the victims. I base this on the following reasons:
1. Both of the victims were covered up with a sheet, which has shown in other murder cases that the killer knew the victims.
2. Both victims had people in their personal lives that they could have easily angered.
3. The crime scene spoke of a rage-type killing.
4. And quite frankly, this was just an area where murder is basically non-existent, so if a person was murdered there, it would almost have to be someone known to the victims that had an axe to grind (pardon the expression).

Can we assume that the car was moved after it was dark outside? If this was the case, then I believe if Rose was the one to move it, this would have been a great opportunity for the killer to make his move, abducting her outside and forcing her back to her room. If this was a stranger, more than likely he would have just killed her outside and not forced her back to a room where he may not have had any idea where it was, unless he had been watching her and following her at the hotel.

Either way you look at it, Rose moving the car in the darkness by herself created a good opportunity for the killer to make his move. But, like I said, why force her to her room when you had no idea where that room was and you didn't know how far you had to go to get there, and taking a huge chance of being caught. Unless someone who knew her approached Rose when she moved the car and got her to agree to let him come to the room.

This case is actually so complicated it gives me a headache. There is so many possible scenarios that it's mind boggling.

How I wish I could talk to the bartender, which would clear alot of things up. If only I knew his name and where he lived.

Also, is the hotel still basically the same as it was when the murders happened? If so, I would really like to go there sometime and take a look around. That would help. I only live about 100 miles away from Amana.

I'll address some what has been posted in better detail tomorrow, but I do want to say that I was doing some deep diving on this and read multiple newspapers from the weeks that followed and I was able to find the name of the hotel manager who went in the room after the maid.

I'm composing a list of people that could potentially tell us more and he's now on it. I was also wondering--if this is connected to Rose, would the ex-boyfriend, the one who made a great suspect until his alibi checked out, have known anything? Surely, he'd know about half-brother and maybe some things Rose told him. He's still alive and I have his name as well.

 

[mcbrainder]

I'll quickly add another detail that might have no meaning, but that I learned today and didn't know. They checked in under Rose's name.

They also took Rose's car.

There may be some irony in the sense that I think they were cautious to cover Roger's tracks, when in fact, it may have been Roger who was in the wrong place, wrong time that night.

 

[trisha_mc]

Had Roger previously met the half-brother? If not, I can't see him just lounging on the bed in his underwear while they all get to know each other (assuming the perp at first entered in a non-threatening manner).

I can't imagine anyone "confronting" anyone else while sitting down. Even if I'm just arguing with my man about something, either the one talking is standing up over the other person, or the one being admonished is pacing around the room fidgeting with things (and these are very mild arguments). So no matter which perp(s) you like in this case, do you really imagine them just sitting around in a chair, with Roger chillin' on the bed in his Jockeys? Not likely, IMO.

WHICH makes me then wonder if there were any bits of soap found on the bottom of Roger's or Rose's feet? If not, then I would say the carving happened after the murders. Was there any soap residue found on either of their hands? If not, then the killer wrote on the mirror. I would think the waxy residue of holding a dry bar of soap in your hand would look different to a ME than just soap from washing up.

Toothpaste in the bathroom might be from cleaning up, but was it mixed with water like one would expect to see in that case or something else? Maybe the soapwriter first tried to write a message with toothpaste?

My opinion on Rose going to the bar is that Roger wanted to call his wife to "check in" with her, and sent Rose away so he could have a few minutes alone. They had only known each other for a month, right? Are we even able to confirm if she knew that he was married? Maybe she knew her half-brother was in town and so she invited him to swing by and say hi, thinking nothing of it.

Rose was fully clothed, but what does that mean? A dress with stockings plus shoes and all accessories? Or a tank top and shorts?

Too bad there are so many questions in this case and so few answers. It's a great one though!

 

[CursSleuth]

MysteryMike, I may be inclined to the theory that Rose was secretely followed after she went to the parking lot.

 

[CursSleuth]

WHICH makes me then wonder if there were any bits of soap found on the bottom of Roger's or Rose's feet? If not, then I would say the carving happened after the murders. Was there any soap residue found on either of their hands? If not, then the killer wrote on the mirror. I would think the waxy residue of holding a dry bar of soap in your hand would look different to a ME than just soap from washing up.

Good idea Trisha, however, like me and MysteryMike and McBrainder, we do not have a good deal of positive facts that could resolve pretty much of our theories. Tiny details that could help us move forward. Like the receipts on the floor. What kind of? It concerned who?

 

[4SAM]

Who was the father of Rose's child?

 

[mcbrainder]

Had Roger previously met the half-brother? If not, I can't see him just lounging on the bed in his underwear while they all get to know each other (assuming the perp at first entered in a non-threatening manner).

I can't imagine anyone "confronting" anyone else while sitting down. Even if I'm just arguing with my man about something, either the one talking is standing up over the other person, or the one being admonished is pacing around the room fidgeting with things (and these are very mild arguments). So no matter which perp(s) you like in this case, do you really imagine them just sitting around in a chair, with Roger chillin' on the bed in his Jockeys? Not likely, IMO.

WHICH makes me then wonder if there were any bits of soap found on the bottom of Roger's or Rose's feet? If not, then I would say the carving happened after the murders. Was there any soap residue found on either of their hands? If not, then the killer wrote on the mirror. I would think the waxy residue of holding a dry bar of soap in your hand would look different to a ME than just soap from washing up.

Toothpaste in the bathroom might be from cleaning up, but was it mixed with water like one would expect to see in that case or something else? Maybe the soapwriter first tried to write a message with toothpaste?

My opinion on Rose going to the bar is that Roger wanted to call his wife to "check in" with her, and sent Rose away so he could have a few minutes alone. They had only known each other for a month, right? Are we even able to confirm if she knew that he was married? Maybe she knew her half-brother was in town and so she invited him to swing by and say hi, thinking nothing of it.

Rose was fully clothed, but what does that mean? A dress with stockings plus shoes and all accessories? Or a tank top and shorts?

Too bad there are so many questions in this case and so few answers. It's a great one though!

I can answer the clothes question. Rose was wearing Jeans and a red blouse.

I like your thought about sending her away to call his wife. There were three calls. Two were to or from the babysitter (You gotta assume the first was to), and one was unknown.

As for sitting and having a conversation, I could see either scenario working, but it depends on what the conversation is and where it went. I play it out in my head in ways that makes sense and I see conversations of a certain nature that could be calm and collected. If the encounter starts with someone being let in and enough time passes that two people are willing to face down on the bed, then the encounter couldn't have been too loud, too quick, or too to-the-point. In other words, I don't think the killer entered the room and they were dead five minutes later. I think there would have been a full encounter that was either misleading to Rose and Roger, in the sense that they didn't know how it would end and the killer did, or escalated to a crime of passion, which brings up the question of why the murder weapon would have even been there in the first place.

For half-brother to have gone to the hotel to interrupt their getaway, he would have had to travel and go through a lot of trouble. That said, whatever was happening, couldn't wait. He could have met up with Rose on Monday. He could have talked over the phone. If the professor encounter is true, brother hadn't seen her in a couple months, suddenly tells professor he is going to see his sister, somehow not only sees her, but tracks her to where she is, which very few people would have known, and then kills her. It seems either premeditated or that the discussion was urgent and whatever he learned or was dealing with, made him angry enough over the course of that day to kill her.

I agree that Roger in his skivvies is out of the ordinary, but I also don't think it's impossible. Some people are just comfortable and careless like that. Now, if brother sees Rose in the parking lot, smiles and says "Rose! What the heck are you doing here?" and they end up going into the hotel together, that would definitely explain his composure.