IL IL - Valerie Percy, 21, Kenilworth, 18 September 1966

[Kell1]

Oh and I think this basically explains the angle you are taking in this case

IL Il - THORESEN, William III - possible SK - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



Found this looking into Thorensen

 

[Dreamnine]

To be fair, in the book Sympathy Vote the author doesn't outright state that Thoresen did it; rather, that he should be considered a likely suspect based on his history and the other break-ins. Time is also given to the Fred Malchow possibility.

Other than these two, there aren't any other suspects after all this time.

 

[Dreamnine]

A piece on the case by someone who knew the Percys, uncovered by opinion1031 on the zodiac board:

http://mrslinklatersguidetotheuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/degrees-of-separation.html

 

[Betty P]

A piece on the case by someone who knew the Percys, uncovered by opinion1031 on the zodiac board:

http://mrslinklatersguidetotheuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/degrees-of-separation.html

Interesting. The author of the artcle claims the police were incompetent in investigating the case sincenthey didn't notice her brother's marijuana plants growing on the bluff sbove the beach. There were multiple LE agencies involved in the investigation and search, from the first day. The Coast Guard and neighboring poloce departments, including Chicago PD, helped do the search. This was a murder of the daughter of a wealthy executive and political leader, so every LE agency was called in.

The cops may have noticed her brother's pot plants, but ignored them. They were busy with a muder investigation. In those days, kids of wealthy parents pretty much were allowed to drug and party as they wished unless they disturbed other wealthy adult homeowners. Police were accustomed to ignoring a lot of problems in those neighborhoods (domestic violence, date rape, DUI, etc. Were seldom reported in an official capacity.)

Its also not surprising the campaign worker who was at the home that night was considered a suspect. He was one of the last people to spend time with her. The book reports there was some conflict between investigators over the need to polygraph those men. Some investigators pushed for it. It may have been done, but, while over 40 people were given LDTs, their names and test results have never been released.

Seeing those results might answer some questions.

 

[Winward1]

Rich, I've enjoyed the discussion. If I misunderstood something you wrote, apologies. I think for pretty good (multiple evidence based) reasons the cops 100% believed the Percy murder was linked to two home invasions and a burglary and I agree.

I also think evidence and facts prove the bayonet was the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone's free to disagree, though I think it's not reasonable to do so. Certainly don't mean to offend anyone and, generally, I agree with a lot about what you have said about investigating cases, not putting on blinders while investigating a specific lead, etc.

 

[Winward1]

Thanks for the post, Betty. I can tell you, that stuff about pot plants on the bluff in 1966, well, if that's true whoever Percy's neighbors were that were doing that were pre-67 "summer of love." Seems kind of hard to believe. I know pot's been around for eons but I grew up in that area and it really only became common to kids in area by the mid 70s, not '66.

The cops also, for the most part, were not incompetent. Any fault I see would be the FBI not sharing the info they had with IL State PD. They were notorious for that. I'm far from the first person to say that Hoover's #1 interest was publicity for the FBI (a short second to being comped by the mob at racetrack hotels.) Though if it seems odd they didn't feel they had enough probable cause to arrest Thoresen it would appear that would be because they had incriminating evidence on him, but more of it was in the hands of the State and local cops. Hence today's task forces investigate these things in the area now.

For the record, the current cop in charge of the Percy case has stated that he believes if this case happened today it would be solved because of the area's task force.

 

[Kell1]

Rich, I've enjoyed the discussion. If I misunderstood something you wrote, apologies. I think for pretty good (multiple evidence based) reasons the cops 100% believed the Percy murder was linked to two home invasions and a burglary and I agree.

I also think evidence and facts prove the bayonet was the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone's free to disagree, though I think it's not reasonable to do so. Certainly don't mean to offend anyone and, generally, I agree with a lot about what you have said about investigating cases, not putting on blinders while investigating a specific lead, etc.

That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, as is anyone else.

But remember were all here for the same, thing, its not about who's right and wrong, its about possibly creating a new avenue, for those in LE to maybe explore, and hopefully bring a case, to its end.

Background, I feel, has a lot to do with it, I was in law enforcement, as well as forensics, and EMS, I've seen my share of homicides, rapes, molestation cases.. you name it

Therefore I base my analysis on what I have experience, in.. it could be completely wrong, but its what I know even if it is .

The problem in this case, is even if it as an intruder, (I don't feel it was) , then the evidence, that could be interpreted as staging, even if it wasn't has to be explained.

 

[Winward1]

True. I know the cops in the case, at least some of them, were quite open to seemingly remote possibilities. One detective was quite suspicious of tampering and cover ups by Percy campaign staffers, not because they or the family had anything to do with the murder but because they were allowed (by KWPD) to hamper the investigation (at least during the first week) and as a result he felt their motivation may have been to protect the victim's, as well as Percy's, political image. That's not a stretch. The detective was from Chicago and had seen the worst police corruption there, first hand.

 

[Dreamnine]

I've had some email correspondence with the producer of The Generation Why Podcast.

He says that they will do a show on Valerie Percy sooner rather than later, and that I'm not the first to suggest it. I've linked him with this thread.

 

[Kell1]

True. I know the cops in the case, at least some of them, were quite open to seemingly remote possibilities. One detective was quite suspicious of tampering and cover ups by Percy campaign staffers, not because they or the family had anything to do with the murder but because they were allowed (by KWPD) to hamper the investigation (at least during the first week) and as a result he felt their motivation may have been to protect the victim's, as well as Percy's, political image. That's not a stretch. The detective was from Chicago and had seen the worst police corruption there, first hand.

I wouldn't doubt it ,

The Chicago Detective I read about (possibly the same one you are referring to ) said the scene, wasn't just sanitized, but he stated, the room was "renovated!"....and that was like 2-3 days after.

Id like to hire that crew for my bathroom.

But anyway I also read the neighbor's (the doctor who pronounced Valerie dead) letters that were made public after his death, he indicates, that he was at least somewhat suspicious of the Percy's claims as well.

A good friend of mine, who is a former detective, (40+ years) and forensic technician with the PA State Police, (he worked on the Aimee Willard homicide) made a good point when we were discussing the case, he said that its possible that the detectives, on the case weren't familiar with a staged scene themselves, and therefore went with the intruder theory, because break ins, were more along the lines of what they were used to .

He said he had seen that happen before .

He also said because Psycho Killers sell books, its not hard to see why it would make for a more attractive plot than an inside job and why an author might run with it.

 

[Winward1]

The sanitized quote was from around the 40th anniversary of the murder. While DiLeonardi (Chicago detective) is suspicious about possible involvement of Percy staffers due to political concerns (or simply local police allowing Percy staffers to act as go betweens, which they did), he states flat out that, in his opinion, nothing was staged. The same goes for Lamb, the state cop. Both had significant experience investigating murders, and perps who lied about their involvement.

DiLeonardi apparently mistakenly believes he was at Percy's the day after the murder but his own notes and police records indicate he was not assigned the case until 8 days later (Sept. 27.) But I understand 40 years is a long time.

The two also believe the perp in this case committed the two home invasions and burglary, two of which were no more than a mile away. Indeed, Dr. Hohf was suspicious of the goings on in the house. It was a very strange time and place.

Guy breaks into a house at 5 a.m. on a Sunday morning in a town full of millionaires where there hasn't been a murder in 75 years and beats and stabs someone who's in bed. One witness saw the guy seconds after the attack, standing over the victim and ran screaming to wake the others, alarm goes off, house is soon full of cops and friends and neighbors.

Hard to imagine anyone who was there at the time, or saw any of it, appearing normal.

 

[chlban]

I wouldn't doubt it ,


He also said because Psycho Killers sell books, its not hard to see why it would make for a more attractive plot than an inside job and why an author might run with it.

This is so true. Probably like most people here, I read a lot of true crime and I have read some books where you can just see how hard the author is trying to sell their theory. I just finished a book on the Boston Strangler, with the take that DeSalvo was not the strangler. I have believed for years that he was not, but the recent DNA evidence, along with reading this book wich was supposed to convince the reader that he, absoloutely was not the Strangler, has actually convinced me that he was.

That probably makes no sense to anyone but me, but sometimes I just find authors try so hard to make their cases, to me it is so forced it has the opposite effect.

Not always, there are many books I have read (Fatal Vision and Small Sacrifices come instantly to mind) that have absolutely, positively convinced me of the author's theory. But in those cases there is always so much evidence, both circumstantal and forensic, that I see no other conclusion.

When it is just a bunch of the author's conspiracy theory stuff, I come away not only disappointed, but often convinced of exactly what the author did not want to convince me of.

 

[Winward1]

I agree with Rich that every possibility should be considered plausible, if not probable. The number of books written about unsolved cases pales in comparison to those written about solved cases (there are publishers that won't even consider reading a manuscript about an unsolved case.) For the latter, I think it's a writer's obligation to present as much info about all leads (and where they went) as possible and leave it up to readers, who're going to believe what they want to believe regardless.

I'm not sure I buy that psycho killers per se are more interesting to readers than killers who're motivated for other reasons, though I'm sure there's an audience that go for that stuff. Is Helter Skelter the best selling true crime book because it involves psycho killers or victims with ties to Hollywood?

 

[Winward1]

We can debate what "proof" is that someone did something forever. As I may have said before, there are all kinds of folks who've been convicted with no murder weapon, or for that matter, no body. A jury often doesn't need prints, a weapon, or a body to believe they have proof that so and so murdered what's his name.

 

[Kell1]

This is so true. Probably like most people here, I read a lot of true crime and I have read some books where you can just see how hard the author is trying to sell their theory. I just finished a book on the Boston Strangler, with the take that DeSalvo was not the strangler. I have believed for years that he was not, but the recent DNA evidence, along with reading this book wich was supposed to convince the reader that he, absoloutely was not the Strangler, has actually convinced me that he was.

That probably makes no sense to anyone but me, but sometimes I just find authors try so hard to make their cases, to me it is so forced it has the opposite effect.

Not always, there are many books I have read (Fatal Vision and Small Sacrifices come instantly to mind) that have absolutely, positively convinced me of the author's theory. But in those cases there is always so much evidence, both circumstantal and forensic, that I see no other conclusion.

When it is just a bunch of the author's conspiracy theory stuff, I come away not only disappointed, but often convinced of exactly what the author did not want to convince me of.

Ive had it happen myself especially when you are a fan of a certain author .... for years, I took everything John Douglas said as law..Ive met the guy, Ive repeatedly read everything he's written (with the exception of his past book) -and I used them as study guides. Everything he wrote, I devoured... UNTIL I read his analysis on the Ramsey case .

Especially once Greg McCrary gave an analysis which was more along the lines of what I was thinking initially.... It bothered me for years.. who was right ? both had 20-25 years investigative experience in the most disgusting crimes that have ever occurred.

Sometimes you have to follow your gut and your experience

Now that doesn't mean I no longer give Douglas any credit hell Id sit in on a class with him in a minute .. but I cant agree on what this highly decorated, former FBI agent with all that experience, has to say about 1 crime ..But I agree completely with McCrary.

 

[Winward1]

FYI, the 48th anniversary of this case is tomorrow. RIP Valerie.

It has been said here that "because Psycho Killers sell books, its not hard to see why it would make for a more attractive plot than an inside job and why an author might run with it."

In this case I totally disagree. If one of the Percys or someone who worked for them or someone else they knew did it, and any such scenario was covered up while her father was running for high office, that would make for a far more interesting tale than if it was some psycho (though the psycho considered by the FBI to be a probable suspect in this case is a fascinating character, as is the investigation of this case.)

 

[chlban]

Ive had it happen myself especially when you are a fan of a certain author .... for years, I took everything John Douglas said as law..Ive met the guy, Ive repeatedly read everything he's written (with the exception of his past book) -and I used them as study guides. Everything he wrote, I devoured... UNTIL I read his analysis on the Ramsey case .

Especially once Greg McCrary gave an analysis which was more along the lines of what I was thinking initially.... It bothered me for years.. who was right ? both had 20-25 years investigative experience in the most disgusting crimes that have ever occurred.

Sometimes you have to follow your gut and your experience

Now that doesn't mean I no longer give Douglas any credit hell Id sit in on a class with him in a minute .. but I cant agree on what this highly decorated, former FBI agent with all that experience, has to say about 1 crime ..But I agree completely with McCrary.

Yes, Douglas absolutely lost me on the Ramsey Case. I felt, and still do, that he sold out. I am still not 100% convinced that even he believes his ridiculous "theory" on that one.

 

[STANDREID]

Yes, Douglas absolutely lost me on the Ramsey Case. I felt, and still do, that he sold out. I am still not 100% convinced that even he believes his ridiculous "theory" on that one.

Amen to that!

 

[Luckymanuh]

http://www.timesofoman.com/News/40050/Article-Crime-files-Who-killed-Valerie-Percy

Got an alert for this article on the 17th. I am sure ran because of the anniversary of Valerie's murder. I find it funny how the murderer's height is taller in this article. All the others put him at 5ft 6inches or alittle shorter, if I remember correctly.

 

[STANDREID]

Malchow "had flown up from Texas to rob the Percy mansion"? That doesn't pass the smell test with all the rich people he could have robbed without leaving that state. Also, what was he trying to rob from Valerie's room? I doubt that there was much of value in there with the possible exception of some jewelry and certainly not enough to enter a room that was occupied.

In my view, the criminal's mission was to kill Valerie (or her sister) - no robbery and no sexual assault; there were too many people home to pull a rape without being discovered right away. So my question is who would want her dead and why? Also, why didn't he strike down Mrs. Percy in order to improve his chances of escape?