And this not so well travelled road, just happens to be the adjacent to the location where her body was found?
I also read that the Attorney who found her coat took it home and waited till that evening to call police, ?
The article also seems to insinuate that the attorney was on his way to pick up his housekeeper who lived near the site where both she and the raincoat were discovered
The areal picture, seems to show that where she was found looks to be some type of entrance point to the corn field , some place a car could be pulled over close to where he intended to dump her, and get out of there quickly .
If where the technician can be seen in that photo is where her body was located, she's not far off the road at all... this was most likely a quick dump and go . But again I state, that this was somewhere he felt comfortable doing so , someplace he was familiar with
In abduction cases, there are usually 3 points, when the offender is most stressed, and will usually search within a prescribed area of comfort. 1) is upon initial contact with the victim - worry about being seen, unpredictable victim response, possibility of identification, in most cases they are in the area for legitimate reasons, like living or working there (66%).
2) Time surrounding the actual homicide itself , immediately before, during and immediately after .. primarily if this wasn't a planned killing.
3) When dumping a body, and this is usually a better indicator . because they are now with a deceased victim, the stress is higher .
If they are caught with a living victim.. they stand a better chance, of avoiding death or life . If they are caught dumping a deceased child, who's been abducted and sexually assaulted, they have a HUGE problem ..so it makes sense they tend to favor places where they feel comfortable
Was an equivocal death analysis ever done?.. do we know how long she was deceased prior to being dumped ?
A study done by the Washington state attorney generals office, on abduction homicide , states that in 72% of cases, the distance, from the murder site to the body recovery site drops to less than 200 ft!
If you take into account that most children murdered during an abduction are killed within the first 2-3 hours, its safe to assume that Kelly was already deceased before her parents even reported her missing .. This seems especially true do the fact she was sexually assaulted, but not raped . If she was kept somewhere I feel you'd see much more evidence of rape .. Unless she was held somewhere , which doesn't seem likely though without a time of death , its still a possibility.
Unless her body was kept somewhere, then I assume she was dumped soon after she was killed.
If you figure in the Findings in the study done by the Washington state attorney generals office, its a safe bet she was killed near where she was found .
That location though could be a vehicle .
I find it odd that 2 days later someone would just happen upon a raincoat in the middle of an unpopular road, making no mention of never having seen it before on his travels.
It even seems more odd, to me that someone would pick it up and take it home, namely a lawyer, why the hell would anyone pick up a piece of clothing in a road and take it home ?
I see shoes, bags, sweatshirts in the street all the time.. never once did I decide "hey I better take this home". Its made more odd because its near where she was found, and turned out to be her raincoat.
Its not unheard of for a killer to re-visit a body dump site, but why wait 2 days to leave a clue to where she was ? .. he wanted her found ? then why even hide her in the 1st place ? I don't know of too many killers who will hide a victim, return to the area risk being seen, only leave clues to where the body is.
Now its important to note, its entirely possible she was dumped, there immediately before the coat was found, or that she was dumped with the coat that blew onto the road , or was possibly dragged there by animals etc... there's no forensic data available that I could find that stated 1) how long she was dead 2) how long they believe she was laying there at the site .
The bolt in the pocket, depending on size, could have several meanings, it could've been to weigh it down so it wouldn't blow off the road, It could've been something she just picked up, kids will pick up anything that catches their fancy, it could also be just something to throw investigators off, it could be an actual piece of evidence, the bolt is a tough piece to get a bead on.
Often the offender will inject himself into the investigation, and if you figure in that in 74% of cases, the name of the killer is known within the 1st week, which is why I find it odd that this "attorney" would simply find a raincoat, in the middle of a rural road, take it home, no less then call police later that evening, it seems really weird to me, again unless you are poor or homeless, why the hell would you feel the need to pick up a piece of clothing from the street , and keep the damn thing?
This puts him in the investigation, it explains any of his fingerprints, on the coat , he knows the area, he has a legitimate excuse to be in the area .
Im not saying this attorney who found the coat is responsible, but it seems odd to me , and worthy of deeper investigation.
I also read that the Attorney who found her coat took it home and waited till that evening to call police, ?
The article also seems to insinuate that the attorney was on his way to pick up his housekeeper who lived near the site where both she and the raincoat were discovered
The areal picture, seems to show that where she was found looks to be some type of entrance point to the corn field , some place a car could be pulled over close to where he intended to dump her, and get out of there quickly .
If where the technician can be seen in that photo is where her body was located, she's not far off the road at all... this was most likely a quick dump and go . But again I state, that this was somewhere he felt comfortable doing so , someplace he was familiar with
In abduction cases, there are usually 3 points, when the offender is most stressed, and will usually search within a prescribed area of comfort. 1) is upon initial contact with the victim - worry about being seen, unpredictable victim response, possibility of identification, in most cases they are in the area for legitimate reasons, like living or working there (66%).
2) Time surrounding the actual homicide itself , immediately before, during and immediately after .. primarily if this wasn't a planned killing.
3) When dumping a body, and this is usually a better indicator . because they are now with a deceased victim, the stress is higher .
If they are caught with a living victim.. they stand a better chance, of avoiding death or life . If they are caught dumping a deceased child, who's been abducted and sexually assaulted, they have a HUGE problem ..so it makes sense they tend to favor places where they feel comfortable
Was an equivocal death analysis ever done?.. do we know how long she was deceased prior to being dumped ?
A study done by the Washington state attorney generals office, on abduction homicide , states that in 72% of cases, the distance, from the murder site to the body recovery site drops to less than 200 ft!
If you take into account that most children murdered during an abduction are killed within the first 2-3 hours, its safe to assume that Kelly was already deceased before her parents even reported her missing .. This seems especially true do the fact she was sexually assaulted, but not raped . If she was kept somewhere I feel you'd see much more evidence of rape .. Unless she was held somewhere , which doesn't seem likely though without a time of death , its still a possibility.
Unless her body was kept somewhere, then I assume she was dumped soon after she was killed.
If you figure in the Findings in the study done by the Washington state attorney generals office, its a safe bet she was killed near where she was found .
That location though could be a vehicle .
I find it odd that 2 days later someone would just happen upon a raincoat in the middle of an unpopular road, making no mention of never having seen it before on his travels.
It even seems more odd, to me that someone would pick it up and take it home, namely a lawyer, why the hell would anyone pick up a piece of clothing in a road and take it home ?
I see shoes, bags, sweatshirts in the street all the time.. never once did I decide "hey I better take this home". Its made more odd because its near where she was found, and turned out to be her raincoat.
Its not unheard of for a killer to re-visit a body dump site, but why wait 2 days to leave a clue to where she was ? .. he wanted her found ? then why even hide her in the 1st place ? I don't know of too many killers who will hide a victim, return to the area risk being seen, only leave clues to where the body is.
Now its important to note, its entirely possible she was dumped, there immediately before the coat was found, or that she was dumped with the coat that blew onto the road , or was possibly dragged there by animals etc... there's no forensic data available that I could find that stated 1) how long she was dead 2) how long they believe she was laying there at the site .
The bolt in the pocket, depending on size, could have several meanings, it could've been to weigh it down so it wouldn't blow off the road, It could've been something she just picked up, kids will pick up anything that catches their fancy, it could also be just something to throw investigators off, it could be an actual piece of evidence, the bolt is a tough piece to get a bead on.
Often the offender will inject himself into the investigation, and if you figure in that in 74% of cases, the name of the killer is known within the 1st week, which is why I find it odd that this "attorney" would simply find a raincoat, in the middle of a rural road, take it home, no less then call police later that evening, it seems really weird to me, again unless you are poor or homeless, why the hell would you feel the need to pick up a piece of clothing from the street , and keep the damn thing?
This puts him in the investigation, it explains any of his fingerprints, on the coat , he knows the area, he has a legitimate excuse to be in the area .
Im not saying this attorney who found the coat is responsible, but it seems odd to me , and worthy of deeper investigation.
