4 Idaho college students killed in "worst crime we've ever seen". Suspect arrested 12/30
- Thread starter goatmane
- Start date
When I was 24, my house got broken into, and I took a heavy loss in terms of money. You could call me a high risk victim, for obvious reasons. I was younger and less careful, but I wasn't really sloppy. Not many people came to my house. No bringing home strangers from the club. No after parties. Never strangers.
I never figured out who did it, but what I still always come back to the timing, that's what in hinges on for me. I got home that night around 11:00 or so, maybe 10:30, I was only home for under 15 minutes, I went out on one more errand, which probably took 45 minutes or so, when I came back, my house had been broken into, the person climbed up into my balcony, broke a window and left out of the front door. They were so quick they left high value items in plain sight, simply because it would have taken another -60 seconds or so.
Neighbors called the police, who showed up minutes later, but couldn't access the building, got another call and left. I arrived shortly after. So, that puts the time of break in, almost parallel to me leaving the house. Either they had fixed surveillance, (were watching my house for some period of time and saw me come home, but why not do it before, IE I wasn't home, and they had NO knowledge of my movements) or had just arrived, (which would be the most coincidental and least likely) or there was someone in the immediate neighborhood who watched me come, and watched me go, and decided to just do it right then.
To connect this to the Idaho murders, how did the suspect know who would be home? It was 2:00 AM or later when the killings happened. You would have to stay up, or be up already, in the area and ready to go. You don't just run into a house to murder someone (assuming this was pre planned, which may not be the case) not knowing if your target is even home? One of the women could have met someone and gone home, gone to an after party, how would he know for sure?
Social media: Which indicates he followed them, and was local at a minimum.
Fixed surveillance: (would have to be in a car, because it's freezing) waiting outside until he was sure he saw the target enter
An immediate neighbor with a view of the house: would be an easy way for sure
Or was the person in contact with one of the victims, or even to expand on that, invited over by one or more of the victims?
Someone who had been in the house multiple times, would have likely known the access codes, no signs of forced entry, or was in invited in, or broke in, through a way that could be closed on way out, an open window, but given the temp?
I have a lot of times on my hands this weekend, so forgive these think pieces, but I love the analysis of most things, but esp. crime.
I never figured out who did it, but what I still always come back to the timing, that's what in hinges on for me. I got home that night around 11:00 or so, maybe 10:30, I was only home for under 15 minutes, I went out on one more errand, which probably took 45 minutes or so, when I came back, my house had been broken into, the person climbed up into my balcony, broke a window and left out of the front door. They were so quick they left high value items in plain sight, simply because it would have taken another -60 seconds or so.
Neighbors called the police, who showed up minutes later, but couldn't access the building, got another call and left. I arrived shortly after. So, that puts the time of break in, almost parallel to me leaving the house. Either they had fixed surveillance, (were watching my house for some period of time and saw me come home, but why not do it before, IE I wasn't home, and they had NO knowledge of my movements) or had just arrived, (which would be the most coincidental and least likely) or there was someone in the immediate neighborhood who watched me come, and watched me go, and decided to just do it right then.
To connect this to the Idaho murders, how did the suspect know who would be home? It was 2:00 AM or later when the killings happened. You would have to stay up, or be up already, in the area and ready to go. You don't just run into a house to murder someone (assuming this was pre planned, which may not be the case) not knowing if your target is even home? One of the women could have met someone and gone home, gone to an after party, how would he know for sure?
Social media: Which indicates he followed them, and was local at a minimum.
Fixed surveillance: (would have to be in a car, because it's freezing) waiting outside until he was sure he saw the target enter
An immediate neighbor with a view of the house: would be an easy way for sure
Or was the person in contact with one of the victims, or even to expand on that, invited over by one or more of the victims?
Someone who had been in the house multiple times, would have likely known the access codes, no signs of forced entry, or was in invited in, or broke in, through a way that could be closed on way out, an open window, but given the temp?
I have a lot of times on my hands this weekend, so forgive these think pieces, but I love the analysis of most things, but esp. crime.
Last edited:
Atlanta 80s baby
Pro
No word yet huh. If you gotta do a mission, a sharp edge is the way to go. Dude could be deep in the Canada woods plotting his next move.
Apparently law enforcement is hard in a community when the police don't have Black men to blame stuff on.
You best believe if there were some brothers in that town then that shyt would have been solved 18 seconds after it happened. The brothers would not have actually done it, but the cops don't care about stuff like guilt or innocence when it comes to Black men.
Last edited:
Pegasus Jackson
Trump's Amerikkka
http://shutthefukkup.com/
I'd say the killer got away. Cops said they don't even have a single photo of a suspect from Any video recovered.
About 35% of murders go unsolved. About 50% of the population is female. You're letting them get away with this kind of attitude sir.
Still haven't heard a good reason why the roommates aren't considered suspects by outsiders.
As mentioned, there are some indications that LE might be leaning that way.
About 35% of murders go unsolved. About 50% of the population is female. You're letting them get away with this kind of attitude sir.
Still haven't heard a good reason why the roommates aren't considered suspects by outsiders.
As mentioned, there are some indications that LE might be leaning that way.
I don't understand that statistic? But, the percentage of women who commit violent crimes of this nature is very, very small.
It was a joke. But ruling out a woman in any particular case beforehand is foolish regardless of statistics. In any given case one simply doesn't know what one is dealing with until it is solved.
On another note: it seems it was one of those apartments with a high turnover rate of student cliques/generations and they had only just rented it. Wouldn't be surprised if the locks weren't changed regularly and it's over a dozen people with duplicate keys walking around in their pockets with the land lord not having a clue how many keys are in circulation. Might have been a peripheral person from an earlier generation of inhabitants that still has a key and never got on in life and kept an eye on the house. Such a person would've been familiar with the house and known where to hide/how to navigate quietly.
god shamgod
Veteran
These Andy Griffith ass cops wasn’t ready for nothing like this. Whoever did this is free & if they had any sense should be way tf outta dodge. Dna the only hope
Suspects in these types of cases tend to leave quickly, or sometime soon after the killing. Behavior changes. Heavier drinking, not going to work.
The other thing is there was no torture, no mutilation, no dismemberment, nothing to suggest the killer got sexual pleasure from these kinds of killings. It was anger, rage. Not like a serial killer who punishes his victims, or tortures them, because that's what he needs from the killings. That to me, anger, and rage, again, comes back to personal.
The other thing is there was no torture, no mutilation, no dismemberment, nothing to suggest the killer got sexual pleasure from these kinds of killings. It was anger, rage. Not like a serial killer who punishes his victims, or tortures them, because that's what he needs from the killings. That to me, anger, and rage, again, comes back to personal.
At this point all I can think is that whoever the killer is, they're related to someone prominent.
