Trail that led to Idaho quadruple murder suspect | Hacker News Reader

Trail that led to Idaho quadruple murder suspect

oregonlive.com

9 pointsO__________O14 comments

> The cellphone data also included another chilling detail, the affidavit said: The phone returned to the victims’ neighborhood hours after the attack, around 9 a.m. But even though one of the surviving housemates had seen a strange man inside and heard crying after 4 a.m., the killings were not reported to police until later that day, and there was no police response at the scene by 9.

1) This bit is weird.

2) Everything else seems like he could be framed. Take his car. Take his phone. Sprinkling some of his DNA on the knife. Etc. Given that he was a PhD student in criminology his slip ups (?) sound intentional. He can't be that ignorant of tech and crimes, can he?

3) I don't understand how he did it alone. According to the reports I've heard, two of the (female) victims were sleeping in the same bed. He got them both with no screaming? And then two more with no screaming? And the eye witnesses saw a stranger - in the middle of the night? - but weren't the least bit suspect and didn't check on their roommates the next morning?

You've being downvoted because asking questions isn't allowed, conspiracy theorist.

I wasn't trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I was mainly wanting to point out that what is being passed off here as evidence and proof is completely circumstantial (and therefore not that hard to "fake" since the bar seems so low). It's hardly, as presented "air tight" (i.e., anyone reasonable would have obvious doubts).

I don't see anything CT about it. The "facts" here are "thin" at best. If I'm surprised at anything, it's that they didn't toss in the usual "...and the suspect has no social media presence..." (which I guess makes you a bad person, that not being on SM is in itself a crime?)

The cops and everyone involved are heroes. Do not question the professionals. Trust the science.

I'm not sure the delayed report is all that strange... when a bunch of college kids rent a big house, strangers are not that uncommon; relationship drama (crying) isn't that uncommon; sleeping in past 1pm isn't that uncommon. As long as the murderer didn't leave trails of blood through shared space, waiting until late in the day to check on somebody seems pretty normal to me. Especially if you heard folks up at 4am, politeness dictates you give them extra time to sleep in.

First, "sprinkle some DNA", really?

Second, yes, not everyone screams when they're stabbed or wake up with someone else in their room. Many, many, many, many murders of multiple people in houses have been recorded where others were sleeping next to them, in adjacent rooms, even awake in the same house while they occurred.

Third, if you assume he did it, it's reasonable to think he would return to the crime scene for any number of reasons: to retrieve the knife sheath or potentially plant evidence, to watch the police response, to relive it, maybe to admit guilt for it ...

Fourth, you're also conveniently leaving out other facts that don't fit your theory, like him changing the plates on the car.

And finally, if some mastermind was able to steal his car, phone, knife and sheath, commit these murders, return with his car and phone to the crime scene 5 hours later, and return them all and abscond away unnoticed - bravo, but that's not how 99.99999999999% of murders in history have gone down, even ones much more meticulously planned than this.

Occam's Razor.

> that's not how 99.99999999999% of murders in history have gone down

According to most recent FBI data on topic, currently about half of all murders in the United States today go unsolved.

Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/poli...

First, so you don't believe it's possible to plant DNA? That it could never EVER happen? Gawd you're naive, and also seemingly unaware that DNA isn't necessarily proof-positive.

Second, references please. We'd be especially interested in ones where two people were in the same bed and both went out in silence. Nonetheless, that doesn't help with incrimination here. That doesn't make him any more guilty, does it? (Hint: Nope).

Third, you're completely discounting what his PhD work was in. Imagine doing PhD level study and making ALL the classic bone-head mistakes. How does that make sense to anyone reasonable?

Fourth, I'm not leaving out anything. I'm saying - and to your point (thanks for mentioning the plates) - everything presented "as is" is circumstantial. I never mentioned a mastermind. Only that, car stealing...easy. Phone stealing...easy. DNA...super easy. Changing plates...hardly proof of guilt.

Where you and "the facts" are failing is simple:

- No eye-witness - Car and phone !== person. Nuff said. - No motive

The reality is, based on facts - as they are today - my theory is just as good if not better than yours. So yeah, there's that. You can calm down now. It's ok. It's simply a "what if" discussion that's obviously beyond your small-minded capabilities.

p.s. Also, references to Occam's Razor as a legal tool in a court of law would be a big help.

Personal insults aren't really adding to the discussion.

Agree, flagged the comment, since personal attacks are against HN guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Specifically, “When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.”

I hope you flagged the comment it's child to, as that parent wasn't discussion-minded either.

p.s. small-mminded is a state of mind. It's not "name calling."

No they're not. But he obviously isn't interested in a discussion. I have no time or stomach to coddle such small minds. So they reply was intentionally terse.

> The cellphone data

Jan 6, 2000 mules, killers, so many lacking _basic_ OPSEC. Scary to think about what a competent individual can accomplished if given the motivation.

https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-google-geofence-warrant-janu...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/13/us/google-loc...

JS-free archive NYT link:

https://archive.today/36JFq

Reply on news.ycombinator.com