Idaho College Killer Suspect Arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm surprised he would not have been aware of his cellphone trackability. Maybe he is not that bright.

I agree with @Trav wait and see how this plays out. Innocent until proven guilty.
Or maybe it could be a sick mind teasing the system while covering all his other tracks because no one can be convicted on cell phone data.
Though I doubt that is the case here, some sick people want to get caught, that is proven time and time again.
Question is if he will be tied to other murders or missing persons.
 
I suspect they will be going through years of cell pings on this guy and see if he was close to any other missing or murdered people as well.
They most likely have DNA from unsolved crimes, so all they have to do is match DNA.
 
I agree with @Trav wait and see how this plays out. Innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, but once he's been arrested and charged with a crime his name and info about him is going to be public information ... that's how the legal system has always worked.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but once he's been arrested and charged with a crime his name and info about him is fair game to the public ... that's how the legal system has always worked.
Yeah, they only do that in Dictatorships. When you think about it as I posted previously what our police agencies do is public information and when someone is arrested, it’s to the benefit of the public that the person is identified, the reason being is this prevents the government/police agencies from pulling people off the streets never to be seen again.
Anyone arrested has to be identified to the public this ensures accountability to governmental/police agencies.
 
^^ here is an example to my post above.
Full disclosure by police agencies is a must in a free country. You cant arrest someone and hide it, the public has a right to know and the person arrested, who is innocent until proven otherwise has a right for concerned parties to know what has happened to him or her when the government/police take him or her away. There has to be a paper trail of what happened to this person.

Screenshot 2023-01-01 at 2.32.38 PM.png
 
You cant arrest someone and hide it, the public has a right to know and the person arrested,
I think people are getting confused between a "suspect" in a crime, and someone who's actually been arrested and charged with a crime. Police don't release names of suspects, but they do release names of people who have been arrested and charged with a crime.
 
He looks pretty calm. If it were me and I didn't do it, I'd be freaking out!
He's also in a suicide prevention garment, which means he's either already made suicidal statements, or has done something to harm himself while in custody. Not aware of anyone having a policy where you would immediately put someone in that garment, regardless of what they've been charged with or found guilty of.
 
He's also in a suicide prevention garment, which means he's either already made suicidal statements, or has done something to harm himself while in custody. Not aware of anyone having a policy where you would immediately put someone in that garment, regardless of what they've been charged with or found guilty of.
Or in such a national case CYA to make sure he gets to the next state alive!
 
Or in such a national case CYA to make sure he gets to the next state alive!
Ehh, not necessarily. If they don't give you a reason to, you generally don't as 'suicide watch' is generally a pretty miserable place to be and involves not giving that particular inmate the same rights as others. Generally that is an area that you tread lightly and don't just willy nilly put people on.

That garment he's wearing, that's ALL you get. You get no bedding, no other covering except maybe a blanket that looks just like that garment. no shoes, no underwear (yes, completely naked under that green thing) and usually no bed to lay on except maybe if the floor in the designated suicide area is 'padded'. No books, no papers, and your meals are fed with either a paper spoon, or a piece of celery.

All-in-all, the inmate has to give you a reason to, be it by statements or actions, and killing folks, isn't one of those actions, in general. Depends on how the jail's policy is written, but lots and lots of jails follow pretty standard policies, with small modifications made. You don't start making exceptions because you don't want to all of a sudden have to defend a non-standard procedure if something goes sideways.

Now, a statement can be as simple as something along the lines of 'y'all should just go ahead and kill me'. 99.9% of the time that one will get you there, usually they spend a few days on watch, and a mental heath practitioner comes along and clears them to population.
 
He looks pretty calm. If it were me and I didn't do it, I'd be freaking out!
There are some police interviews with murderers on YouTube. Some are insane and some are pretending to be insane. One insane murderer was very calm talking to and confessing to the detective.

They also have video of an innocent guy being questioned by the police for a murder. He was pretty calm, too.
 
He's also in a suicide prevention garment, which means he's either already made suicidal statements, or has done something to harm himself while in custody. Not aware of anyone having a policy where you would immediately put someone in that garment, regardless of what they've been charged with or found guilty of.

Its normal protocol for high profile inmates to be put in solitary confinement and on suicide prevention / watch.
 
When I read that as part of his Criminal Science studies that he had solicited criminals to fill out a survey regarding how they picked victims, how they planned their escape, etc. I immediately thought of the Alfred Hitchcock movie "Rope".

For those not familiar with the movie, it was based upon the Leopold and Loeb murder case in the 1920's. Two wealthy young students who thought they were smarter than everyone else thought they could commit the "perfect crime" and murdered a teenage boy. And they got caught.

It sounds like this alleged killer was another sociopath who may also have decided to see what it was like to be in the shoes of a killer and see if he could get away with it.

He attended college only about 10 miles away from the U. of Idaho and it was common for college students from the U. of Washington and U. of Idaho to socialize. It will be interesting to see if he was known to the victims or just stalked them at random as part of his sick plan. My guess is it wasn't a "targeted" killing in the respect that he had something against one or all of the victims and the fact that one of the victims received more violent wounds may just be that she was the first one killed. Or last one, and at that point the killer was so worked up into a killing frenzy that she got the worst of it.

A sad situation for sure. And yes, evil does exist in the world. Call it mental illness if you like but sometimes people just snap.
I also thought about the Leopold and Loeb murder case (after hearing a guy on TV make the analogy). I'm betting this psycho acted something along those lines (seeing if he could outsmart the system rather than any attraction/rejection to/by one of the females.

PS: Leopold and Loeb got Life plus 30 years but Loeb was killed in jail and Leopold was let out after 30 someting years (33 I think....which is disgraceful IMO...he should have rotted in jail for murdering a boy to satiate his vanity). I hope this guy meets Loeb's fate..

PS2: The U of Washington is in Seattle....at the other (western) end of the state. It's Washington State University in the very eastern part of the state that's near Moscow, Idaho.
 
The suspect has been charged with four counts of burglary too. What is that all about ? Did he take some objects or possessions from the victims, or is a burglary charge normally made when a person enters the home of another without authorization regardless of whether or not they take something that doesn't belong to them ? And could it be if the suspect entered through an unlocked door, that charge was levied because it wasn't "breaking and entering" ?

Regarding the Leopold & Lowe case, famed lawyer Clarence Darrow made an impassioned bleeding heart argument against the death penalty that spared both of them from that fate. That was back in the day when many convicted killers were in fact executed based upon poor or faulty evidence, poor defense or other sketchy factors. Today I seriously doubt there are any truly innocent people on death row. We are a lot more careful as a society at even charging and trying people with capital offenses and with the number of appeals they get
maximum caution is taken not to convict and execute someone just to satisfy a vengeful public.
 
The suspect has been charged with four counts of burglary too. What is that all about ? Did he take some objects or possessions from the victims, or is a burglary charge normally made when a person enters the home of another without authorization regardless of whether or not they take something that doesn't belong to them ? And could it be if the suspect entered through an unlocked door, that charge was levied because it wasn't "breaking and entering" ?

Regarding the Leopold & Lowe case, famed lawyer Clarence Darrow made an impassioned bleeding heart argument against the death penalty that spared both of them from that fate. That was back in the day when many convicted killers were in fact executed based upon poor or faulty evidence, poor defense or other sketchy factors. Today I seriously doubt there are any truly innocent people on death row. We are a lot more careful as a society at even charging and trying people with capital offenses and with the number of appeals they get
maximum caution is taken not to convict and execute someone just to satisfy a vengeful public.
My understanding unless he actually burgled (took possessions that were not his within the parameters of the property), the proper charge would be breaking and entering.
 
My understanding unless he actually burgled (took possessions that were not his within the parameters of the property), the proper charge would be breaking and entering.

The murders are a felony crime, so he commited a felony burglary when he went in to kill people ("or any felony within" per the definition) ... he didn't have to take anything.

1672690374265.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom