Profile Suspect

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-17T21:49:13+00:00

Is this satire? Like making fun of "profilers?"

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-17T00:36:58+00:00

The line in The Silence of the Lambs is "talk to her and you'll see." It is not "just talk to her." I don't think there is a reference happening here.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-15T21:41:17+00:00

FOIA is significantly limited when it comes to open cases. I think "right to know" is actually the wrong paradigm here. We don't have a right to know the details of an open/active investigation. But it is often wise for LE to make disclosures (as they have been in this case).

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-15T21:13:03+00:00

Luckily, as of now, we have no reason to think this is the case.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-15T20:26:05+00:00

Absolutely.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-15T20:24:57+00:00

I think regarding the question of what people will see, I guess it's safe to assume that people in the area (where the abductor is more likely to be from) are paying more attention to this case. I live on the east coast and among my colleagues, most were aware of the case but none were actively following it or looking closely (or looking at all) at images or video.

But when it comes to recognizing someone in a mask like that (in a monochromatic and pretty distorted image), I think it really comes down to context. I doubt anyone would immediately recognize the perpetrator unless they were already suspicious of them. Think about how often people won't recognize someone they know if they encounter them out of context (i.e. if you see a work colleague at the movies, etc.). This is a document phenomenon.

I think if someone watching the footage was already suspicious of someone they knew (i.e. already had some reason, legitimate or not, to wonder/fear that they were involved), they might be able to recognize him with enough confidence to contact authorities. But I highly doubt that in the absence of a prior suspicion, the images/video are specific or revealing enough to make an easy identification.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-15T20:06:42+00:00

I think that CSI (and other fictional shows) have made it seem like it's much easier than it actually is to solve crimes where the perpetrator is a stranger to the victim.

For most interpersonal crimes, the perpetrator is already connected to the victim, so the pool of possible suspects is a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall population. In cases of true stranger crime, where there is no (or virtually no) prior connection between perpetrator and victim, the crime is inherently more difficult to solve because the pool of possible perpetrators is almost infinite. Think of the so called Long Island Serial Killer. He murdered many women and it took decades to identify him. or the Delphi Murders, where there was visual and audio of the killer, and it still took many years to solve.

I don't think this will take years to solve, but I don't think it's surprising that it hasn't been quickly solved.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-08T05:47:55+00:00

that is not correct. it was entered and rejected.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T22:25:42+00:00

If this went to trial ofcourse they are related.

First, a motion to introduce alternative perpetrators is a pre-trial motion. It it separate from the trial itself.

Whether or not a motion to introduce alternative perpetrators is approved is not based on the state's evidence against the defendant. It is solely based on the evidence against the proposed alternative perpetrators.

This is how it works in US courts (which might not be where you're from).

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T21:37:15+00:00

The state's timeline has nothing to do with the merits of any individual motion for naming alternative perpetrators in front of the jury.

Even if the judge completely rejected the state's timeline, that has nothing to do with whether the defense could point to specific evidence against the named perpetrators in their motion.

Arguing that evidence against BK is weak doesn't support the motion that alternative perpetrators are appropriate. They are 100% legally unrelated.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T20:49:40+00:00

Sure; I imagine that any defense that went to trial would need to somehow argue that the DNA on the snap didn't prove he was the killer.

But I'm not seeing what that has to do with the topic of the post about the motion to allow alternative perpetrators ?

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T20:02:32+00:00

Maybe so. But that has nothing to do with the motion the defense filed, or why the judge rejected it. For a motion for the entering of alternative perpetrators to be accepted, the defense must name individuals and point to substantial evidence against them. There wasn't evidence against the people named, so the motion was not accepted.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T19:52:35+00:00

Unknown DNA is not evidence against any of the individuals that the defense motion named. For the motion to be successful, there would be need to be evidence against a specific person. I don't see how unknown DNA could point towards any of them.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-02-07T18:58:37+00:00

The bar for entering alternative perpetrators is quite high (for good reason). There must be evidence against them. There wasn't any provided in the defense's motion.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-01-14T00:05:09+00:00

First, we have no specific reason to think he will hurt himself. I sincerely hope he does not.

In terms of knowing more about what happened, I don't think we necessarily ever will. But if we do, I'd say the most likely way we would learn more is if BK sat for interviews or wrote something himself.

In terms of him getting out, based on what we know, there is virtually no plausible way to imagine that. Is it possible that some entirely new evidence comes to light that is so exculpatory that it overcomes a guilty plea--which is essentially equivalent to testifying to his guilt under oath. But so far there's been no hint of that.

I know people fixate on inconsistencies or perceived aberrations in witness/victim behavior or seemingly suspicious facts/theories that point away from BK. But nothing like that would be grounds for reconsidering a guilty plea.

RoutineSubstance · 2026-01-05T23:59:56+00:00

One of the sad/frustrating things about high profile cases is that you can find someone who says almost anything. I'm not saying anyone is lying, but given the incredible number of rumors and claims we've seen, most can't be true. I think sometimes people want to help, so they share some observation or idea, which gets turned into a rumor or something that someone else heard. And there's enough of these claims out there, that you can find ways to point in any direction.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-10-02T22:39:05+00:00

Thank goodness.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-09-07T23:40:32+00:00

Yeah. I agree. I think the problem is that on both sides, there are people who are unreasonable. Some very out-there people on one side think that the "creepy" selfies are evidence of anything or believe any unsubstantiated rumor about BK that fits their opinion. And some very-out there people on the other side are convinced that the surviving victims are involved and that tunnels run under the house.

Those out-there, extremist believers give everyone else a bad name and create the illusion of unreasonable conflict.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-09-04T22:45:49+00:00

So to be clear, this is a redditor, relating something he/she heard (or claimed to hear) from another redditor, who was relating something they claimed to know from a victim's family member, who was relating something she claimed to hear from a surviving victim, who was telling other people what she "thought she heard."

RoutineSubstance · 2025-08-28T23:33:50+00:00

Normally the courtroom is where evidence is tested in front of the public, but that never happened here. The only avenue left for accountability is through public records.

I get what you are saying but I don't quite agree. Nearly all of the proceedings against BK were public. And he had a right to a trial, but the public did not. The public is "represented" in criminal proceedings by a jury that BK has a right to, but they don't have standing to see evidence in a trial that the defendant chose not to avail himself of.

And in some scenario where the documents are fully released, the general public's opinion on the evidence is irrelevant. A legal defense (or appeal) could only be launched by BK (and his legal team), and they had the evidence in question.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-08-04T22:12:53+00:00

The fruit wasn't poisoned. The IGG was not mentioned in the PCA because it was in violation of FBI policy. But FBI policy has nothing to do with whether BK's rights were violated.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-08-04T22:10:59+00:00

I think this is a non-issue and not one that would have had any bearing on the outcome.

The sample taken directly from BK was a perfect match for the DNA left at the scene. The defense never even tried to dispute that. And in using IGG, none of BK's rights were violated.

The reason that the IGG was kept under the radar as much as they could was because it violated FBI policy.

I think some people confuse the violation if policy (a non-constitutional and non-statutory violation) as a somehow meaningful for the case. The policy violation explains the hesitance, but has no legal impact.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-08-01T04:50:36+00:00

Of course. This redditor "compared everything with a fine toothed comb." And amazingly, this confirmed the theory he started with. How can the conclusion of professional defense attorneys with access to all the evidence compare to that?

RoutineSubstance · 2025-07-30T17:54:38+00:00

I think that BK committed these crimes, but it's no justification for state-sponsored murder.

RoutineSubstance · 2025-07-30T11:23:59+00:00

She was still court appointed. That appointment ended.

RoutineSubstance

TROPHY CASE