Some thoughts verboten about Idaho tragedy?

Faces from the tragedy (spieltimes image)

Some of my thoughts in connection to the Idaho quadruple murders are probably not suitable for sharing with a widespread audience. Wouldn't a part of us want to see vigilante justice? Wouldn't such a thought creep into your head at some point? There was sufficient cause for thinking this even before the "probable cause" affadavit. 

And now? I would easily recommend something like a firing squad. Get it over with. Don't let him float out there like the BTK killer, available for interviews or research or whatever. 

Interviewed by who (whom)? Well, people into "criminology." And there's another point I could make outside of polite company: why not erase criminology studies and criminology majors from "higher education." 

People with vested interests will pounce on me. I have friends who are lawyers. They would say it's despicable to think of vigilante justice in any situation. Antithetical to the civilized world, they'd say. So I'd be looked upon as an uncivil person. It's a vested interest because people make their living in the legal field and see it as their turf. Think of all the people who are applying their legal chops as the case with the killer goes on and on. 

You know it'll go on and on. Haven't you followed these scenarios before? 

Do my lawyer friends really think that O.J. Simpson is out to "find the real killer?" The judicial record rules with these people. And O.J. was found not guilty. That was "remedied," sort of, with civil action that I guess ruled that O.J. was "responsible" for the deaths. While in criminal law he's considered not guilty. Or something like that. 

A question we have to ponder: How in hell were murder convictions ever made in the days before all the modern tools? I mean, DNA and surveillance cameras etc. 

 

Feline hero?

People are joking now that a cat might end up the hero of the Idaho case. A cat got up during the night to pee, activated a "Ring" camera and the camera caught the white Elantra making its departure. The "getaway car!" What if that hadn't happened, and what if DNA was not available as a resource? No hope for ever nailing the killer? Is this really how it used to be? 

Or did we allow greater breathing room for circumstantial evidence? If such evidence seemed strong, might there be license to convict? "Beyond any doubt" is such a high bar to clear. And would we want to risk a killer like Kohberger to free-roam again? 

My lawyer friends would say "the alleged killer." They would cite "presumption of innocence" with emphasis, as if this reflects the chief credo. Well of course we want to be right. But criminals purposefully seek to cover their tracks. Do we want to let them think they are so clever? 

The murder house (reuters image)

Vince Bugliosi's book about the O.J. case just presumed O.J.'s guilt. Bugliosi wrote that he was irritated by people in the media who called the case a "whodunit." He got so frustrated he used sarcasm. 

Speaking of being on a gravy train - what I asserted about the legal profession - let's put the media right in there too. A case like this gets traction and then everyone assumes their suitable roles. 

Defense lawyers love walking up to microphones. I have joked with a lawyer friend that the chief attribute of a defense lawyer is to walk up to a microphone outside a courthouse and say "this is a bombshell!" Hyperbole, yes. But it's a contest and the objective is to win! Salute the flag because this is America. 

Lawyers gravitate to sensational cases, maybe even to work "pro bono," because, well - you guessed it. Fame promotes advancement. I still remember the name Barry Scheck from the O.J. trial. I remember in my household, my father and I started joking that our dog was a fan of Scheck. 

 

Or you could say molasses

The legal process has appeals of course. These things move forward glacier-like. Good luck trying to get a death penalty to stick. To clarify, I often see the side of defense lawyers in the non-high-profile cases. I see the world much like defense lawyers, but when it comes to sensational cases, they become too bombastic. The Idaho killer will have people working in the background trying to build a defense case. 

We step in it when we say "Oh, I just know the guy is guilty." But I'll step in it in this case. The people who stepped in it with O.J. were right also. Nevertheless they would get slapped down by lawyers. Even if you said the civil case proved it, you'd get slapped down. We'd get lectured on how we'd have to accept the real legal record. The final judgment rules: not guilty. 

A pack of lawyers worked for O.J. Top lawyers will always line up to work in a sensational case. They will say of course that they are just being "advocates." That's how our U.S. legal system works: advocates on "both sides" and a judge in the middle who is only supposed to be a referee. In Europe you have the "inquisitorial" process in which the judge joins in the search for truth. The judge is sterile in America. 

Madison, Kaylee, Ethan, Xana (daily beast image)

We can expect a circus of a trial with this guy in Idaho, followed probably by appeals. The death penalty? Why in heck is this BTK killer still allowed to live? Oh I know it's the law. And we always have to respect the law. My lawyer friends would lecture me ad nauseam. 

The Idaho guy is guilty, OK? Can we not just take care of business and see that his life is ended? That is my recommendation. 

A knife killing of four college students in the middle of the night? 

 

Picture this

As I have suggested the following, I have been walking on eggshells, using the preface "fantasy." This is just a fantasy. My lawyer friends might excuse me this way. How about using the Internet to form a flash mob of several thousand people to encircle the place where the killer is being detained? The spokesman for the mob would say "we're coming in to get him and you'll have to shoot us to stop us." 

Isn't this remindful of how the Trump people stormed the nation's capital on Jan. 6, 2020? Isn't this a pretty exact parallel? The mob wanted to kill Mike Pence and probably his family too. Who knows how much carnage might have happened. As it was, law enforcement had to open fire to kill a female rioter from California. The mob that day was not even going after a killer, they just wanted to prevent a Democrat from becoming president. That mob has lots of sympathizers to this very day, like even where I live in Stevens County MN. 

So how about a flash mob out in Idaho? How many of us would lose sleep over such a thing? 

 

A "sugar baby?"

Too much information is being withheld from the public in Idaho. The father of one of the victims said he was "beginning to see links" between his daughter and Bryan Kohberger. This is according to the New York Post, Dec. 31. But alas, the father "said he wasn't ready yet to discuss the connections." 

Well, why the hell not? If the connections were innocuous, then why not? Was the guy going door-to-door selling magazine subscriptions? OK I joke. If the connections were not innocuous, it might unlock the door for understanding motive, however demented the killer was. 

Can't disclose the connections? Well then, guess what? We have to speculate. So much has been made of unbounded speculation. But with gaps or voids in the known background, this is rather an invitation. 

I have to think that something untoward was going on. Drugs? You never know. Sex? Exploring that runs the risk of shaming one of the departed. What if the daughter was a "sugar baby?" For me to say this is rather like my suggestion for vigilante action. Might be tamped down as verboten. 

I'll keep such thoughts on my lightly-read blog. Such thoughts might actually be scrubbed if I went broader. But here's the question: what if I am right? 

Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias," in his chapter on the AIDS epidemic, said "people are notorious for lying about their sexual behavior." Remember the woman who claimed she got AIDS from her dentist? She got peeled like a banana by the insurance company. Lawyers will discretely admit that human beings are capable of all sorts of seamy behavior. Anyone who has worked in life insurance can tell you same. 

Arianna Huffington (twitter)

"Sugar babies" are a most real phenomenon. College is getting more expensive all the time. You may not remember, but Arianna Huffington was the one who came forward, going on talk shows to tell us about "sugar babies and sugar daddies." Don't condemn me for just reminding about the phenomenon. I am only speculating on the connection between Kaylee and Bryan in Idaho. But I am invited to speculate by the admitted lack of disclosures. 

 

More secrecy

There is still another void I can cite. The search warrant for the Moscow murder suspect's apartment is sealed. Huh? A legitimate search warrant in a legitimate investigation to track down a killer? Sealed? According to a media account, "releasing the search warrant would create serious and imminent threats to law enforcement and could prematurely end the investigation." This could even "cause a threat to public safety," it was added. 

A search as part of a legitimate investigation, a desperate investigation to identify the knife killer of four college students? Would actually step on toes? Whose toes? Could endanger public safety? What the hell was going on out there in Moscow, Idaho? 

Is it time to re-think the whole model for how so many of our youth ages 18-22 live? Maybe that's the ultimate lesson. But in the meantime, we have about the most notorious multiple murders ever committed. Can it just be disposed of? Vigilante style maybe? Be done with it. Like we should've offed BTK? 

The legal profession gravy train would have to be abbreviated, aborted. No defense lawyer out on the front steps saying "this is a bombshell." Media cameras always ready. What hath God wrought? 

For that matter, could we just be done with Donald Trump? 

Did the search warrant for the killer's apartment turn up facts rather unflattering for at least one of the poor victims? That is very sad. But what about the principle of how sunshine is the best disinfectant?" 

Maybe the most heroic party in the whole spectacle is the cat. Right away I thought: there is the opening scene for the movie!

I have called Xana "the girl next door." The scholarship endowment is a fine gesture in her memory.

 

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwillh73@yahoo.com