ST Murder Investigation Thread

It's not fact, it's speculation; which IMO is something people really need to be careful about right now.

Sorry. I threw the word 'fact' in there not to mean it was a straight truth; was just what I typed. I didn't mean it in that way.

The only two things we know for certain:

1.) Somebody broke in 8 days before
2.) Nothing was taken in either break ins

Judging by what we know, and not speculative information (like the phones, security system, etc.), I think it's safe to say that the motive was NOT robbery. Period. The end.

I agree 100%. I have believed it wasn't a robbery from the very start, and each article I read just strengthens that belief.

The only two things we know for certain:

1.) Somebody broke in 8 days before
2.) Nothing was taken in either break ins

Judging by what we know, and not speculative information (like the phones, security system, etc.), I think it's safe to say that the motive was NOT robbery. Period. The end.

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

It is fairly wise and relevant to assume that it at least wasn't a burglary seeing as how during the first break-in, the idiot could have taken whatever his heart desired since no one was there... but instead decided to leave a knife on the pillow..

...so yeah.

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

I hear you. However, I'm not suggesting any motive. I'm only suggesting that the motive can't be robbery -- nothing was taken.

If you break into a house, and risk so much, you take something to make the risk worthwhile. Nobody was in the house 8 days earlier when the first break in occurred. I don't buy the argument that somebody broke in, there was nobody home, and they decided not to take anything (or there wasn't anything to take).

I'm not analyzing the 2nd break in as much as the 1st. Why would someone break in with the intention of robbery, and not take anything? Nobody was home. To me that is so highly unlikely that it's hardly worth considering. It's far more likely, given the circumstances, that the motive was not robbery than otherwise.

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?


Perhaps there was something in there that someone wanted.. still doesn't have to be a burglar to make that true. And do they know for 100% sure that someone tried to break into the safe? Because that's one thing that hasn't been mentioned as much within articles that I've read.

If it was a hit, he was under surveillance. I read where upon arriving Saturday, he took a 30 mile ride on his bicycle. The hit man would have known this and had plenty of opportunities for a drive-by. Why do it in a way that is so much riskier (hopping a fence in plain sight, out of your getaway car, breaking into a house w/ a security system, a possibly armed target, etc etc.

Who knows, though. Only the killer, the ones who hired the killer, or the ones the killer has bragged to at this point.

My whole deal is that with the info we have right now, there are 2 plausible scenarios; neither of which should be labeled as being more accurate than the other.

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?

Somebody tried to get into the safe? I didn't know that. Are you certain, or is it speculation?

If it was a hit, he was under surveillance. I read where upon arriving Saturday, he took a 30 mile ride on his bicycle. The hit man would have known this and had plenty of opportunities for a drive-by. Why do it in a way that is so much riskier (hopping a fence in plain sight, out of your getaway car, breaking into a house w/ a security system, a possibly armed target, etc etc.

Who knows, though. Only the killer, the ones who hired the killer, or the ones the killer has bragged to at this point.

My whole deal is that with the info we have right now, there are 2 plausible scenarios; neither of which should be labeled as being more accurate than the other.

Don't forget the other scenario that's been circulating.. that the shooter had intention for Sean, but not intentions to kill.. just to injure him beyond repair for ever playing football again.