Murder is a really interesting crime. There are really two kinds of murder: those where the perpetrator and victim are known to each other and those where they are not. The first category is way more common [1]:
> Among homicides in which the relationship could be determined, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
Another data point is that the recidivism rate for murder is incredibly low, roughly 2% [2], among the lowest of any crime.
The point is that the vast majority of murders are personal in nature. Police will tell you that when someone dies, it's always the spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend as the prime suspect until it isn't. Murders with no personal relationship (eg serial killings) are quite rare.
So if you, as a software developer, want to get away with murder you first have to be irrational and/or insane enough to murder people for pretty much no reason, which will get you pretty far to not getting caught, but still want to murder people you really have no reason to.
You can further increase your odds of not getting caught by not leaving a crime scene or a body but also picking a victim who won't necessarily be missed. It's why serial killers end up preying on runaways and prostitutes. There's also the MMIW phenomenon [3]. Lastly, going outside your geographical area would further help your odds.
This suspect allegedly had no relationship to the victim but they still had a reason (it seems). Now it so happens that being upset about private health insurance quite literally would leave police with millions of suspects. But the point is, they weren't necessarily acting rationally even if it was premeditated and planned.
I still find it insane that the suspect didn't rid himself of every identifiable possession. Had they done that, I think they'd have a shot at acquittal (depending on DNA evidence from the water bottle and/or coffee cup). Now? Almost impossible.
As much as we talk about jury nullification, people like there to be something to hang their hat on in terms of doubt. If a blurry partial photo was the only evidence I could see that as being way more likely. Having the ID used in the hostel and the mask, bag and clothes as well as the gun makes that harder to justify.
I think it was insane to go somewhere like McDonalds or anywhere, even the Starbucks anytime near that time period. There was just no need. Unless he was toying with the idea of getting caught, surely he would have just gone to some prebooked motel type of thing somewhere far away and huddled in there for quite a bit.
You have to eat. If you're in a strange city with limited transportation options a fast food place seems pretty reasonable. I'd have probably taken the food to go, but realistically you can eat in ~15 minutes and depending on the route back to where you're staying you might be seen by fewer people.
> Among homicides in which the relationship could be determined, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
Another data point is that the recidivism rate for murder is incredibly low, roughly 2% [2], among the lowest of any crime.
The point is that the vast majority of murders are personal in nature. Police will tell you that when someone dies, it's always the spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend as the prime suspect until it isn't. Murders with no personal relationship (eg serial killings) are quite rare.
So if you, as a software developer, want to get away with murder you first have to be irrational and/or insane enough to murder people for pretty much no reason, which will get you pretty far to not getting caught, but still want to murder people you really have no reason to.
You can further increase your odds of not getting caught by not leaving a crime scene or a body but also picking a victim who won't necessarily be missed. It's why serial killers end up preying on runaways and prostitutes. There's also the MMIW phenomenon [3]. Lastly, going outside your geographical area would further help your odds.
This suspect allegedly had no relationship to the victim but they still had a reason (it seems). Now it so happens that being upset about private health insurance quite literally would leave police with millions of suspects. But the point is, they weren't necessarily acting rationally even if it was premeditated and planned.
I still find it insane that the suspect didn't rid himself of every identifiable possession. Had they done that, I think they'd have a shot at acquittal (depending on DNA evidence from the water bottle and/or coffee cup). Now? Almost impossible.
As much as we talk about jury nullification, people like there to be something to hang their hat on in terms of doubt. If a blurry partial photo was the only evidence I could see that as being way more likely. Having the ID used in the hostel and the mask, bag and clothes as well as the gun makes that harder to justify.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf
[2]: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/a-new-lease-on-lif...
[3]: https://www.nativehope.org/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-w...