One thing I would caution against is coming to conclusions too quickly. Unless you are directly involved in the investigations of these cases, you can never be sure if you have all the relevant information.
First, there could be a variety of reasons why the police decide not to share certain information to the public, witness protection, the murder site being too gruesome, evidence simply being overlooked, etc. Secondly, media such as TV shows and podcasts are there to entertain their viewers, they are there to tell a narrative, and in doing so can easily misrepresent the data they present, even if they are trying their best to be honest with their audience.
That being said, there are cases that have been solved by the involvement of the internet with a few examples listed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxnxFi_ktio perhaps you're simply putting together clues that investigators have not picked up on. If your hypothesis does actually lead somewhere, then I say go for it, even if it is not necessarily your idea that ends up being true.
I 100% agree you should continue adding your insights. Police do have reasons for withholding information, but police also seem to screw up an awful lot of cases. I think a big reason is that they fall into traps of thinking. They apply lessons from the cases they are used to to cases that are very different.
It's not that you are likely to solve a case, or that police would pay attention if you did. They won't, unless maybe you work for Netflix. But in digging into these cases, you increase your own general understanding. I have a channel on youtube, and my only real goal is to grow my own general understanding. I don't point fingers at innocent people or spin wild theories. You aren't either. And because of your unique brain, you might have some insights a cop would never have. Frankly, that's why I'm here. To see if any of your insights help me.
Hi, the episode drops tomorrow. The show is called Shill Kill and the episode will also have a link to the notes with details on my Medium which I recommend for the map and photos and such. I have a theory I get into and it covers a lot of facts of the same day and time frame. So it's a way to look at this case a little differently for another possible angle to this mystery.
There are a couple of things in the Lake case that are very small but also very big when I think of the Keddie murders. I will be pointing these things out in a forthcoming episode of Shill Kill. I think your observations are valid.
These are very interesting and I suspect that you're correct in the first two being contract killings. I have always liked the description of such people as being asocial rather than anti-social myself. It'd be hard to differentiate between a serial killer with a particular MO and a contract killer who just repeats a successful strategy.
I've reread the story of Richard "the Iceman" Kuklinski and I now am inclined to believe that he was in fact an "above the snowline" psychopath who likely had accomplices that have never been caught. He had some go to methods like poison and freezing bodies that he really overused just because it worked for him.
Hey. Glad to see you back after the holiday time: Hope you had a great one.
On Keddie crime: Perhaps the killers gagged the three victims, maybe even tied their hands, but did not fully restrain their movement- accounting for not waking the children or alerting the neighbors though they fought furiously.
I didn't realize at first "Dana" is a boy, not a girlfriend.
These boys confident enough to travel by hitchhiking. Boys likely to have been together and not taken separately.
Perhaps the weak link is the mother. She didn't fight initially. At the sight of weapons, the shock of the weapons, knowing the young children were in the home, she used her verbal influence to restrain the boys.
I'm sorry to be the one who has to post this:
"...she had defensive wounds on her arms indicating that she had put up a fight. She was also found nude from the waist down with her underwear stuffed in her mouth"
We all want to think the best of this woman, Sue.
She did "put up a fight"- but her initial fear and protective instinct allowed the killers to take away her best course of action and best fighters and allies.
She did not go to immediate war with the home invaders. She "negotiated" while the invaders consolidated their positions.
By the time she "put up a fight" it was a fight she would not win.
Apparently one of the boys did say later that he did wake up. That is where the accounting of Tina being ushered out by one of the men after walking in came from. I have no idea if this is actually happened or not.
"We all want to think the best of this woman, Sue."
Honestly, we never truly know how we'll react to a situation until it actually happens to us. To believe that we would be a badass and fight the invaders is an act of hubris.
Judging her is a lot like judging a group of people, lost in the mountains for months, for cannibalizing dead bodies. We could go on and on about what they 'should have' or 'should not have' done, but hindsight is 20/20 and survival needs are now.
One thing I would caution against is coming to conclusions too quickly. Unless you are directly involved in the investigations of these cases, you can never be sure if you have all the relevant information.
First, there could be a variety of reasons why the police decide not to share certain information to the public, witness protection, the murder site being too gruesome, evidence simply being overlooked, etc. Secondly, media such as TV shows and podcasts are there to entertain their viewers, they are there to tell a narrative, and in doing so can easily misrepresent the data they present, even if they are trying their best to be honest with their audience.
That being said, there are cases that have been solved by the involvement of the internet with a few examples listed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxnxFi_ktio perhaps you're simply putting together clues that investigators have not picked up on. If your hypothesis does actually lead somewhere, then I say go for it, even if it is not necessarily your idea that ends up being true.
You are absolutely right. These are just my thoughts, but certainly they could be completely wrong and have no bearing on reality.
I 100% agree you should continue adding your insights. Police do have reasons for withholding information, but police also seem to screw up an awful lot of cases. I think a big reason is that they fall into traps of thinking. They apply lessons from the cases they are used to to cases that are very different.
It's not that you are likely to solve a case, or that police would pay attention if you did. They won't, unless maybe you work for Netflix. But in digging into these cases, you increase your own general understanding. I have a channel on youtube, and my only real goal is to grow my own general understanding. I don't point fingers at innocent people or spin wild theories. You aren't either. And because of your unique brain, you might have some insights a cop would never have. Frankly, that's why I'm here. To see if any of your insights help me.
Interesting. I wonder if someone will ever solve this case, and if it happens to be Leonard Lake and Charles Ng I would be very surprised.
The way you are very interested in these murder stories tell me you would be a good detective!
https://open.spotify.com/show/0UzOEfZMtW53FwhhxaNyv8
Thank you kindly, Charles
Hi, the episode drops tomorrow. The show is called Shill Kill and the episode will also have a link to the notes with details on my Medium which I recommend for the map and photos and such. I have a theory I get into and it covers a lot of facts of the same day and time frame. So it's a way to look at this case a little differently for another possible angle to this mystery.
Where does the show air?
There are a couple of things in the Lake case that are very small but also very big when I think of the Keddie murders. I will be pointing these things out in a forthcoming episode of Shill Kill. I think your observations are valid.
That's very interesting to know. Thank you, Charles
These are very interesting and I suspect that you're correct in the first two being contract killings. I have always liked the description of such people as being asocial rather than anti-social myself. It'd be hard to differentiate between a serial killer with a particular MO and a contract killer who just repeats a successful strategy.
I've reread the story of Richard "the Iceman" Kuklinski and I now am inclined to believe that he was in fact an "above the snowline" psychopath who likely had accomplices that have never been caught. He had some go to methods like poison and freezing bodies that he really overused just because it worked for him.
Iceman had some rage issues, or at least that was something that people have reported about him, so maybe, or maybe he was a sociopath.
Hey. Glad to see you back after the holiday time: Hope you had a great one.
On Keddie crime: Perhaps the killers gagged the three victims, maybe even tied their hands, but did not fully restrain their movement- accounting for not waking the children or alerting the neighbors though they fought furiously.
I didn't realize at first "Dana" is a boy, not a girlfriend.
These boys confident enough to travel by hitchhiking. Boys likely to have been together and not taken separately.
Perhaps the weak link is the mother. She didn't fight initially. At the sight of weapons, the shock of the weapons, knowing the young children were in the home, she used her verbal influence to restrain the boys.
I'm sorry to be the one who has to post this:
"...she had defensive wounds on her arms indicating that she had put up a fight. She was also found nude from the waist down with her underwear stuffed in her mouth"
We all want to think the best of this woman, Sue.
She did "put up a fight"- but her initial fear and protective instinct allowed the killers to take away her best course of action and best fighters and allies.
She did not go to immediate war with the home invaders. She "negotiated" while the invaders consolidated their positions.
By the time she "put up a fight" it was a fight she would not win.
Well, we all know that.
We will never really know how that night unfolded unless one of the killers is interested in filling in the missing details.
I wasn't there. I wrote impressions I experienced from reading.
Specifically: What accounted for no one else hearing or waking the children.
And: Sue "put up a fight".
As I wrote, I was concerned someone would comment on the evil (darkness?) of my own self
Even if you readers did not, I am aware of the darkness inside myself that reacted to the story.
Apparently one of the boys did say later that he did wake up. That is where the accounting of Tina being ushered out by one of the men after walking in came from. I have no idea if this is actually happened or not.
"We all want to think the best of this woman, Sue."
Honestly, we never truly know how we'll react to a situation until it actually happens to us. To believe that we would be a badass and fight the invaders is an act of hubris.
Judging her is a lot like judging a group of people, lost in the mountains for months, for cannibalizing dead bodies. We could go on and on about what they 'should have' or 'should not have' done, but hindsight is 20/20 and survival needs are now.
I'm sure you are completely right. Thanks for setting me straight
Spotify and everywhere else...