My Theory About The Disappearance of Maura Murray: February 9, 2004

In 2015 two young men had gone missing after leaving Rocklahoma, a huge three day Rock festival held each year near Pryor. My wife and I live close to the Oklahoma border and decided to help search for the two young men. I knew the town where the boys lived was in Okmulgee a few miles west of Hwy 69. I also knew there had been torrential downpours the night the boys left the concert. Highway 69 moves in a north-south direction and there are several highways the boys could have taken heading west that would have led them back to their hometown. My first instinct was the boys may have crashed off the side of the road due to the bad storms that evening. The worst-case scenario I realized as I drove south on highway 69 was if the boys got lost and went south past I-40 and ended up taking the first exit and ran into the lake. My worst fears would soon be realized when the waters receded and the boy’s van was found with their bodies inside.

It was a terrible tragedy, and one I often think could have been avoided if the boys had taken any of the roads heading west-bound on 69 or even if they had driven to I-40 and headed west and took the exit at Henryetta that would have taken them home safely. Perhaps this was their intention was to drive to 40, but missed the exit ramp and drove on to the next exit to turn around and inadvertently drove into the lake where the water had probably already risen and they just never saw it coming before it was already too late.

Although the boys had already died before my wife and I began our search for them, another strange thing happened while we were driving the back roads of Oklahoma near Muskogee. It was after dark, around 7 or 8 in the evening, and I was driving around fifty-five miles per hour when I spotted something, someone, and it was like a flash, walking along the side of the roadway.

I pulled over immediately and turned around and as we approached the person walking I realized it was an African-American man, stocky and about 5’9 and was wearing no shirt, no shoes and all he was wearing was an orange pair of pajama type pants inmates wear.

Much to my wife’s chagrin, I pulled over, and I had her contact 911 and give Law Enforcement our location as I stepped out of the vehicle and approached the man. I began speaking with the man and realized early on something was wrong, because he spoke in what many refer as a “word salad” associated oftentimes with people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He informed me he was on his way to Oregon to play for the Mighty Ducks, and he wasn’t aware he was in Oklahoma, but he never came off as threatening, and soon I was able to convince him to it down near a ditch bank and away from the road to avoid accidentally being hit by oncoming traffic. He also remembered his name and remembered he was from Oklahoma and had somehow managed to walk out of a mental health facility.

Within 20 minutes or so, a police officer arrived. I told the young man before the officer took him back to the facility I would contact his family and his church and soon he was gone and my wife and I drove back to Arkansas and that would be the last time I would see him. I did contact his family and his church and got to know more about him and they thanked me for having been kind enough to stop and believe if I hadn’t he may have been hurt or worse, he may have hurt someone or worse. I also know it’s possible he could have hurt me, then again, it’s also possible if I had cruel intentions I could have hurt him. He was at least 10 miles outside of Muskogee heading west on a dark and desolate road. If he had turned violent I did have ways to defend myself, and my wife knew this, but it’s possible no matter how well prepared I was he could have overwhelmed me and hurt me, hurt my wife, but that didn’t happen thankfully. I also assume had it not been me who stopped looking to help, it’s possible someone else may have stopped looking to harm the young man who simply was off his medicines and was lost.

These two incidents of the two young boys leaving a rock concert and just happen to drive down the one road that led into a lake and this young man that had somehow managed to walk out of a mental health facility and then found half-nude down a dark desolate highway, and many cars had passed him prior to me stopping, remind me of the disappearance of Maura Murray.

Could her disappearance be as simple as having taken the wrong road, and perhaps she’d also been drinking, wrecked her car on a dark and desolate highway in New Hampshire, and after refusing help from a local citizen and fearing the police arriving on the scene and arresting her for a DUI, she hopped into a car looking to escape the scene of the accident and unfortunately, the driver was no good samaritan?

Maura Murray’s case, just like so many other cold cases involving missing persons, unsolved homicides, or unidentified bodies, is baffling–one where there are many theories from suicide, accidental death, some who think she left of her own volition and is hiding in Canada, a police cover-up, a family cover-up, to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and was abducted by a serial killer, or perhaps she unknowingly hitched a ride with her killer, or perhaps she hitched a ride with someone who took her on to Canada and for whatever reason the person has never come forward with this information.

To be honest, the events leading up to her disappearance most likely would not be seen as suspicious had she not disappeared and has been missing now 16 years later. Nevertheless, because she hasn’t been seen since February 9, 2004, the actions she took prior to her disappearance makes her case seem more mysterious.

From the outset, it seems Maura may have been depressed. Two days earlier she had wrecked her father’s new car, totaling it after she’d been out all night drinking. Three months earlier, Maura had been cited for using a fraudulent credit card to order pizza. Apparently, she was also in a relationship with a man who she wasn’t happy with and there were rumors he had cheated on her. All this, I know, seems to paint a negative picture of Maura Murray, but violating the law, and being seemingly unhappy or depressed hadn’t always been her story.

She was an athlete, an honor roll student, who loved the outdoors and spending time with her family. She was being courted by several Ivy League schools but chose West Point and was accepted. Maura was no underachiever. Maura Murray was serious and studious, and adventurous until it all went pear-shaped–over something so minor, so uncharacteristic of a West Point Cadet, she was caught shoplifting make-up–$5.00 worth of make-up she had the money in her purse to purchase. This resulted in violating West Point’s honor code, but she was allowed to transfer to the University of Massachusetts in Amherst to avoid being expelled from West Point.

At UMass, she studied nursing and all was apparently going well for the 21-year-old until she was busted and admitted to using a stolen credit card in November 2003. Even so, the judge was willing to allow her to have the charges dismissed if she did not violate the law for the next three months. Even when she wrecked her father’s car, the responding officer did not cite her for a DUI, and only completed an accident report form, and one would think this would not be in violation of her probation with the courts. And even more, the totaled car would be covered and replaced by her father’s insurance. So, from an outsider’s perspective, it didn’t seem like too big a deal, not one to become suicidal or depressed over.

Still, two days later, all that would change on Monday, February 9th, 2004 when all these events would come into question as to Maura’s state of mind and what would motivate her to inform her teachers she would be missing class the next week due to a death in the family (when there had been no death in the family), withdraw all her money (about $280.00) purchase $40.00 of liquor and leave Massachusetts in her black 1996 Saturn (a car which had multiple mechanical problems) and drive north on I-91 towards Vermont, (it is believed she had been heading towards Stowe, Vermont because she had made calls to hotels in the area).

Maura did not inform anyone of her intentions, she apparently just decided to get into her car and leave. Vermont was a place she had been to in the past. She’d gone there with her father and sister and had been hiking and skiing and camping. So it’s possible Maura just needed to get away from everything. I’ve done it. Most of us (at least those brave enough to admit it) have made an excuse to skip class. Many of us didn’t bother to tell anyone about our plans–especially if you are 21, and most of us expect nothing to go wrong meaning no one ever has to know about the trip. And had this been one of those trips for Maura Murray, no one would care about her skipping class, or psychoanalyze her rationale for leaving school without informing anyone in her family or why she lied to her friends and teachers about a death in her family, but it was not one of those trips. And everything that could go wrong did go wrong, leading many to conclude Maura was suicidal or was planning to disappear and possibly move to Canada.

It is unknown if Maura took the wrong exit which would lead her away from Stowe, Vermont, or if she intentionally drove towards Havenhill, New Hampshire. If Stowe was her intended destination she had most likely taken a wrong turn and may have been lost. Stowe is approximately 66 miles northwest of Havenhill. Then just a few miles north of Havenhill, she took a right on Highway 112 which led even further away moving southeast. But by this time it was dark, two feet of snow covered the lush dense forests on both sides of the highway and the area she was in had no cellphone service.
By all accounts of the evidence examined in the aftermath, Maura had downloaded directions to Burlington, Vermont, and had contacted a hotel in Stowe, Vermont, so it would appear as if Maura had taken the wrong exit. Perhaps she had taken an exit to stop and purchase fuel and got turned around directionally by doing so and ended up heading east and into Haverhill. Then again, one could argue it’s possible Maura Murray left these ominous clues behind to throw anyone off her trail. But then again, if Maura was looking for a small resort skiing town to rent a room and relax for a few days it’s possible she took the right exit and turned right on 112 heading elsewhere such as Loon Mountain Ski Resort. But if we are guessing one could assume she was driving in that particular direction to meet someone she knew or had possibly met online (although there is no proof of this.)

It is possible we may never know what Maura was up to, where she was going, and why she was going in the direction she was heading. As far as I know, Maura was just taking a road trip to get away for the evening and had taken 112 to head towards Lincoln, New Hampshire and then intended to drive back south to Amherst. It’s possible. Regardless of all these scenarios what we do know is that Maura only made it approximately 4 miles once she made the right turn off of Highway 202 in an area known as Woodsville Haverhill, New Hampshire onto Highway 112 and at a sharp curve Maura lost control of her car, swerved, spun all the way around where it appeared she had been driving west instead of east and hit a tree at least over 20 miles an hour because her airbags deployed, caused damage to her bumper and busted her radiator making her car inoperable.

And this for most people would be the end of the story. A person living nearby would contact police, and if injured, medics would be dispatched, and perhaps Maura would have been able to contact a friend from school, or a relative and someone would have come and picked her up and I wouldn’t be writing this now.

And in fact, this is how the story played out–in the beginning anyway. Soon after Maura wrecked her car, a person living nearby heard the crash, saw her wrecked car from their window and contacted police within a minute or so after Maura crashed. As this person was making the call to 911 the caller witnessed another person, a neighbor driving a school bus stop where Maura had wrecked. This man would be the last known person to speak with Maura.

He asked her if she needed help, but she refused and instead told the man she had contacted the AAA auto club. The man would later state he did not believe her because the area she had crashed had no cell service. Although she didn’t appear to be bleeding, and only shivering because of the cold the man would also later state it is possible she had been drinking because she slurred her words as she pleaded with him not to contact police.

The original call to 911 happened at 7:27 PM. After checking on Maura and making sure she was not in immediate danger, the school bus driver would leave and go to his home about 300 yards from the crash site and once inside his home he also contacted police. When the bus driver went inside his home to make the call he could not see Maura but witnessed a few cars drive past. Police would arrive nine minutes after the original 911 call only to find Maura’s wrecked Saturn, but no Maura. She had vanished and hasn’t been seen or heard from again in 16 years.

When police arrived on the scene and began searching her car they noticed the alcohol, and red stains on the door and other parts of the car that appeared to be made by the box of red wine Maura had purchased. One could theorize Maura had been drinking and this is why she was fearful of the police being called because it would lead to her going to jail and being charged with DUI. On the other hand, it’s possible as a result of the impact the wine box broke open causing it to spill in the car, and Maura may have feared she’d have been arrested on suspicion of a DUI. This theory seems to be the best explanation as to why Maura “pleaded” with the bus driver not to call the police. It may even explain why Maura had vanished before the police arrived, perhaps hitching a ride with a passerby. Then again, it has been theorized she took off walking into the woods, but this theory has been dismissed because no footprints were found in the snow leading out into the woods. Then again Maura was an athlete and had been a star on her high school track team and its possible she took off running as fast and as far away as she could from the immediate area.

However, this is the problem, no one knows–except perhaps Marua, and/or perhaps the person Maura may have hitched a ride with or the person who may have abducted her. In the immediate aftermath, when her family was contacted and arrived at the scene of the accident even her father claimed she may have been depressed and walked out into the woods and off the beaten path and committed suicide. It’s also plausible she wandered out into the woods and would later succumb to hypothermia. Nevertheless, it doesn’t explain how it is 16 years later, after numerous searches, not one cadaver dog, not one volunteer covering a 12-mile radius from the scene of the accident has found her body, any of her clothing or the black backpack she may have left the scene of the accident carrying.

Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest solution is most likely the right solution. In this particular case, one could then theorize the simplest solution is that Marua Murray, after wrecking her car, and having been drinking alcohol refused the school bus drivers assistance because she would have most likely been arrested for DUI and to avoid this she hitched a ride with someone passing by, entered their car and this person most likely took advantage of her and Maura may have fought back and the situation escalated and she was murdered.

This does seem the simplest solution when rules out the theory Maura abandoned the scene of the accident by escaping into the wooded area since the immediate area in a 12-mile radius has for the most part been searched by law enforcement, search and rescue dogs, and helicopters equipped with the thermal imaging equipment known as FLIR without finding her or any items having belonged to Maura.

What are the odds however of Maura running into someone who took advantage of the young woman as opposed to running into someone who may have picked her up and took her someplace safe? It would seem the latter scenario would have led to this individual once taking Maura away from the crime scene if their intentions were honorable she would have been allowed to use their phone to contact family or friends to come to her rescue. There is no record of this having happened and the first notification Maura’s family received about her accident was when they were contacted by the New Hampshire State Police.

Then again, what if Maura, after she already crashed her father’s car two days earlier, and now having wrecked her own car, and looking at possibly violating her probation were picked up by a good samaritan and somehow convinced this person to take her to Canada?

It’s possible. The Canadian border is only two hours driving distance from where Maura wrecked her vehicle. Moreover, what if Maura were picked up by a good samaritan and were able to convince the driver she was on her way to a specific location to meet with friends, someplace nearby, a campground perhaps, and the driver took her there believing she would be safe once she arrived at her destination.

Obviously, there is a potential flaw in this theoretical version of events. It would seem the person once they heard the news of Maura being missing would immediately contact Law Enforcement. Still, it can’t be ruled out the driver was just passing through and didn’t live in the immediate area and has never learned of the important role the driver played in the disappearance of Maura Murray. It’s also possible the driver chose not to contact the police for other reasons other than he was responsible for her death, but because the driver didn’t want to become involved or linked to the case fearing they may be implicated in a crime.

However, let’s assume, Maura being an intelligent woman knew exactly where she was going and took the right exit leading her to Haverhill and all was going according to plan up until she wrecked her car. For example, one could assume that during her trip she may have stopped and purchased a map of the area. One would assume being a former West Point cadet, and an experienced hiker, she understood how to read a map and even how to use a compass. Let’s also assume she was suicidal and she first looked to rent a hotel in a place she was familiar such as Stowe, Vermont, but somewhere along the way she changed her mind and decided to go east towards Haverhill to another remote location.

In a recent Oxygen Channel Documentary “The Disappearance of Maura Murray” the filmmakers interviewed Todd Bogardis, the official in charge of the multiple search efforts to locate Maura Murray. Within the first 48 hours search parties traveled multiple roadways in a ten-mile radius looking for footprints Maura may have left if she entered into the woods, but searched no further than from the road. A few days later, cadaver dogs were brought out to search within a 2-mile radius of the crash site. Later on, Law Enforcement searched several areas within a 12-mile radius but never deviating two miles from the road. They even extended their search to areas further away from the crash site in places it had been known Maura had frequented in the past and found nothing.

One could deduce by examining Maura’s past that she seemed somewhat impulsive such as stealing the $5.00 item she had the money to pay for which would cause her to leave West Point. She admittedly used a stolen credit card to order pizza which caused her to be placed on probation, and yet one could also say she was an above-average intelligence person who challenged herself to become an all-star on her high school’s track team and was a 4.0 or above student. Maura was no fool, and seemingly when she set her mind to something she was determined to carry it out to the end.

If we assume taking the exit to Haverhill was not a mistake, and taking a right turn onto Highway 112 was not a mistake, we can assume Maura had also known where she was going and may have been close to her destination when the crash occurred. Although the wreck was a major setback, it doesn’t mean she was going to allow the crash to keep her from making it to the place she was driving too.

What if her destination was within a few miles of the crash site, yet she could have walked there in under two hours without ever having to leave the road? No one knows what she had on her person once she left the crash site, all is known is what she left behind. Perhaps she had a flashlight, a map, and a compass?

Also if we were to assume Maura was contemplating suicide prior to departing UMass for New Hampshire, the crash may have only made her more committed to doing so.

She was not going to go to jail. She was not going to accept help. She was not going to disappoint her father again. It’s possible she was on a mission and was now more determined to carry it out.

This scenario is not unprecedented. In many cases, people do not leave notes behind to loved ones. It’s possible in most cases it’s only after the fact the people closest to the suicidal see warning signs leading up to the point of a loved one committing suicide.

In January 2008 in Little Rock, Arkansas a successful accountant for a large construction business vanished from his home. Later, his car would be found about two hours away at Petit Jean Mountain State Park. Search teams scoured the mountainous terrain looking for him and found nothing. One of the officials even proclaimed after several searches there was no way John Glascow was on Petit Jean Mountain because it was such a popular tourist destination for hiking he believed someone would have found his body.

Rumors began circulating that Glascow had been accused of accounting malpractice and feared to lose his job or worse, ending up in jail, although it was later proven he had done nothing wrong, many people believed Glascow fearing the worst abandoned his car on Petit Jean Mountain, met up with someone and left Arkansas to start over with a new identity.

In 2011, Law Enforcement received information from an inmate serving time in prison that he knew the whereabouts of Glascow’s body because he had helped those who murdered him bury the body. The inmate passed a polygraph and was in jail on a similar charge of attempting to abduct his wealthy boss in order to extort money from him. It seemed plausible.

However, in 2015 the case would finally be solved when two boys from a local school decided to skip class for the day and drive up to Petit Jean Mountain and while hiking they wandered off the beaten path and found a skull later confirmed to be John Glascow. Even more, the skull was found within a mile from where Glascow’s car was found seven years earlier.

Even though some in his family still suspect foul play, there were no weapons found near the remains and it seems most likely that John Glascow left his home in 2008 and drove to Petit Jean Mountain with the intention of committing suicide.

The cases seem similar, Glascow was feeling pressure from problems at work, but never made anyone aware of just how depressed and overwhelmed he had become due to the accusations being made against him, even knowing the allegations were unfounded. He did not write a note, he left his home and drove to a remote, yet very public place, parked his car, and apparently walked about a mile away and somehow, whether through jumping to his death or having taken medications causing his death, he died there and it would be seven years before his body was discovered by two teenagers playing hooky from school.

Following this thread, let’s assume Maura Murray was also suicidal. She considered several options including Stowe, Vermont, but changed her mind and decided to head towards Haverhill and then east on Highway 112. Let’s even go a step further and assume she had not been drinking but when she crashed she refused help because she didn’t want help, she was on a mission. It is known that some of the alcohol she purchased was missing from the car. It is also known that she had several boxes of sleeping pills, some she left behind in the car.

Within a couple of days of her disappearance, a bloodhound was brought to the crash site and seemed to be able to track Maura’s scent and the dog led the search team about 400 feet to Bradley Hill Road the nearest intersection moving east from Highway 112. The bloodhound lost the scent there leading to the theory that Maura Murray may have walked in that direction after leaving the accident and once to Bradley Hill Road was able to hitch a ride with someone passing by or was abducted by someone at that intersection.

On the night of the accident, Haverhill Police responded to the call first but the call was picked up by an officer with the State Police who arrived at the scene a few minutes later. The officer with the State Police stated once he arrived and was informed the driver of the car was missing, he traveled back towards Haverhill assuming if the driver took off walking they would head back towards town. Maura’s car was also pointed as if she had been traveling west, even though she had been heading east when the car spun around in the opposite direction. So apparently there was no one looking for her in the direction of travel she had been heading.

With this information, and knowing that Maura was athletic, and experienced hiker, and a former West Point cadet, is it possible Maura did leave the scene moving towards Bradley Hill Road, then took a right turn heading due east, towards Benton, New Hampshire approximately three miles from the accident site and what would have taken about an hour to walk made her way to the nearest remote park: Black Mountain State Forest and made her way down the trailhead once she arrived?

Being an avid runner, one could possibly consider what may have taken an hour for the average person to walk, if Maura ran or jogged, she may have cut that time in half and made it to the Benton area in 30 minutes.

The main reason this theory seems plausible, at least to me, is Maura Murray refused help from the school bus driver either because she had been drinking or because she did not want help. Is it not possible she could have asked for the bus driver’s help but ask him to not turn her in, or instead could you possibly tow me to your house, because I don’t have insurance and allow me to call my dad? The man may have helped her. Just two days earlier she’d had an accident and she was able to get out of a ticket or be given a breathalyzer. So Maura knew the drill, yet this time she resisted assistance.

My theory is just a theory as are all the other theories about this case, except in my version I make the assumption Maura Murray knew exactly what she was doing and where she was going and that she wasn’t lost. Certainly, she had made bad decisions, but she had always owned up to them in the past, and perhaps she didn’t understand the impulses that drove her to shoplift or use a stolen credit card, once she made the decision she seemed to be driven to do what she set out to do regardless of the consequences, but in all these known cases she acted alone without involving other people in her petty criminal acts.

If Maura Murray refused help from the bus driver when she may have convinced him to assist her in getting the car moved out of the road and allowing him to use his phone to call her dad without involving the police, why would she then risk accepting a ride from someone passing by who may have also tried to convince her to go back and wait for the police as opposed to just avoiding any passing cars and any people fearful of someone stopping her from carrying out the mission she had set out to complete?

With all that said, however, one has to acknowledge on the night of Monday, February 9th, 2004 it was below freezing temperatures in Haverhill, New Hampshire. According to the weather forecast, there was a high of 13 degrees and it would drop to -2 degrees. Would the cold weather be enough to provoke Maura Murray to accept a ride from a stranger? Yet if this is the case, she had already been approached by the bus driver who lived within a few hundred feet of the crash site, in the alleged direction Maura was traveling in according to the scent found by the bloodhound, and even though his bus was parked just outside where she would have most likely seen it, the opposing theory is that she chose instead to pass him by and get into a strangers vehicle.

Even so, giving more strength to this theory is about three months after Maura vanished a man approached the police and informed them on the night Maura went missing he had seen her running east on 112 about four miles from where she had crashed. The man would have come forward sooner but hadn’t realized he had seen the girl on the night she went missing until he checked his work records and recognized it had to be Maura. The police seemingly were convinced the man’s story was truthful and began a search in the general vicinity he informed officers he had seen her last. However, nothing was found as a result of the search.

This information, if true, would place her heading east but not traveling on Bradley Hill Road towards Black Mountain and instead would place her going towards Cobble Hill Trailhead. If indeed this information is valid it would seemingly boost the theory that Maura was not seeking assistance and most likely avoided any type of assistance because she had a predetermined destination she was attempting to get to.

Evidence shows that Maura has not used her cell phone after vanishing and it is also known that there is no cell service for a good ten to fifteen miles past the point she wrecked her vehicle, so one would be safe in assuming Maura, if she was indeed running someplace she never made it past the point where she would regain cell phone service.

The theory becomes twofold in the sense that once Maura wrecked her vehicle and didn’t accept help and left the scene, she was either running away from something or running to something, or possibly both. If she was intending on driving someplace to commit suicide and did not want to be stopped or talked out of it then it would make sense this would be a motivating factor to abandon her wrecked car and refuse help, because in the past when she had gotten into trouble she did not run from those mistakes and it’s possible she could have talked her way out of this incident. Even if she had been drinking, which no one can say for certain, it would have been embarrassing but it is also possible it was the catalyst to commit to carrying out a premeditated suicide.

It is also plausible if this theory is correct Maura Murray’s body is within a 15-mile radius from where she wrecked her car, but just beyond the perimeters of the previous search grid, or in an area that has been searched and it was missed.

In the past I have written about the “Routine Activity Theory” which states a crime occurs when a likely suspect encounters a likely victim absent a guardian coming together in time and space, meaning the theory Maura Murray having been abducted or at the least entered a car with a passerby and this passerby would end up killing her cannot be ruled out.

It is a plausible explanation as to what happened to Maura Murray unfortunately. If this is what happened it does not mean she was murdered by a serial killer, and her killer may have never killed before and it was unplanned, one minute the person is driving along not a care in the world, next minute he has stopped and picked up a complete stranger and the further away into the country they travel the person sees an opportunity and things quickly spiral out of control.

Still, not every passerby is looking to harm someone even if the opportunity presents itself, even if they can kill and never be caught, I’d like to believe most people aren’t out to take advantage of someone, but I’m not ignorant enough to believe it doesn’t happen and might have happened to Maura.

Nevertheless, I can’t seem to shake this idea Maura was lost and had taken a right when she should have turned left and was not aware of where she was heading and why she was determined to get there.

This seemed planned, meticulous even, from printing out maps to informing her teachers she would be gone for the week, to returning her friend’s clothes even when the friend told her not to worry about it. It seemed Maura wanted no loose ends. It’s as if the sky was falling, or the strength that had carried her through her childhood and teenage years, her focus, the drive, that kept her pushing that extra mile, studying harder, climbing higher was failing her. For some reason I’m reminded of the poem “Not Waving but Drowning” by Stevie Smith:

Nobody heard him, the dead man,
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought
And not waving but drowning.

Poor chap, he always loved larking
And now he’s dead
It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,
They said.

Oh, no no no, it was too cold always
(Still the dead one lay moaning)
I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning.

It seems Maura was becoming self-destructive, afraid of her own success but afraid of failing and unintentionally she was impulsively sabotaging all the things she had worked so hard to achieve so it wouldn’t hurt as much when it all came crashing down–afraid to disappoint her father, her family, herself as if the tough exterior was nothing more than a facade and she could not dare show the side of herself that she or others may have considered weak.

She did not want to be found in some hotel room by the maid, or in her dorm room by a concerned friend, she wanted to go peacefully and most of all privately.

So many cases are resolved by someone who takes a step off the beaten path, a place many people over the years have walked past and failed to notice this is sacred ground, where a person took their last breath and within a few hours the site will be taped off, teams of scientist will begin the slow process of excavating the scene, and law enforcement is pushing back curious onlookers, as the press focuses their cameras and the reporter breaks the story of the discovery of human remains. And for every parent, husband, wife, child, or friend who has lost someone and never had closure, their hearts stop each time hoping this is it but praying their loved one is still out there and alive just waiting to be found.

It is my sincere belief, Maura Murray is in New Hampshire, and perhaps soon, someone will find her and give her family closure. It is my sincere belief Maura was not taken by a stranger, because she was too determined to settle things her own way on her terms.

She took the right turn. She was not lost. She knew where she was heading and was determined to make it, just as she had done her entire life.

Movie Review: Once Upon a time in Hollywood

Last night I had the chance to watch “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” and I can’t say I was impressed by it. The acting is much better than the script, and I really don’t understand why the Manson plot was necessary. The Manson murders did not change Hollywood any more than the Altamont Rock festival was the beginning of the end of the “hippie movement”. Tarintino proves this point in OUATIH. 

Manson was a silly little lunatic, a pathetic footnote in the history of Hollywood. His followers were pathetic lost children taken advantage of by a sick and twisted little man who desperately wanted a taste of the Hollywood lifestyle, no different from that limp-dicked wannabe pimp Paul Snider who lost his shit mind when Hollywood rejected him and he offed himself and took the life of his ex-wife Dorothy Stratten who had been welcomed with a full embrace by Hefner and those who wanted to be Hefner. 

Ol’ Charlie’s story is a Hollywood cliche, and his followers hicks from some town from way out in the middle of nowhere who drive their beat-up, paint-chipped pick-up truck their daddy gave them for their sixteenth birthday to Hollywood believing they’d been honey-dipped in stardust, and once they arrive they soon become tired of being pimped out and strung out on the Sunset Strip watching the B-Listers and C-listers look down on them and end up at Spahn Ranch because Charlie Manson was the first person who noticed them.

But let’s be honest, Charlie is just another small-minded misogynistic dipshit playing the part of talent scout using an old rustic and dirtied barn at an abandoned ranch as his casting couch, where Charlie was directing, and writing his own little low-budget movie where he needed grips, and gophers, and set designers and producers, and actors who’d play minor roles and a special few would have a starring role in his slasher flick titled “Helter Skelter”.  How fitting? An unoriginal title, a bad script, and somehow it still made Charlie a household name. Seriously, how Hollywood is that? 

The “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” I’d like to see is the “Me Too” version. When I watched the scene where Cliff is confronted by Tex, it’s easy to imagine Harvey Weinstein at the door, and Gwyneth Paltrow in the other room.  

Because once upon a time in Hollywood many producers and directors were predators same as Manson, with one caveat, these fat cats didn’t order anyone (at least as far as I’m aware) to kill anyone. They took and take advantage of people, men, women, boys, girls, and lure them into their homes or offices with the temptation for a taste of the same Hollywood Manson wanted only to abuse them sexually and most get away with it because, hey that’s Hollywood right?

This is the Tarantino picture I’d like to see. Fuck Manson. Fuck some revisionist history of how a simple twist of fate may have saved the lives of those who died in the home on Cielo Drive, or even more how it may have helped revive the career of a struggling actor because he happened to live next door to the would-be in the real-life a crime scene.

Otherwise, Pitt, DiCaprio, Pacino, Robbie, and the rest of the all-star cast shined in their roles in what I regard as an unoriginal script with a similar plot twist at the end of “Inglorious Bastards” where Hitler gets the same treatment as the Manson Family in OUATIH. 

What’s next for Tarantino: “Once Upon a Time at Ford’s Theater”? Lincoln feels Booth’s gun pressed to the back of his head, and the shot misfires allowing Lincoln to grab Booth and they both wrestle and fall off the balcony and onto the stage. Imagine Lincoln in front of a crowded audience beating Booth with a stage prop as the audience cheers. 

The ending was a plot twist one could see coming because Tarantino has made an even better version of this film with “Inglorious Bastards”.

Maybe I’m missing the point of this film? I assume it’s about coming to grips with the end of the Golden Age era in Hollywood seen from Cliff and Rick’s perspective. However, one could argue that the faces of those on the Silver Screen from Newman and Redford, and director’s behind the scenes like DeMille and Welles, and the movies they made have lived on through directors such as Wes Anderson, Scorsese, and even Tarantino. And is it only me or didn’t anyone else notice how DiCaprio and Pitt resembled Newman and Redford? 

What if we are still living in the Golden Era now? That what was never died, but it is reborn every few years.  Rock-and-roll historians bitch about the death of rock-and-roll every few years. But like Hollywood, it may go through some growing pains and give us a period of shit music and shit movies, and suddenly be reawakened by a Nirvana, or Beyonce, or Eminem, drawing inspiration from the music and the musicians who inspired them. 

Isn’t that the point, it’s all out there just to be rediscovered by some teenager in Arkansas discovering the Beatles by rummaging through his mother’s old record collection. Citizen Kane is still very much alive and well and somewhere out there Dorothy is opening the door and entering Oz for the first time. 

And someone out there is going to be inspired by the artist who came before them and grows up and create something magical and although they won’t be reinventing Rock and Roll, or Hollywood, but will create something that will live on forever, same as the Marx Brothers, or Chaplin, or Elvis and Motown. 

Just like Tarantino didn’t have to give any more screen time dedicated to this fuckwad sideshow circus clown Charlie Manson. Just like someone is going to replace a Weinstein and people will look the other way until finally someone stands up and says no more keeping the Me Too movement alive and active long after Weinstein is gone and someone writes the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood version of his sexual perversions, and how it inspired a movement.  

Scorsese’s “Casino” same plot, the end of the golden era of Vegas, and Anderson’s “Boogie Nights” the end of the golden era of porn did not have to revive a twat like Manson to tell the same story. Why Tarantino felt the need to do it is beyond me, especially when he’s given us so many memorable characters and the unique dark and twisted stories, with some of the best scriptwriting aspiring writer’s will attempt to imitate but seem to always come up short because Tarantino is an original, a master storyteller who brings the character’s to life and brings out the best in the actors playing the character’s he has created.  Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors and screenwriters of this generation. But c’mon! Manson? Seriously?  


JonBenet Ramsey

I have been reluctant for many years to investigate the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey. The main reason is the case has been examined by many seasoned investigators, and their investigations have come to oftentimes differing conclusions. It doesn’t help to know that in the initial 24 hours of the investigation the Boulder Police made several mistakes that may taint the case and make it difficult if not impossible to ever bring justice to the person(s) responsible for her death.

Nevertheless, I know the case very well. I have examined most of the known evidence, and I will admit what is known is baffling. For example, the Boulder DA has exonerated the Ramsey family because their DNA did not match the evidence found at the crime scene: however, in a recent CBS documentary, the expert panel concluded the DNA evidence is not sufficient to rule out anyone: including the Ramsey family.

But these issues go back to the very beginning of the investigation as the Boulder Police disagreed with the Boulder DA on who was responsible. The tabloid and print media became obsessed with the murder of the six-year-old beauty pageant queen and the case became sensationalized with tantalizing and scandalous headlines splashed in bold letters on newspapers on shelves in every supermarket chain in the United States.

Even more, there were leaks coming from someone inside the case, such as initial reports stated there had been no footprints found in the snow leading to or from the Ramsey home leading police and the public to believe the Ramsey’s were responsible for the murder. Nevertheless, as it turns out, there was no snow on the walkway outside the Ramsey home, meaning it was possible someone had broken into the Ramsey home the night of the murder. Still, much of the initial leaks and stories are still considered as the truth by those who either ignore the mistakes made by police, or by those who have forgotten most of the facts but have determined someone in the Ramsey home is guilty of murder.

The strained relationship between the BPD and the BDA became worse when the DA’s office brought in Lou Smit, a retired, but highly respected homicide detective to re-examine the case. And what he found suggested the BPD had bungled the investigation from the outset and the evidence he gathered caused him to conclude that someone, an unknown intruder, entered the home Christmas night and murdered JonBenet, ruling out the Ramsey’s altogether.

Much of the information I espouse on this report can be found online rather easily. One will read about the complications from the outset of the investigation, the multiple who done it theories, and reports on plausible suspects and discover as I have why it is one side is certain the Ramsey family is culpable, and why the other side disagrees and believes there is no way the Ramsey family would hurt their own child or attempt to cover up the crime afterward.

However, using the MSCTEM and operating under the premise there is an absolute answer even if at this time no one has been held accountable, through a better understanding of the actual evidence, and deductive reasoning, this report believes it is plausible to ascertain a reasonable explanation as to the motive behind the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

Besides the differing expert opinions as to if someone in the Ramsey home committed the crime versus an unknown intruder, each and every person who has been investigated seems to be a likely suspect at face value.

For instance, “Santa Bill” is an intriguing suspect, I won’t go into the full back story, and he too like the Ramsey family has been ruled out due to no DNA match; the details, his backstory, and relationship with JonBenet are intriguing to any professional or amateur investigator.

Still, there are multiple persons of interest in this case just as intriguing as “Santa Bill” and yet to date, not one person investigated has matched the DNA evidence. It is plausible as the experts in the CBS documentary posited that the DNA evidence collected at the crime scene is too weak to link to any person, and perhaps the claim they made that the DNA may have come from a secondary transfer such as the maker of JonBenet’s clothing she wore is true making the DNA evidence invalid altogether.

On the other hand, other experts disagree and claim the DNA evidence is strong and can be, and has been utilized to rule out suspects and will be utilized in the future to rule out other possible suspects.

Another problem one is presented with when examining this case is that it is currently an open investigation. Although much of the information about the case has been made public, the BPD and the Boulder DA seem reluctant to allow independent investigators to assist in the case, so those working the case are working off of information that is publicly accessible, without examining the actual case files or evidence collected from the crime scene.

Thre are multiple websites dedicated to the investigation of the unsolved murder, books written about the case from journalist, detectives who worked the case and even JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey. There have been several televised documentaries in which the multiple theories are discussed. Many documentaries leave the who done it question unanswered and allow the viewer to decide. While the CBS documentary came to the conclusion that JonBenet’s older brother Burke murdered his sister in a fit of rage and his parents staged the crime scene and the ransom note afterward.

Even so, the Ramsey family denies this claim and has sued CBS for defamation and have always maintained their innocence.

I have spent several months examining this cold case, and I too find it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in a case that has been sensationalized and with so many falsehoods that have since been disproven still persisting to this day about the case. With that said, however, this report does not offer up a potential suspect but feels confident in its conclusion that the most plausible explanation is an unknown intruder with intentions of burglarizing the Ramsey home, possibly believing they had left town for the holidays, broke into the Ramsey home, discovered the home was still occupied and what began as an intent to burglarize the home led to the attempted kidnapping of JonBenet believing by doing so, the suspect would make a bigger score, yet in the process of kidnapping the six-year-old from her home, the suspect in an attempt to subdue the young girl or keep her quiet, panicked and inadvertently murdered her.

In coming to this conclusion this report has analyzed all the known evidence from the three-page ransom letter to the injuries sustained to JonBenet Ramsey, from the blunt force trauma which fractured her skull to the strangulation by a ligature fashioned to a broken paintbrush and used as a makeshift garotte.

The ransom note for example as compared to other known ransom letters seems atypical in regards to the length of the letter, it was written on a notepad and a pen owned by the Ramsey family, and is addressed to John Ramsey as if the suspect knew or at the least was familiar with the family.

This report finds it is plausible the suspect(s) did not need to know the Ramsey family prior to the night JonBenet was murdered to have learned details or inferred certain details by simply being in the home that could have been used to appear as if the suspect(s) knew the family.

In magic most “psychics” will perform cold readings and sometimes hot readings to learn pertinent information about an individual. In this case, the suspect(s) did not need to know the Ramsey family to recognize by observing the home that the occupants were most likely wealthy. The suspect(s) did not need to know who was living in the home to target it expecting to find items of value to steal from the home.

It is also important to note that statistics show that the holidays are when people’s homes are more at risk of being burglarized. Even more important, in the days leading up to the death of JonBenet, there had been several unsolved burglaries in Boulder.

Although it is plausible, the suspect had been in the home prior to the night of the murder and may have known of the Ramsey’s without having met them, it is not entirely necessary to conclude the suspect(s) had to have ever been in the home or even knew who lived there and targeted the home, perhaps stalked the property a few days before, and chose Christmas night to break into the home either believing the family would be gone for the holidays or was brazen enough to enter the home regardless even if the family was still in the home.

This report does not believe the original intent was to abduct JonBenet, because if this were the original intention the suspect would have most likely written the ransom letter before entering the home, and would have abducted her, and left the premises with her safely.

This report believes the original intent was to burglarize the home and only after entering the home and finding it still occupied concocted a plan to abduct JonBenet and forego burglarizing the home because the suspect measured the risk versus reward and made the decision the reward of ransom was greater than the risk of being caught and most likely more valuable than stealing piecemeal items that would be more difficult to fence after the crime.

It is believed the suspect(s) was organized, at least when it came to the crime of burglary. The suspect(s) most likely brought items such as a stun gun, rope and duct tape in case the suspect(s) encountered someone within the home. It is believed the suspect(s) targeted specific items such as jewelry, cash, guns, and other small valuable items that could be easily taken from the home and fenced quickly once the job was finished and overlooked bigger bulkier items.

This report finds that the most credible evidence to support this theory is the atypical ransom letter. The author of this letter goes to great lengths to project the abduction as being part of a concerted effort carried out by a skilled group of professionals that are monitoring the movements of the Ramsey family and are also familiar with Law Enforcement techniques to dissuade the Ramsey family from contacting Law Enforcement and dealing directly with the abductor.

This report suggests the suspect(s) believed the more dangerous the threat the less likely the Ramsey’s would be to risk their daughter’s life and instead of contacting the police would move immediately to secure the ransom. The suspect is taking a major risk and becomes disorganized at this point by believing the threatening letter would be enough to prevent the Ramsey’s from contacting Law Enforcement. It is also believed the suspect(s) once they removed JonBenet from the home would, in fact, be watching the Ramsey home and perhaps naively believing they would follow John Ramsey to his bank, wait outside until he had secured the ransom and would approach him outside the bank and make the exchange.

The suspect(s) would make a huge score, no one gets hurt, John Ramsey is wealthy and the ransom he paid would not bankrupt him and John Ramsey would be so happy to have his daughter back safe and secure that would be the end of the ordeal. The suspect(s) would go on with their lives and the Ramsey’s would go on with theirs and in the suspect(s) mind, the reward of succeeding outweighed all the risk.

The logic behind this conclusion is based on the atypical ransom letter that was written after-the-fact once the suspect(s) were in the home and not premeditated prior to entering the home. In theory, once the suspect(s) is inside the home and has abducted JonBenet the suspect(s) needs only walk out any door and complete the objective of a successful abduction. However, in practice, this report believes that the suspect(s) may have underestimated their own ability to physically restrain the six-year-old and in an attempt to stop her from struggling or crying out for help assaulted her causing the skull fracture that even though the blow by the blunt force object was enough to cause death, her death did not happen immediately.
This report believes the act of strangulation was most likely not “overkill” but believes it is plausible the suspect(s) were unaware of the skull fracture caused by the blunt force trauma because although the skull was fractured, the trauma did not break the skin and cause bleeding. From the suspect(s) perspective, it may have appeared that JonBenet had been knocked unconscious but the suspect(s) believed she was still very much alive. Within seconds the suspect(s) would most likely realize the injury was more serious and this report believes it is plausible that upon sustaining the traumatic brain injury JonBenet may have began making a loud guttural snoring sound known as a “death rattle” which caused the suspect(s) to panic and lead to attempts by the suspect to wake up JonBenet, and when this did not work strangled her and then left the home leaving behind the ransom letter and perhaps even a flashlight used to cause the blunt force trauma.

This report has examined the layout of the Ramsey home and has found evidence suggesting that there were multiple points of entry the suspect(s) may have used to enter the home. Although most reports that support the “intruder theory” point towards a basement window that had been broken a few months earlier by John Ramsey as the most likely point of entry, Law Enforcement has acknowledged there were other points of entry, windows, and doors that were never examined in the initial investigation that may have been unlocked and unsecured. It is also known that although the Ramsey home was equipped with an alarm system, the Ramsey family did not use the system and hadn’t for months prior to the murder of JonBenet. Although the basement window is plausible as a point of entry one should not summarily ignore other plausible points of entry.

The Ramsey home was four stories when one includes the basement. The basement was used primarily as storage. The first floor was spacious with a kitchen, a butler’s pantry, living room, and dining room and two staircases. One staircase, the primary could access the second and third floor, whereas the secondary staircase, a spiral staircase, was near the kitchen and it led to the second floor of the home. This is important to note because the spiral staircase was where the suspect(s) left the ransom letter on one of the steps to be found by the family. However, more importantly, the spiral staircase leads directly to the second floor and just outside of JonBenet’s bedroom. Her brother’s bedroom was also on the second floor but was on the opposite side closer to the primary staircase. The third floor of the home was the master bedroom for John and Patsy Ramsey.

Upon examination of the layout of the Ramsey home, one could posit the suspect(s) entered into the home from multiple points of entry either through the basement or through an opening on the first floor, but in some location near the kitchen and the spiral staircase. Once entering the home, the suspect(s) may have gone into the basement, and perhaps cased the first floor of the home but at some point proceeded up the spiral staircase and the first bedroom the suspect(s) would have approached would have been JonBenet’s.

This report finds it is plausible the suspect(s) intent was to burglarize the home perhaps even believing the home was empty, but at some point upon moving through the home and most likely up the spiral staircase discovered the home was occupied when they encountered JonBenet sleeping in her bedroom. The suspect(s) first instinct may have been to abort the burglary altogether and leave the Ramsey home or move back to the first floor and find items of value to take, and then as an afterthought concocted the plan to abduct JonBenet to attempt to collect a ransom from the Ramsey family.

Although it is believed the suspect(s) may have been an organized and experienced burglar, once the initial plan to burglarize the home was aborted and the suspect(s) concocted the kidnapping scheme, this goes against the suspect(s) normal pattern of behaviorism but the suspect(s) greed or bravado prevented the suspect(s) from abandoning the plan altogether, and once this happens the crime becomes less organized as the events unfold.

Because the home was occupied by the Ramsey family, the suspect(s) after changing course from burglary to kidnapping removed the writing pad and pen from the kitchen area, adjacent the spiral staircase, and then most likely moved into the basement and found the wine cellar provided the most secure location to pen the ransom letter. Once in the windowless wine cellar the suspect(s) could avoid detection if anyone inside the home woke up. It is believed that while in the wine cellar which was used as storage, the suspect(s) found information on items inside the cellar which provided the suspect(s) with pertinent information enabling them to address John Ramsey personally as if they were familiar with him, but may have never met or even knew his name until they entered the Ramsey home Christmas night.

This report does not believe the point of entry or point of exit occurred in the basement, but most likely through the butler door on the first floor. However, once the suspect entered into the basement to write the ransom letter the suspect(s) may have been prepared to exit the basement window if the suspect(s) had heard anyone moving around upstairs. This is evidenced by a suitcase that was near the window and a possible scuff mark made by the suspect(s) shoe, to test if the suspect(s) would be able to use the suitcase as a makeshift stool, and then hoist themselves out of the window if the suspect(s) needed to make a quick escape.

Up to this point, the suspect(s) is still organized and understands the need to find an alternate escape route if the suspect(s) is unable to make it back up to the first floor, but will only use this point of exit if something goes wrong, but prefers to utilize the original point of entry, the butler door, as the primary exit point.

It must also be noted that the basement window as an alternative escape route is practical for one to make a quick escape, it would not be the most practical exit point once the suspect(s) abducts JonBenet from her room when the better route would be to abduct her from her room, move down the spiral staircase and right out the butler door and once outside the Ramsey home move towards the suspect(s) vehicle. So this report finds the basement window was a secondary if needed in case of emergency escape route, but most likely not used by the suspect(s).

For the most part, this report believes that in the suspect(s) mind the suspect(s) had concocted a flawless plan, even if the original intent was to burglarize the home. Once the suspect(s) changed course and moved to abduct JonBenet in an attempt to force the Ramsey’s to follow the suspect(s) demand and pay the ransom money there was no turning back. The ransom letter is the key to the success of collecting the ransom believing the Ramsey family would not risk their daughter’s life if they were thoroughly convinced the kidnapping was part of a larger plot orchestrated by multiple people. The suspect(s) most likely had not considered an alternate plan for what would happen if the Ramsey’s did not follow the ransom letters instructions. Instead, the suspect(s) believed if the seriousness of the ransom letter was believed to be an authentic threat the Ramsey’s would be less inclined to involve Law Enforcement and seek to immediately secure the ransom money in the hopes of bringing their daughter back home and unharmed.

The suspect(s) after abducting Jon Benet would stay close by and monitor the house and would improvise on what to do if the Ramsey’s did not follow the instructions and contacted Law Enforcement. If the Ramsey’s were to disobey the suspect(s)s demand and contact Law Enforcement, the suspect(s) would be nearby to see if Law Enforcement arrived at the Ramsey home, and perhaps at this point would have aborted this plan and either let JonBenet go free, or take her to an isolated location and murder her. Nevertheless, if the suspect(s) plan worked, they would be nearby to watch John Ramsey leave the home, follow him, and hope he would drive directly to his bank and secure the ransom money and the suspect(s)
would approach John Ramsey and make the exchange within minutes rather than waiting to make a call and arrange a meeting place to make the exchange later the same day.

Throughout this report, the usage of the word suspect(s) is done so because it is unknown if more than one suspect was involved in the crime. Although this report’s opinion is only one person was responsible, it cannot rule out the possibility that the crime was committed by more than one person.

It is plausible this may be the reason for what began as an intent to burglarize the home took a drastic turn in which one suspect wanted to abort the burglary altogether once the home was found to be occupied and not empty while another suspect changed course and convinced the other of the scheme to abduct JonBenet. Yet this report cannot rule out only one suspect was involved and was not working with a partner. Both scenarios are plausible.

This report does believe the original intent whether by one suspect or by more than one suspect was to burglarize what was believed to be an unoccupied home, and once the home was discovered to be occupied one suspect did not want to waste the opportunity by leaving the home empty-handed and changed course from burglary to kidnapping. Once the change of plan was made the suspect went from being organized having followed a strict disciplined pattern in the past and became disorganized as the original intent evolved into a plot to abduct JonBenet from her home. In theory, the plan to abduct the six-year-old was worth the risk to attempt to collect the ransom, once the ransom letter was written and placed on the spiral staircase. The suspect(s) would then proceed upstairs, ambush JonBenet while she slept, tie her and gag her, and then carry her out of the room quickly down the spiral staircase and right out the nearby butler door and to the suspect(s) car and from that point would watch and wait to see if the Ramsey’s would follow the demands of the ransom letter.

Theoretically, it should have been a very simple task, but in the course of abducting JonBenet, it is believed the suspect(s) did not take into account the seemingly vulnerable six-year-old girl would prove more difficult to take without her putting up a fight and when this happened, what in theory should have been a perfect plan the suspect(s) lost control, the suspect(s) panicked and struck the girl with a blunt object, fracturing her skull, and when the suspect(s) were unable to wake her, and as JonBenet’s fracture caused her brain to swell and she began to either convulse or making a guttural and unnatural snoring sound known as a death rattle, the suspect(s) abandoned the plan to whisk her away through the butler door and instead panicked and moved back into the wine cellar area to prevent waking anyone in the house.

Once in the wine cellar, the suspect(s) was unaware of the severity of the injury to JonBenet’s brain that alone would have caused death, but she did not die quickly and the suspect may have tried in vain to wake the girl. When all attempts to revive her failed and the suspect(s) became disturbed by the horrific sounds JonBenet made as her brain swelled and her body began shutting down, this report concludes the suspect(s) in an act of mercy, or in an act of sheer panic, strangled JonBenet, covered her body, and moved back upstairs to the first floor and fled the scene leaving behind the ransom note and perhaps the blunt object used to cause a skull fracture, a large flashlight behind.

This report has taken into account all dissenting theories and examined multiple people of interest including the Ramsey family and finds no credible evidence to suggest the Ramsey family were involved in the murder or coverup of the murder. The main contributing factor of discounting the expert’s opinions explained in the CBS documentary is if in fact the DNA evidence is weak and should not be used to exonerate the Ramsey family, by making this claim it also implies that each person of interest who has been ruled out as a result of no match to the DNA found at the crime scene cannot be ruled out either. The CBS documentary did not discuss the multiple points of entry the suspect(s) may have used to gain access to the Ramsey home, but only sought to disprove the theory the suspect(s) most likely did not enter the home through the basement window. Another issue and perhaps the most compelling of reasons to rule out the Ramsey family and most especially the theory posited by the experts in the CBS documentary which concluded that JonBenet’s nine-year-old brother in a fit of rage fractured JonBenet’s skull with a blunt force object, and caused the Ramsey family to panic and stage the incident to appear as an attempted abduction, is it seems more likely based on the evidence the skull fracture although serious and most likely would have caused certain death, the Ramsey family would have been compelled to call an ambulance in an attempt to save their daughter’s life. From her parent’s perspective, although the head trauma was serious, it is not known to have broken the skin and cause bleeding, and they’d have no rational reason to believe JonBenet if she received emergency medical attention would not recover from her injury.

It is also important to note that the official autopsy report is unable to determine a time of death. The medical examiner is also unable to determine if JonBenet was a victim of a sexual assault the night she was murdered, although there were minor injuries discovered during the pelvic examination. The contents of her stomach were also examined and fragments of what are believed to be pineapple were found in JonBenet’s digestive tract, but there are multiple differing medical opinions as to when JonBenet ate the pineapple.

Again the same issues of differing expert opinions arise when examining the DNA evidence. Multiple handwriting experts who have examined the original ransom letter against the handwriting of the Ramsey family has ruled them out as being the author of the letter, while other experts who have relied on copies of the ransom letter without access to the actual ransom letter and compared to the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey, proclaim she is the author of the letter.

It is known that the Boulder Police were ill-equipped on how to handle a kidnapping case and made multiple errors during the initial investigation. The Boulder Police did not seal the home as a crime scene from the outset of the investigation and allowed multiple friends and family of the Ramsey’s to enter the home during the course of the day. The Boulder Police did not search the entire home and admittedly bypassed the wine cellar room. The Boulder Police did not check each window or door for any signs of entry from an unknown intruder. The only room in the house sealed and considered a crime scene was JonBenet’s bedroom. And although the police arrived at the Ramsey home around 6AM it would be another seven hours before JonBenet’s lifeless body would be found in the wine cellar by her own father after he was given permission by a detective at the scene to search the house again around 1PM. Once her distraught father found his daughter’s body he carried her upstairs, and the detective on site did not protect the integrity of the evidence but instead allowed for her grieving mother to lay across her daughter’s body and weep, afterward allowed the body to be covered by a blanket, and even more troublesome the detective moved JonBenet’s body a second time into another room. Only then was the entire house sealed by police and considered a crime scene and it would be another seven or eight hours before the medical examiner arrived at the home to collect evidence and remove the body to be taken to the coroner’s office.

However, this report does recommend this case as one that should be studied by students who want a career in Law Enforcement, or is practicing criminal law. This particular case is an example of how important it is to protect the integrity of all crime scenes; it is a case in which demonstrates the appropriate response by a district attorney’s office to not rush to judgment and arrest someone based on a presumption of guilt and press to find probable cause to make an arrest because they have a duty to not only find justice for the person responsible for committing this heinous crime but also have a duty to protect the innocent people from being prosecuted based on an assumption of guilt when the evidence collected contradicts even the most likely suspect.

The MCSTEM model has been created to examine cases that have gone cold, have little or no evidence left behind by a suspect and attempt to create a forensic triad through deductive reasoning by utilizing forensic tools from analyzing psychological criminal profiles, examining the Victimology, geography, by formulating hypotheses based on the known facts of the case to arrive at a functional operational theory to aid in identifying a suspect; locating the missing person (alive or deceased), if deceased create a grid system to be searched for a disposal site of a deceased person, and aiding in identifying deceased victims who have been discovered but have not been identified through forensic technology.

The MSCTEM is based on Erwin Schrodinger’s Thought Experiment in which he posed a scenario involving a “hypothetical” situation in which a cat is locked inside a box with a small amount of radiation inside the box; Schrodinger opined that the experimenter has no way of knowing before opening the box if the cat is still alive or has died due to the release of the radiation. Thus, he postulated that the cat just prior to the box being opened was in two states at the same time: dead and alive, and only until after the box is opened will the experimenter know for a fact whether the cat is alive or dead. Schrodinger used this thought experiment to explain the tribulations scientists face in regard to Quantum Mechanics.

The MCSTEM utilizes this thought experiment to better understand criminal psychology, missing person cases, unsolved cases, and unidentified person cases. For example, the MCSTEM not only questions whether the “cat” is alive or dead, it also suggests the “cat” may not be in the box, and thus, the box may hold all the answers as to why the “cat” is alive, dead, or missing; furthermore, the MCSTEM infers that the “box” containing the evidence is also missing, and in order to complete the forensic triad of connecting the victim to the suspect and both to the crime scene one has to locate the “box” where in many cases the victim or suspect(s) have possession of the “box”.

In order to complete the forensic triad when there is little or no forensic evidence left behind, no body, or no identification of a body, the MCSTEM establishes a deductive reasoning based profile on the suspect(s) and victims to attempt to construct a psychological profile of the suspect(s), to create waypoints to locate a missing person (in most cases disposal areas) or a profile of the unidentified person by using methods and protocols established by the FBI, and Forensic Investigators, who have studied multiple disciplines in their respective fields.

This report concludes based on the known evidence the forensic triad cannot be completed entirely because the suspect(s) are unknown but can deduce based on the Routine Activity Theory which stipulates three necessary conditions for most crimes: a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian coming together in time and space, the crime originated with the intent to burglarize the Ramsey home once the “Offender” targeted the home believing the upscale home would be a prime location to find items of value which could afterward be fenced, believing the homeowners, the Ramsey’s were not in the home.

However, once the suspect(s) entered the home and found it to be occupied by the owners, what began as an intent to burglarize evolved into a scheme to abduct the most vulnerable person in the home and hold her captive until the suspect(s) were paid a ransom by the Ramsey family for her safe return.

This report concludes the Crime Classification according to the Crime Classification Manual as a SITUATIONAL FELONY MURDER 108.2. Situational felony murder is defined as an unplanned murder prior to commission of a felony. The homicide is committed out of panic, confusion, or impulse.

This report concludes that on December 25, 1996, an unknown person(s) who have been responsible for several burglaries in the city of Boulder, Colorado targeted the Ramsey home in the weeks before or the day of as a prime place to burglarize. It is believed the suspect(s) drove and parked near the Ramsey home, exited the vehicle and then entered the home through an unlocked door on the Northside of the Ramsey Home referred to as the Butler Pantry door around 11PM-12AM. Once inside the home the suspect(s) moved through the kitchen and may have immediately moved up the spiral staircase which led to the second floor of the home near the bedroom where JonBenet was sleeping.

The suspect(s) may have panicked at this time when realizing the home was not empty and contemplated aborting the plan to burglarize the home, but not wanting to leave the home empty-handed and seizing on the opportunity to make an even bigger score decided to abduct JonBenet Ramsey and hold her captive until her family paid the ransom demand.

Around 1230AM-100AM the suspect(s) take pen and paper from the kitchen in the Ramsey home and looks for a private location to write out the ransom letter, and finds the perfect location in the wine cellar located in the basement. This location allowed the suspect(s) privacy, and an ability to hear if anyone was moving through the house and the suspect(s) prepped the basement window also at the north side of the home in case the suspect(s) needed to make a quick escape.

One inside the wine cellar, the suspect(s) found personalized items belonging to the Ramsey family and were able to utilize those personalized items to make the ransom letter more specific appearing from an outsider’s perspective the suspect(s) knew John Ramsey personally.

The suspect(s) write the ransom letter which most likely takes 30 minutes to an hour to complete. Around 230AM and 3AM the suspect(s) having finished the ransom note moves back to the first floor, places the pen and paper back where they were found, and places the three-page ransom letter on the steps of the spiral staircase.

The suspect(s) is an experienced burglar and carries with him items such as rope, duct tape, and perhaps a stun gun in case the suspect(s) are confronted by someone inside the home and if the suspect is unable to flee he has the items to subdue someone within the home, but the suspect’s intent is not to harm or murder, nor is the suspect(s) crimes sexually motivated. The suspect(s) organized, and can and will flee or abort the burglary if it risks being captured or having to confront someone.

This report believes in this case the suspect(s) for unknown reasons ignored his instincts and saw an opportunity the suspect(s) found too difficult to resist. Whether it was greed, or whether it was financially motivated and the suspect(s) believed the ransom would be a far greater score than the items the suspect(s) would have to fence after stolen from the house, the suspect(s) proceeded upstairs to JonBenet’s bedroom with rope and duct tape at the ready to ambush the sleeping six-year-old girl in a blitz style attack.

Once the suspect(s) had control, she would be carried back down the spiral staircase and out the butler door to the suspect(s) vehicle. From there the suspect(s) would watch the Ramsey home and observe any movements inside the home and hope to see John Ramsey leave once the ransom note was discovered and follow him to the bank where Mr. Ramsey would secure the ransom money.

It is believed the abduction in the bedroom took place as planned, but somewhere between moving downstairs and arriving on the first floor near the kitchen something went wrong and JonBenet managed to break away from her abductor(s).

Panicked, the suspect(s) swing the Mag-Lite style flashlight in an attempt to knock the six-year-old unconscious. However, the suspect(s) is unaware the blow caused a significant skull fracture which did not kill her instantly but would have ultimately caused her death.

Soon after striking her, it is believed that JonBenet began making a loud guttural snoring sound known as a death rattle, and fearing someone in the house would hear the commotion and unable to wake JonBenet, the suspect(s) left the flashlight on the kitchen table picked her up off the floor and carried her into the basement.

The suspect(s) attempts to wake her but are unable to do so and the death rattle becomes louder and the suspect(s) begins to understand the gravity of the situation. The suspect wants the loud guttural sound to stop, but cannot face her and strangle the dying girl with his hands, so the suspect(s) looks for something to fashion a piece of rope onto to make a garotte. The suspect(s) locate a paintbrush, break off the tip, and ties the rope to the wooden brush. The suspect turns JonBenet onto her stomach, wraps the rope around her neck several times and tightens the garotte by twisting it until she stops breathing.

Ashamed of what has happened at the suspect(s) own hands the suspect(s) finds a blanket in a nearby hamper and covers her body to hide her. Soon after the suspect(s)goes back upstairs and leaves through the butler door, back to the vehicle and leaves the area.

This report concludes the crime was most likely committed by one suspect instead of two. One rational reason for this is that two suspects may have been able to maintain their hold on JonBenet. Another rational explanation is that if two individuals were responsible for the murder, one or the other might, if ever confronted by Law Enforcment or even if bragging to friends or seeking the confidence of a loved one to ask for forgiveness risks being exposed. Whereas if one person commits the crime this person does not have to worry about the secret being exposed if they never tell anyone or are ever linked to the crime by forensic evidence.

This report posits the suspect is a white male between the ages of 18 and 25 years of age at the time of the murder in 1996. The suspect is small in stature and able to slip in and out of small windows and he uses this as an advantage to break into homes. It is believed the suspect most likely started out as a petty criminal, shoplifting, stealing from family and friends, perhaps has a drug habit to support, and has overtime began taking greater risks by breaking into homes.

The suspect is of average intelligence perhaps having graduated high school, and perhaps moved to Boulder after school to attend college but soon dropped out after falling into a spiral of depression and substance abuse, but is too ashamed to admit failure and go back home.

It is plausible to suggest that if the aforementioned scenario is indeed correct, the unknown suspect or “unsub” left Boulder and perhaps Colorado and moved back home.

This report suggests the unsub was a non-violent offender prior to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey on December 25th 1996, but most likely has a criminal record for petty misdemeanors in Boulder and perhaps if he had come to Boulder to attend college has a crimal record in his hometown. It is not believed the unsub is a known or unknown sex offender and that sex was not a motivating factor in the attempted abudction and murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

One could opine the murder was a wake up call for the unsub and afterwards sought help and has moved on with his life and has married and settled down and has been able to psychologicaly distance himself from the crime. However, one cannot rule out the unsub has never recovered and may still committ burglaries or petty crimes, or has died as a result of overdose or suicide or even natural causes.

Furthermore this report concludes that it is highly unlikely the unsub will be caught and brought to justice because the unsub is so far on the periphery of the investigation he has been overlooked or never brought to the attention of law enforcement. However, this report suggests that the chances are greater if investigators expand their DNA databases to include ancestral DNA which has been responsible over the last few years of bringing closure and justice to unsolved murder cases that have over the last twenty years have gone cold, where many of the suspects were never considered as part of the investigation and would have continued to evade capture had it not been for the advancements in forensic sciences. Even if the unsub has passed away since 1996, ancestral DNA may still be utilized to identify the person responsible for murdering JonBenet and at least give her family closure.


December 25th 2019 will be the 23rd anniversary of JonBenet’s murder. JonBenet would be 29 years old had her life not been so tragically taken away from her. When investigating crimes, especially one as complex and with so many persons of interest and when you add the spectacle, the glamour shot photos or beauty pageant videos, one can lose sight of the fact that performing in beauty pageants was only a small fraction of JonBenet’s life. People have become obsessed with the case and some have taken that obsession to a dark and twisted place in their own minds, having fallen in love with an image, even confessing to having killed her.

What I find more disturbing is how it feels as if the suspect not only was able to sneak into the Ramsey home on Christmas night, abduct her and murder in the only place she had ever known as home, is the seemingly laksodascial effort from Law Enforcement to disregard standard operating procedures and allow the suspect to slip out of sight and into the abyss.

Yet we’ve seen this time and time again, a child goes missing or is murdered, Law Enforcement feel pressured in solving the case to ease the mind of the community, refuse help from other law enforcement agencies who may be better equipped, whether it’s pride or who knows, once the leads stop pouring in, it becomes easier to find a scapegoat, whether it be the parents, or someone people define as “acting strange”, and begin building a case against an innocent person. Even more frightening is the fact that many innocent people have been found guilty and some have been exonerated as the years pass and science improves,while others have died waiting on the wheels of justice to stop and reexamine their case, and some are still behind bars and may never be freed.

In this particular case however, one can say it wouldn’t have been too difficult for the Boulder DA to arrest the Ramsey’s even if the evidence was weak and build a case and perhaps convince a jury that most likely has already been tainted by the constant stream of media reports casting negative aspersions on the Ramsey’s as being guilty, maybe not of murder, but of allowing their child to dress in provacative costumes and wear make-up and yet this didn’t happen. The DA stopped short of pressing charges. One must opine that perhaps it was because the Ramsey’s were wealthy and had hired experienced defense lawyers where in many similar cases a defendant cannot afford an attorney of their choice.

Still, one would like to believe the DA stopped short because the evidence was weak, even if he could have manipulated the evidence in the courtroom, the DA refused to bend to the pressure of law enforcement and those in the community who had already concluded the Ramsey’s were guilty because it would have been against the very oath he had sworn to uphold. Had he had arrested them and were able to convince a jury of the Ramsey’s guilt, the DA would have been lauded by many as a hero and a champion of justice and may have sought higher office after, because everyone knew the Ramsey case and would know he was the one who brought justice to JonBenet. The DA may have committed political suicide by not bringing charges against the Ramsey’s but this case should be studied by law students and law enforcement officers bring charges against an innocent person to close a case is not justice. It’s not justice for the victim, and it’s an injustice to an innocent person, and sometimes even when one wants closure, be patient and allow advancements in science to evolve. It really is only a matter of time and patience where many cold cases will eventually be solved and those who thought they had escaped punishment find themselves behind bars.

Ultimately, even though the Ramsey’s were never arrested or charged with a crime, the death of their daughter would forever change their lives. After JonBenet’s death the Ramsey family never set foot back in their home in Boulder. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006 after a long battle with cancer. John Ramsey was no longer a successful businessman, but would eventually remarry and settle down in a home far away from the media frenzy that would overwhelm the Ramsey family for several years. Burke Ramsey has grown up and is in his early 30’s and has a good job, and recently gave an interview with Dr. Phil where he again denied any involvement in the death of his sister.

23 years have passed, and although the case has not been solved, I have faith that it will be. Someone knows the truth.

I am not affiliated with Law Enforcement. If anyone has any information that may lead to an arrest in this case please contact the Boulder Police Department at: (303) 441-3333


The Impeachment of Donald Trump is not Complicated.

So, hypothetically, let’s say my wife was going out of town on business. Before she leaves, she hands me $600.00 she had loaned to a friend in need. The friend is down on her luck and needs the money to pay for a deposit on a rental property so she can leave her abusive husband.

My wife leaves town, and a few hours later her female friend arrives at our house to collect the loan. I tell her, sure, as long as you do me a favor though.

Now what I’ve done may not be illegal, but it is wrong, dishonorable, abusive, and shameful.

This is exactly what our President did. Congress, in this case, would be the “wife”, I would be the President, and the “friend” would be Ukraine.

It is that simple. Congress holds the purse and appropriated the funds for Ukraine. The president cannot withhold the funds without explaining to Congress his rationale for doing so.

If I believed my wife was in the wrong for loaning her friend the money, I should speak to my wife about my concerns. Yet, if I say nothing to my wife and then use the money to ask for a favor (no matter what the favor is) in return for me giving her the money, I’m in the wrong and my wife should divorce me.

Don’t be fooled by the gaslighting and lies of the Republican Party and Donald Trump, because the case for impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office is not complicated.

FSC: The Abduction of Morgan Nick: Alma, Arkansas: June 9, 1995

Morgan Nick 1995 and artist rendition of Age Progression

Alma is a small town of about five thousand residents. It’s known for being the spinach capital of the world. The iconic cartoon character Popeye the Sailor Man is the symbol of The Allen’s Canning Company “Popeye Spinach” brand.  

Alma is about 20 miles west from the Oklahoma state border and about 20 miles north of the Arkansas River which winds through the state. I-40, the 2,555 mile stretch of interstate which moves west from Barstow, California, through Arizona, New Mexico, and the Texas panhandle will take one all the way through the state of Arkansas and into Memphis and ends in North Carolina. Portions of 1-40 pass directly through the town of Alma.

Highway 64 also runs east-west and stretches for 2,326 miles and was once the primary road used by travelers prior to the construction of I-40 still exists and goes through downtown Alma.  

An hour north of Alma is the city of Fayetteville the home of the Arkansas Razorbacks and a popular destination for college sports fans. Prior to 1999 travelers coming in from I-40 would have had to take what was then recognized as one of the most dangerous highways in America—Highway 71.  The highway twists through the Boston Mountains and small rural towns and beautiful picturesque scenic views of the Ozark Mountains.

In 1999, the Bobby Hopper Tunnel opened up I-540 (now designated as I-49), allowing travelers to bypass Highway 71 to travel to Fayetteville, originating at its southern point just a couple miles west of Alma. 

Thousands of travelers moving along I-40 will pass through Alma daily, never stopping as they move through Arkansas to Oklahoma or vice versa or make their way to I-49 heading north to Fayetteville or Missouri.

If one does stop, they do so perhaps because they need fuel or food. Some, however, who love roadside attractions will stop and take their picture with the giant bronze statue of Popeye erected in 2007 at the “Popeye Gardens about 4 blocks south of Hwy 64 in historic downtown Alma on Fayetteville Avenue.

Popeye Gardens, Alma, Arkansas

Most of those visitors will take their photos to upload on social media and leave soon after never realizing that less than a block west from the statue is the site of a crime that has haunted Alma and the State of Arkansas since June 1995.  Those that do stop and remember the crime, may not realize that as they pose in front of the statue, in what was a ballpark and now a parking lot, just over their shoulder and a stone’s throw away is where a beautiful six year old Morgan Nick was abducted by an unknown person and she has not been seen since, now 24 years later.

The Abduction:

Abduction Site

On Friday June 9, 1995 in the small town of Alma, Arkansas, families and friends enjoyed an evening watching their kids playing one of America’s favorite past times—a Little League baseball game.

Several people were in attendance, and amongst those were Colleen Nick and her six-year old daughter Morgan.  The two had been invited to attend the game that evening and had driven from their home in Ozark, Arkansas, about thirty minutes east to the Alma ballpark. 

Around 1030PM, a restless Morgan, begged her mother to leave the stands and go out into the parking lot with friends and chase after lightning bugs.  Although, Colleen was reluctant, she eventually relented.  Besides, from where she was sitting, Colleen could see her daughter as she played by the clothes she was wearing—a green Girl Scouts t-shirt and white tennis shoes.

Fifteen minutes later, however, the baseball game ending, Morgan’s friends returned, but Morgan did not.  The friends informed Colleen that they had last seen Morgan near her mother’s Nissan Stanza removing sand from her shoes near a man with a red pickup truck and white camper shell. 

After searching the parking lot and finding no sign of Morgan or the man with the red truck, local law enforcement were contacted.  Local police arrived within six minutes after receiving the call and given the description of Morgan as being 4 foot tall, 55 pounds with blonde hair and blue eyes.  

Other witnesses came forward and confirm the eyewitness accounts of the children who had been playing with Morgan and described the suspect as being a white male, between the ages of 23-38 and spoke with “hillbilly” accent.  They stated he was around 180lbs, medium build, about 6’ tall with slick backed salt and pepper hair, moustache and one-inch thick beard.

Composite Sketch of Alleged Suspect

They also described the truck as a red Ford, low wheelbase, with paint that seemed to have dulled due to age.  The truck had a white camper shell over the bed of the truck, but noticed the shell was shorter than the bed.  Over the windows of the shell were curtains. Lastly, it was noticed there was damage on the rear passenger side of the vehicle. 

Similar to Suspect Vehicle Description

Police began searching for the red pickup and hoped to find Morgan Nick, but had no luck finding her or the vehicle.  More disturbing is police learned the same evening when Morgan was abducted, a mother witnessed an unknown male driving a red truck in Alma attempting to lure her 4 year old daughter into his vehicle.  The following day, June 10th, another report came into law enforcement from fifteen miles away about another attempted abduction of a 9 year old girl in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  According to the witnesses the man matched the description of Morgan’s abductor. 

Local, county, and state police, as well as federal agencies such as the FBI and the US Marshals converged on the small town of Alma to begin the investigation and follow up on leads, to which there were several thousand.  Fliers were made with pictures of Morgan, and the case made national news as the media, law enforcement, and volunteers, canvassed the area, and tracked leads that led nowhere and soon the days turned to weeks, and weeks into months and months into years, and the case went cold. 

The ballpark would soon be torn down and turned into a parking lot.  Morgan’s mother Colleen started the Morgan Nick Foundation that is headquartered in Alma a few blocks from where her daughter was abducted. The foundation “provides a support network to parents and families of all missing children focusing on: Intervention, Education, and Legislation.”

Colleen Nick has become a well-respected advocate for victims, while she too still searches for her own daughter 24 years later, never losing hope that Morgan will be found alive. 

Over the last 24 years Law Enforcement insists the case is active and still receive tips, and have over the years investigated promising leads.  In 2002, police were alerted to a possible burial location of Morgan in the small town of Booneville Arkansas 58 miles southeast from Alma.  Searchers dug for a few hours and found nothing.

In December 2018 investigators revisited a home they first searched in 2010 that had once belonged to a convicted child molester having learned from a tipster that Morgan may have been buried in the backyard or in the well at a residence in Spiro, Oklahoma.  Spiro is 35 minutes south west from Alma.  Investigators searched the property but found nothing and discontinued their search efforts.


Law Enforcement Search Oklahoma Residence in 2018 for Morgan Nick

Utilizing the Modified Schrodinger’s Cat Thought Experiment Methodology Model (MSCTEM) To Re-examine the Abduction of Morgan Nick:

The MCSTEM has been created to examine cases that have gone cold, have little or no evidence left behind by a suspect and attempt to create a forensic triad through deductive reasoning by utilizing forensic tools from analyzing psychological criminal profiles, examining the Victimology, the geography, by formulating hypothesis based on the known facts of the case to arrive at a functional operational theory to aid in identifying a suspect; locating the missing person (alive or deceased), if deceased create a grid system to be searched for a disposal site of a deceased person, and aiding in identifying deceased victims who have been discovered but have not been identified through forensic technology. 

The MSCTEM is based off of Erwin Schrodinger’s Thought Experiment in which he posed a scenario involving a “hypothetical” situation in which a cat is locked inside a box with a small amount of radiation inside the box; Schrodinger opined that the experimenter has no way of knowing before opening the box if the cat is still alive or has died due to the release of the radiation.  Thus, he postulated that the cat just prior to the box being opened was in two states at the same time: dead and alive, and only until after the box is opened will the experimenter know for fact whether the cat is alive or dead. Schrodinger used this thought experiment to explain the tribulations scientist face in regards to Quantum Mechanics. 

The MCSTEM utilizes this thought experiment to better understand criminal psychology, missing person’s cases, unsolved cases, and unidentified person’s cases. For example, the MCSTEM not only questions whether the “cat” is alive or dead, it also suggests the “cat” may not be in the box, and thus, the box may hold all the answers as to why the “cat” is alive, dead, or missing; furthermore, the MCSTEM infers that the “box” containing the evidence is also missing, and in order to complete the forensic triad of connecting the victim to the suspect and both to the crime scene one has to locate the “box” where in many cases the victim or suspect(s) have possession of the “box”.

In order to complete the forensic triad when there is little or no forensic evidence left behind, no body, or no identification of a body, the MCSTEM establishes a deductive reasoning based profile on the suspect(s) and victims to attempt to construct a psychological profile of the suspect(s), to create waypoints to locate a missing person (in most cases disposal areas) or a profile of the unidentified person by using methods and protocols established by the FBI, and Forensic Investigators, who have studied multiple disciplines in their respective fields. 

The Abduction of Morgan Nick:

Morgan Nick at Time of Abduction: 6 years old; 4’11’’, 55lbs; 5 visible silver caps on her molars; green Girl Scout T-shirt, blue denim shorts and white tennis shoes

Date: Friday June 9th 1995

Time: Approx 10:45PM

Location: Alma, Arkansas; Little League Ballpark at the intersection of Walnut, Hendricks and Main Street. (Ballpark demolished, parking lot constructed after 1995)

Primary Suspects: N/A

Eyewitness Description of Possible Suspect: White Caucasian Male; 23-38 years of age; 6’0”; slicked back Salt and Pepper hair; mustache; 1” thick beard; spoke in a “Hillbilly” Accent.

Eyewitness Description of Possible Suspect Vehicle: Year model Unknown (UK) Ford, low wheel-base truck; faded red paint; white camper shell with curtains affixed on the windows (Camper Shell a few inches short of the bed of the truck) Damage to the rear passenger side; Possible Arkansas License Plate (UK)

Alleged Attempted Abductions by the Possible Suspect: Evening of June 9th, Alma Arkansas, a few hours before Morgan Nick was abducted, a mother claims a man resembling the composite sketch of Nick’s abductor attempted to abduct her 4 year-old daughter but she was able to prevent the abduction

June 10th, a day after Nick’s abduction, a 9 year old female was approached by a man matching Nick’s abductor at a gas station restroom in FT. Smith a few miles west of Alma, but again the attempted abduction was thwarted.

Investigation as of 2019: Although Law Enforcement continues to get leads, and have investigated a few promising leads over the last few years, the case is active, but the trail has gone cold.

It has been 24 years since Morgan Nick was abducted, and there have been no credible sightings, and she has not been found alive or deceased. 

Morgan Nick would be 30 years of age as of 2019.

Known Facts about the Crime:

Morgan Nick was 6 years of age at the time of her abduction. She was from Ozark, Arkansas 20 miles East of Alma, and was attending a Little League baseball game in the center of the town of Alma, Arkansas with her mother. 

There has been no evidence to date connecting Morgan Nick’s abductor to anyone she may have known. 

Thus, this crime can be ruled as being “Opportunistic”.

The Speculative Crime Classification Code:

319.03 Abduction Rape of a Child

Per the Crime Classification Manual Classification Code 319.03 is defined as:

“In an abduction sexual offense, a person is moved forcibly from one location to another. The sexual assault occurs at the second location. Victims may be adult, adolescent, or child.

Abduction by nonfamily members is defined in the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrown-away Children (1989) as the coerced and unauthorized taking of a child into a building, a vehicle or a distance of more than 20 feet; the detention of a child for a period of more than one hour; or the luring of the child for the purpose of committing a crime. Included in this category are stereotypical kidnappings that require that the victim be missing overnight, be killed, be transported a distance of 50 miles or more, be ransomed, or that the perpetrator evidence an intent to keep the child permanently.”

In the abduction of Morgan Nick, the crime appears opportunistic and the suspect was not specifically targeting Nick personally.  The crime is most likely sexually motivated, but what is unknown is if the suspect’s intent was to murder the victim or intended to keep the victim permanently. 

Because the evidence in the abduction of Morgan Nick is sparse, one has to rely on eyewitness testimony and deductive reasoning to form an operational theory as to creating a profile of the suspect, and in so doing attempt to determine the suspects intent after abducting the victim. 

Utilizing the MSCTEM, the suspect is in possession of the “box” and only the suspect knows the reasoning behind his crime, and his intent after committing the crime.

Even so, one can hypothesize three profile types:

  1. Serial Killer-Geographically Stable w/Hedonistic or Power/Control-Oriented Type Personality
  2. Serial Killer-Geographically Transient w/Hedonistic or Power/Control-Oriented Type Personality
  3. Sexual Offender/Suspect Typology Unknown

Hypothesis A:

Examining crime statistics by analyzing data from the NCIC, UCR, and MAP, there is no indication of clusters of murders or missing person’s in the geographical areas in or near Alma, Arkansas.  Thus, the outcome is a failure to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis B:

Examining the eyewitness accounts in regards to the alleged suspect in the abduction of Morgan Nick, because the means of transportation with the capacity to sleep in the bed of the vehicle, and no known sightings of the alleged suspect’s vehicle after the abduction, one cannot rule out the suspect is a geographically transient serial killer with hedonistic or power/control-oriented personality type.  Thus hypothesis B will be accepted and will be labeled as Hypothesis 1B.

Hypothesis C:

There are four sex offender typologies recognized by Law Enforcement:

  1. Power Reassurance Rapist
  2. Power Rapist (Power Assertive)
  3. Anger Rapist
  4. Sadistic Rapist/Ritualistic Rape

Because of the suspect’s predatory behaviorism exhibited by the alleged attempted abductions of at least two other juvenile females, and the known abduction of Morgan Nick, statistical data show 80.6% of child abductions by nonfamily members is sexually motivated.  Therefore one can deduce that the suspect is a known/unknown sex offender and thus hypothesis C will be accepted and will be labeled as Hypothesis 2C.

Hypothesis 1B (H1B)

H1B surmises that the suspect in the abduction of Morgan Nick is a geographically transient serial killer with hedonistic or power/control-oriented type personality. 

This report bases H1B in part on the means of transportation utilized by the suspect as alleged by eyewitnesses at the scene of Morgan Nick’s abduction is indicative of a suspect who is transient in nature and travels often utilizing the bed of the vehicle covered by a camper shell to sleep.  H1B is also based on the lack of leads in regards to the suspect after the abductions and opines this may be because the suspect left the state of Arkansas immediately after the abduction.

Because of the suspect’s transient nature his crimes will be difficult for law enforcement to detect his movements throughout the United States.

The suspect in H1B is between the ages of 35-45 years of age, avid hunter and outdoorsman who prefers to be isolated and being outdoors. 

The suspect may be a skilled laborer in construction type work, and finds work in his field that affords him the means to afford transportation allowing him to travel, where upon arrival he will look for and accept menial jobs, being paid under the table. 

The suspect does not target victims according to a particular look, but according to their age and prefers Caucasian females between the ages of five and twelve.

The suspect does not covet his victims and will most likely murder and dispose of the victim within thirty minutes to an hour after abduction, and his method of murder is strangulation.  It cannot be ruled out that after the suspect strangles the victim he does not mutilate his victims.

The suspect commits his crimes when the job has ended or once he has enough money to leave the area. 

The suspect prefers small urban towns versus rural areas or large urban areas.  He most likely prefers towns bordering rural areas that provide opportunities to hunt and fish and camp for short periods.  The suspect will familiarize himself with campgrounds and state parks and most likely disposes his victims at these locations across the country before leaving the state or the area for another location.

The suspect may in fact crisscross the country returning back to a state after a period of time to revisit the crime scene and the disposal site of his victims.

The suspect is of average intelligence, most likely “street smart” versus “book smart” and is skilled in bartering. 

If still alive, the suspect may now be in his late 50’s early 60’s and may still be active or has been incarcerated for unrelated crimes. 

Hypothesis 2C (H2C):

H2C theorizes the suspect is a known/unknown sexual offender. It is more likely that at some point the suspect has been arrested or accused of a sexual offense prior to 1995 or after 1995.

Statistical data suggests the target age of a suspect within the sex offender typology is 27 years of age, lives at home with a parent or parents, or lives alone.  Most often, the suspect is unemployed, or has a poor work history. 

Although H1B speculates the suspect may be transient, and has left the state of Arkansas based on the eyewitness description of the suspect’s vehicle and the fact the suspect’s vehicle has not been found in the general area, one cannot rule out the suspect discarded the vehicle soon after the crimes and yet lives in Arkansas or Oklahoma and for unknown reasons no one has tipped the police to the owner of the suspect’s vehicle. It also must be noted that eyewitnesses believed the truck had an Arkansas License Plate.

This report theorizes the suspect will be between the ages of 23-33 at the time of the abduction.

The suspect was unemployed or worked part time and most likely lived with family, perhaps a single parent home, most likely the suspect’s mother. It cannot however, be ruled out the suspect was married, divorced or dating at the time of the abduction.

The suspect most likely had a criminal record at the time of the abductions that made it difficult for him to find stable employment, but one cannot rule out the suspect had a juvenile record that had been expunged; however, this report theorizes the suspect has a troubled mental/criminal history that has caused him to be incarcerated or institutionalized prior to the abductions.

H2C theorizes the suspect may have been identified by a tipster to police, but police overwhelmed by the thousands of tips received in the aftermath of the abduction overlooked the suspect because he did not fit the description of eyewitnesses.

Bivariate Suspect Analysis:    

Examining H1B and H2B, this report theorizes that whether or not the suspect is a geographically transient serial killer or local sex offender with an unknown typology, the abduction was sexually motivated, opportunistic, and the suspect did not kidnap with the intent to hold the victim captive for a long period of time.

This report theorizes the suspect’s (whether the suspect is transient or local) intent was to abduct, rape, and murder the victim from the outset and not to abduct and afterwards hold the victim captive. 

This report theorizes the suspect calculated the risk/reward of his predatory behaviorism and proceeded to hunt for his victim with the intent to abduct, rape, and murder the victim and then dispose of the victim in a remote location in order to prevent the victim from being discovered afterwards. 

The suspect may have disposed of the victim in a remote location as opposed to an easily discoverable location for two reasons: avoid detection, and/or to revisit the scene afterwards. 

Thus, the report theorizes that whether or not the suspect is a geographically transient serial killer or local sex offender with an unknown typology the crime was premeditated in the sense that he had calculated the risk/reward of his actions based on his sexually motivated impulses, set out to prey upon an opportunistic suitable victim, and moved quickly to a remote location to avoid detection within a ten to fifteen mile radius (as the crow flies) and disposed of the victim’s body in a predetermined remote location.

As a result of the bivariate analysis H1B and H2C will be accepted and labeled as Operational Theory 1.

Operational Theory 1:

H1B and H2C have similar implications in which the suspect is a sexual offender with an unknown typology and the report is not necessarily dependant to qualify the results by identifying the suspect but to establish a profile based on the suspect’s behaviorism which suggests the suspect more than likely murdered and disposed of the victim’s body within 2 hours of the abduction.  Thus, the operational theory is the victim is more than likely in a remote location within a 10-15 mile radius as the crow flies from the site of the abduction.

This operational theory is primarily based on statistical data in regards to nonfamily member child abductions which are most likely sexually motivated. This report also takes into consideration the suspect’s calculated risk/reward factor that theorizes the suspect knew right from wrong, was aware of the risk in regards to being captured due to his predatory behaviorism, and therefore, at least in the suspect’s mind, reduced his risk of capture by preying on juvenile victims he assumed were not being looked after, and once he abducted the victim set forth to reduce the risk of capture by murdering the victim in a remote location and disposing of the body within two hours to further avoid detection and capture. 

Furthermore, if in fact the suspect attempted to abduct a child the following day, one can speculate that the suspect felt more empowered afterwards.

However, if one does take this attempted abduction into consideration it suggests that the suspect did not leave the area of Alma immediately.  Nevertheless, the validity of this second eyewitness account of attempted abduction is unknown and unverified, but cannot be ruled out. One may infer however if this account is accurate the suspect had by this time disposed of his victim and although empowered, once this attempted abduction was thwarted the suspect recalculated the risk/reward and aborted further attempts to abduct another victim and left the vicinity soon after.

Operational Theory 1 theorizes the suspect is sexually perverse, and fits the profile of a geographically transient serial killer, but this report cannot determine whether this particular abduction is part of a series of murders or if the suspect is a serial rapist/sex offender of an unknown typology that is not transient but lives locally but by examining the Bivariate suspect analysis can justifiably theorize regardless of the sexual offender’s typology the suspect’s intent to abduct was sexually motivated, the victim was murdered and disposed of in a remote location as opposed to stereotypical kidnappings with an intent to ransom, rage/homicide or keep the victim captive. 

Instead, Operational Theory 1 infers that the suspect most likely soon after the opportunistic sexually motivated abduction, murdered the victim and disposed of the body in an area within 10-15 miles from the epicenter (location of abduction).  The suspect then left the state soon after, or lived nearby within thirty miles from the epicenter.

The Intent to keep type of Stereotypical Kidnapping cannot be ruled out, but this report theorizes the suspect’s intent was sexually motivated with intent to murder. Statistics and data obtained from the DOJ, NCIC, UCR, and NISMART–3 show 8% of victims were kidnapped with the intent to keep and most if not all of the victims were infants. 

Nevertheless, this report takes into account cases in which sexually motivated abductions have resulted in victims being held captive after the abduction.  Even still, this report also recognizes that in many of these known cases of sexually motivated abductions in which the victim was held captive the suspect was a nonfamily member who had some slight acquaintance with the victim. “As defined in NISMART, a slight acquaintance is a nonfamily perpetrator who could be a person the child or family did not know well enough to speak to, a recent acquaintance whom the child or family knew for less than 6 months, or someone the child or family knew even longer but saw less than once a month.” In other cases defined as intent to keep stereotypical kidnappings the victim may not have known the suspect but the suspect targeted the victim prior to the kidnapping and planned the abduction and the crime was not opportunistic.  

Operational Theory 1 theorizes the suspect had no intention to keep the victim in this particular case and had not known the victim prior to the abduction or specifically targeted the victim prior to the abduction and proposes the abduction was opportunistic, random, and sexually motivated with intent to murder and then conceal the body to avoid detection.

Body Disposal Pathway:

It is important to note the various pathways the suspect may have utilized in order to dispose of the victim’s body.  Because the victim’s body has not been recovered, which also leaves open the “intent to keep” scenario, one has to assume the suspect:

  1. Murdered the victim at one location and afterwards transported the body to another location to conceal the body
  2. The body of the victim was left “as is” at the site of the murder with no attempt to conceal, but left in a remote location making attempts at locating the murder/disposal site difficult to find
  3. The body of the victim was left at the site of the murder and the suspect took the time to conceal the body after the murder.

*This report rules out the scenario in which the suspect “dumped” the victim’s body in a location in an open public area as opposed to “concealing” or leaving the body “as is” in a remote location.  

The three body disposal pathways are all plausible and cannot be ruled out.  The FBI Behavioral Science Unit states that pathway B, “The Body Left as is” as the most common body disposal scenario because attempting to conceal the body results in the suspect taking on additional risks:

The movement of the victims’ bodies by offenders increases the chances that an offender may be seen or identified in the vicinity of the murder site and/or disposal site. This movement is extremely risky for an offender, yet these offenders are compelled to move the victims. There are two main reasons offenders’ concealed victims’ bodies:

• To delay or prevent discovery

• In order to place time and distance between themselves and the victims

Complexities in Locating the Disposal Site:

Unfortunately, there is no empirical data utilizing spatial analysis to determine locations of disposal sites of abducted children by examining the geographical behavior of child abductors.

Although criminologists, sociologists, and behavioral scientist have made important strides in better understanding crime and criminal behavior (See Rational Choice, Crime Pattern, and Routine Activity Theories) that may be helpful in aiding law enforcement and communities to develop Situational Crime Prevention techniques, this data cannot predict the seemingly at random distance, or the methods used by a criminal in the case of child abductions to dispose a body.

In fact, the most practical solution is to begin at the epicenter, the place of abduction and expand outwards, and this makes investigating these crimes more difficult for law enforcement, unless the body of a victim is dumped in a public and easily accessible location.

For example, the surface area of the United States is 3.797 million square miles. Of those 3.79 million square miles, roughly 47% of this is not inhabited. 

To put this into perspective, the surface, excluding the depth, the Atlantic Ocean covers 41.1 million square miles. The maximum depth of the Atlantic Ocean is recorded as 5.273 miles.

The RMS Titanic is by far one of the most historically recognized tragic shipwrecks that sank in the Atlantic Ocean in April of 1912 after colliding with an iceberg on its maiden voyage. Of the 2224 people on board, more than 1500 would perish at sea, some bodies were recovered after, but many people went down with the ship. 

In 1912, the news of the sinking of the Titanic made headlines worldwide, and there were tribunals held to hold those responsible for the mistakes made that led to the ship’s demise.

Technology did not exist in 1912 to locate the wreckage although proposals were made to attempt to salvage the ship in the immediate aftermath.  None of these attempts came to fruition due to the fact the depth of the sunken ship was near impossible for humans to dive. In later years, as technology advanced, multiple research teams sought to locate the missing ship and were unable to find it because although researchers were aware that the ship had gone down 350 miles from the coast of Newfoundland, the initial distress call made by the Titanic crew to report its location was inaccurate further complicating the search. 

The discovery of the Titanic by Robert Ballard and his team, with cooperation by the US Navy was not made until 1985 nearly 8 years after other teams including Ballard set out to locate the missing ship.  The ship was found at a depth of 2.37 miles underwater in the Atlantic Ocean which on its surface covers 41 million square miles. 

When examining factors in determining pathways in discovering a disposal site of a murder victim, the search for the Titanic demonstrates the difficulties law enforcement and search teams face. 

In the case of the search for the Titanic, researchers were never uncertain that the Titanic was missing, and had documented evidence to aid in their attempts to locate the sunken ship; however, it still took competent scientist and explorers nearly 8 years to find the missing ship. 

When attempting to find a logical pathway in locating a disposal site of a murder victim there are no certainties, and most discoveries are made by complete happenstance by hunters, or farmers or hikers, days, weeks or years after a victim has been murdered.

An attempt to hypothesize potential pathways to locate a disposal site of a murdered victim becomes more difficult because of multiple unknown variables the offender might have taken to dispose of the body. For instance, it is unknown if the victim was buried, and if so, did the burial take place in a remote, but public location or if the suspect buried the victim at their own personal property wherewith a probable cause search warrant would be needed in order to search the person’s private property. 

There have been multiple cases in which suspects have gone to great lengths to dispose of a body from cremating the remains, to placing the victim in a barrel, to taking those barrels and disposing of them in bodies of water. 

These unknowns are discouraging to law enforcement, volunteer search teams, and more importantly the families and loved ones of the victims. However, while understanding the difficulties this report will attempt to create a search grid in order to search a possible location(s) of a disposal site.

Locating Possible Disposal Sites by Analyzing the Geography, City and County Data:


Location site of Abduction and Multiple Highways

The city limit of Alma, Arkansas is roughly 5.9 square miles with a population of 5,738 as of 2017.

The city of Alma is located in Crawford County, in the western region of Arkansas near the Oklahoma state line and is roughly 604 square miles. Of the 604 square miles 593 is land and 11 is water.

Alma, Arkansas is in a region known as the Arkansas River Valley, with the Arkansas River due south, and it borders the Ozark Mountains to the north.


5 major highways intersect or move directly through the city:

                I-40 and Highway 64 east-west

I-49 (previously I-540) and Highway 71 intersect in Alma in a north bound direction

Highway 162 south

Railroad tracks are located three blocks north of the Abduction site running east-west

Alma is surrounded by multiple rural communities.

Crime Rate:

“Overall the crime rate in Alma is 91% higher than in comparison to the state of Arkansas average; and is also 152% higher than compared to the national average.”

Although most reported crimes involve theft, and property crime, violent crimes, including assault and rape are not uncommon with 11 reported rapes and 37 reported assaults in 2017; however, there were zero murders reported.

As of July 2019 26 registered sex offenders lived in Alma. In Crawford County the County Sheriff’s office states there are approximately 150 registered sex offenders living in the county at anytime.


On June 9th 1995 the mean temperature was 79.8 with a maximum of 91.0 and a mean dew point of 69.7, with zero precipitation; 9.5 MI visibility, Mean Wind Speed: 8.86MPH

Location of Abduction:

Little League Ball Park (which has since been torn down and now is a parking lot) located at North Main (east-west) Hendricks Street (north-south) and Walnut Street (east-west). The site is now adjacent to another ballpark south of the abduction site, and to the east of the abduction site is the Alma Water Department. The abduction site is approximately two blocks west from Fayetteville Avenue which serves as Alma’s main street, and the Alma City Police Department which is on the corner of Walnut, Fayetteville, and Main Street is three blocks from where Morgan Nick was abducted.

Due east of the Abduction site, within one mile is farmland and approximately three miles is a body of water known as Frog Bayou that winds its way south through Alma then turns east for a few miles approximately five miles south of the abduction site until it intersects with the Arkansas River.

Offender-Victim Contact Theory:

Morgan Nick and her mother Colleen had been invited to attend a local little league ball game in Alma Arkansas. 

It is unknown as to why the suspect was at the ballpark. 

One possible hypothesis according to the Routine Activity Theory is that the suspect was most likely not invited to the park, but was in Alma by chance hunting for a “suitable target” in which the guardian of the child was not present.  Therefore, it’s possible to surmise that the suspect was lured to the ballpark by the bright ballpark lights as he drove through the city. The Routine Activity Theory stipulates three necessary conditions for most crimes: a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, coming together in time and space. The lack of any of the three elements is sufficient to prevent a crime which requires offender-victim contact.

Based on eyewitness accounts of an alleged attempted abduction earlier in the evening in Alma that was thwarted by the child’s parent, apparently the suspect was not deterred by this, and continued to search for a suitable target and perhaps by happenstance was drawn to the ballpark by the bright lights and may have only arrived at the park within ten minutes before finding Nick alone and absent her mother or other adults who were at the time busy watching the final innings of the ballgame.

Direction of Travel by Suspect after Abduction Hypothesis:

The direction of travel taken by the suspect after abducting Morgan Nick is unknown. 

Although it has been reported that local police arrived on scene within six minutes after Morgan Nick was reported missing, it is unknown how much of a head start the suspect had before Law Enforcement arrived.  One could postulate that the suspect may have had at least a fifteen to twenty minute head start before Law Enforcement were contacted to report Morgan Nick as being missing.

If one assumes the suspect had at least a fifteen minute head start the suspect could have driven as far south past Westville towards the Arkansas River on Hwy 162. The suspect could have driven as far north as Mountainburg via Hwy 71. The suspect could have driven east to Mulberry, Arkansas via Hwy 64 or I-40. If traveling west the suspect would have been able to enter into Oklahoma via I-40. 

Nevertheless, even if one assumes the suspect had a fifteen to twenty minute lead time prior to Law Enforcement responding to the missing person call, it does not mean the suspect believed he wasn’t running against the clock and time was of the essence to get away from the site of the abduction to an isolated location. 

If one takes into consideration that the suspect believes he is running against the clock and is unaware of who might have actually witnessed the abduction, he may have felt impending pressure to move quickly out of site and off any major highways. Considering that it was night time and the suspect is unable to see if Law Enforcement vehicles are approaching or following him, the risk of traveling for an extended period of time versus the reward of being able to proceed with the sexually motivated abduction may have persuaded the suspect to move away from the city limits of Alma into the closest rural and remote location.  It is also plausible the suspect had one or more predetermined locations he had previously scouted out or had been familiar with prior to the abduction and drove directly to this location.

The Crime Pattern Theory postulates that criminals have typical spatiotemporal movement patterns and as a result, the most probable area for a criminal to break the law is not far from their normal activity and awareness space.  In other words, the abduction site, the crime of abduction and finding a suitable victim was opportunistic, but the rape/murder/body disposal site or sites were fixed locations the suspect may have been familiar with.

Examining the geography of Alma starting from the epicenter (the location of the ballpark Morgan Nick was abducted) and branching out it would seem the quickest route the suspect may have taken to reach a remote rural location would be to take Highway 162 towards Kibler, Arkansas or to head east towards Franklin County towards Mulberry and possibly as far as highway 23 known as the Pig Trail.

If the suspect leaves the site of the abduction and travels north to reach Highway 64, he would have driven through multiple stop signs and stop lights if his intention were to head north via 71, or west via 64 towards Fort Smith, and would have had to driven through a busy intersection to approach I-40. 

Although one cannot rule out these scenarios, it seems if the suspect were in a hurry and believed he were in a race against the clock to stay ahead of law enforcement, the direction to lead the suspect towards the quickest rural and isolated areas would have been to head due south towards the Arkansas River bottom lands, or southeast towards the river north of Frog Bayou or further southeast of Frog Bayou towards the Clear Creek Park Campground. Though it is also possible that the suspect went east towards Franklin County via 64 towards 23 in Ozark Arkansas.

The twenty mile radius is within Franklin County. However this report proposes searching areas due south and southeast then moving outwards from the epicenter at five mile increments expanding outwards in a 20 mile radius.

Searching these specific areas due sout however may be problematic due to flooding and if any of these particular sites had been used to dispose of a body, it’s possible all evidence would have been washed away 24 years later. 

After examining the satellite imagery of the geographical area within a ten mile radius “as the bird flies” from different periods in time from 1994 to present day, there are 10 “points of interest” that have remained undeveloped from 1995 to 2019, most of them due south or southeast of the abduction site.

Analysis of Plausible Disposal Site(s) Locations:

Plausible Disposal Site Locations within a 10 Mile Radius Moving Outward from Epicenter

This report theorizes that the suspect after abducting Morgan Nick most likely would have sought to drive to a remote rural location as opposed to attracting more attention to himself by driving through town and would have as a result been more inclined to travel south from the abduction site to avoid detection and complete the sexually motivated crime he set out on June 9th 1995 to commit.

After examining the geography of the city of Alma, Arkansas starting from the site of the abduction being the epicenter and branching outwards and reviewing satellite imagery that has shown areas of development and areas that have not been developed over the last 24 years 10 points of interest have been located in which may have been seen by the suspect as rural, remote, and afford him privacy and a pathway to dispose of a body either “as is” or take the time to “conceal”.

There are 2 possible search locations which may be on personal property in which permission or probable cause search warrants would be needed to conduct an extensive search. 

8 of these locations however are on public lands and a warrant or permission to search would not be necessary. 

Report Findings:

This report does not dispute the known facts of the case and finds that Morgan Nick was the victim of abduction by an unknown nonfamily member on Friday June 9th 1995 from a ballpark parking lot in the town of Alma, Arkansas at approximately 10:45PM CST.

This report does not dispute the eyewitness accounts of the description of the suspect’s vehicle as being a Ford pick-up truck, red, but faded due to exposure and time, and a white camper shell covering the bed of the truck a few inches short had been installed on the vehicle at the time of the abduction.

This report does not dispute the eyewitness accounts that a person matching Morgan Nick’s abductor attempted to, but was thwarted from abducting at least one young juvenile female prior to and on the night of Morgan Nick’s abduction. However, this report cannot rule out but does call into question whether or not the same suspect attempted to abduct another young juvenile female the following day is factual, coincidental or fabricated.

This report cannot dispute the descriptive details given to law enforcement by eyewitnesses about the suspect seen at the ballpark prior to abducting Morgan Nick.  Although, this report does not dispute the suspect is a white male, it does attempt to clarify the suspect’s age at the time of the abduction based on the criminal typology of the offender. 

This report has examined the known facts of the case, peer-reviewed reports, criminal profiles, case data, and statistical analysis reported by multiple agencies in an attempt to bring closure to the family of Morgan Nick by establishing an operational working theory that

  1. examined the offender typology
  2. Examined the offender motive
  3. demonstrated a plausible offender-victim contact theory
  4.  examined the geography of the abduction site and surrounding areas
  5. Examined stereotypical kidnapping data
  6. Examined pathways of potential body disposal scenarios
  7. Examined the most plausible direction of travel the offender would have taken after the abduction
  8. Examined and located 10 points of interest that have not been developed over the last 24 years as plausible body disposal sites.

Report Summary:

The Operational Working Theory established by this report examining the abduction of Morgan Nick on June 9th 1995 in Alma, Arkansas concludes:

  1. The suspect is a known sex offender; but cannot establish whether the suspect is a geographically transient serial killer, or a local sex offender with an unknown offender typology, but argues that the differing variable of the two types of offender is the age of the offender at the time of the abduction and the transient offender would have moved out of the area after the crime as opposed to staying in the area; but, either type of offender could have had the same motivation, acted impulsively after finding a suitable suspect, moved towards a remote rural location after the abduction for the purpose to avoid detection and to dispose of the body.
  2. The Criminal Classification Code for this specific crime would be 319.03 Abduction Rape of a Child (with intent to murder)
  3.  Although it cannot be ruled out, based on the empirical data the report theorizes the crime was sexually motivated, with intent to murder the victim as opposed to holding the victim captive.
  4. The victim was most likely murdered within two hours of being abducted.
  5. The victim was most likely disposed “as is” as opposed to being “dumped” or “concealed” in a remote rural location within a ten mile radius “as the crow flies” from the abduction site.
  6. The route taken by the suspect after the abduction was most likely in a southern or southeastern direction which would be the quickest route to a remote, rural location even if the suspect had a fifteen to twenty minute lead time before law enforcement were contacted. The suspect would have most likely behaved as if he were running against the clock and would have wanted to be off the highways and in a rural area as opposed to traveling a greater distance from the point of the abduction.
  7. The victim is most likely disposed of in a location south or southeast within a ten mile radius “as the crow flies” of the site of the abduction in a rural, remote, and undeveloped area.
  8. 10 points of interest have been designated as possible disposal areas that have not been developed over the last 24 years. 8 locations are accessible by the public and 2 locations may be on private property.
  9. Although, this report has designated multiple search areas south and southeast of the epicenter, it does not rule out the disposal site is further within a 20 mile radius “as the crow flies”.  There are multiple areas of interest within a 20 mile radius, but recommends to search these areas first as one branches out from the epicenter, and if after these areas are thoroughly searched recommends pushing the search grid further by moving out to a fifteen mile radius, searching within that grid, and branching out to 20 miles if there are no results in the recommended search areas. 

Report Conclusion:

It is recommended that the 10 points of interest designated as possible disposal areas be searched. After 24 years however, with many of the designated locations being near bodies of water, one has to conclude evidence may have been washed away by flooding if in fact these areas were used by the suspect.

The MSCTEM is no different than most experimental models in which the only way to test the legitimacy of the model and the methodology is to follow the steps in the Scientific Process. 

Thus, the conclusion of this report finds itself at step 3 in the scientific process, and the next step would be to test the hypothesis by conducting a search in the 10 points of interest designated as possible disposal sites.

Therefore, hopefully in August, I will begin searching these areas in Alma Arkansas personally. 

I will be reporting my progress as I search the designated areas, although it will take me a considerable amount of time to search each and every location. 

Weather permitting, and if financially able to afford the expenses, I hope to begin the search as early as the first week of August and continue through October or until I find closure for the victim and the victim’s family.

Disclaimer: I do not represent the family of Morgan Nick or any Law Enforcement Agency. All theories listed on this site are my own.

If you have any information in regards to the abduction of Morgan Nick please contact:

Investigating Agency

  • Alma Police Department 501-632-3930
  • Arkansas State Police 501-783-5195
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation 202-324-3000

Data Utilized in this Report:

Morgan Nick Foundation

2017 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics

Murder Accountability Project

Profiles in Terror: The Serial Murderer By RONALD M. HOLMES, ED.D., AND JAMES E. DEBuRGER, PH.D. University of Louisville

Serial Murder Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators Behavioral Analysis Unit-2 National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Critical Incident Response Group Federal Bureau of Investigation

Investigative Case Management for Missing Children Homicides Christine O. Gregoire Attorney General of Washington & U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Child Abductors Who Have Killed Their Victims: A Theoretical Approach to Spatial Analysis Tonya M. DeSa Graduate Center, City University of New York

Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to Law Enforcement in 2011 Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak

Case Management for Missing Child Homicide Invesitgation

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children



Crime Classification Manual: John Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, and Robert Ressler isbn 9781118421536

FSC: Darlie Routier: Capital Murder Case: June 6th 1996 Rowlett, Texas: Wrongful Conviction Theory

Darlie Routier and her son’s Devon, Damon & Drake
Darlie Routier 1996 Mugshot
Darlie Routier on Death Row
Devon and Damon Routier

Murderers will often stage crime scenes. There have been cases in which people have injured themselves to make it appear as though they were assaulted by an unknown intruder only for law enforcement to discover the wounds were self inflicted or created by an accomplice.  In most of these cases, due diligence by professional police and forensic examiners will examine the case effectively and find the “victim” premeditated the murders and caused their own injuries. The “victims” will go to great lengths to cover up their role and certainly one could argue that by creating a self inflicted injury is by far an extreme measure taken to create the illusion of their innocence. 

When these types of crimes occur, when a spouse or children are killed, motive is as important as forensic evidence.  The motive and the known facts of the case and forensic evidence often support the same operating theory allowing law enforcement to find evidence that supports the “victim’s” story is fabricated, and their wounds and the scene has been staged. 

As one examines these types of cases there is always a motive that will be the catalyst which will begin a chain reaction and set all other events into motion.

In the case against Darlie Routier there seems to be little evidence of motive to conclude she is guilty of the crime of murder.

Starting with the 911 call made by Routier on the morning of June 6 1996 at 231AM from her suburban home in Rowlett, Texas, a clearly distraught mother screams for help. Her two sons 6 year old Devon and 5 year old Damon have been attacked, stabbed, and are dying.  Police arrive in less than three minutes to find a bloody crime scene, Darlie’s husband Darrin attempting to do CPR on one of their children, the other son pronounced dead at the scene.  They find Darlie has also been stabbed, with wounds to her arms; her neck cut 2 millimeters from severing her carotid artery, bruising and abrasions on her arms all signs indicative of defensive wounds as she shielded herself from an unknown intruder.  Paramedics rush Darlie and her son to the hospital. He would not survive, but Darlie recovered.  Both boys were buried together a few days later. 

Darlie informed investigators that an unknown white male had broken into her home. Investigators found signs that a window leading into the garage where the screen was cut open.  75 feet away from the house a tube sock had been discarded near a drainage ditch leading into an alleyway and the sock had blood drops with both her sons DNA.

Still, investigators immediately began focusing on Darlie as the murderer.  Their forensic examiners could find no evidence of an intruder, and believed that Darlie caused her own wounds and believed her motive was because she and her husband were having financial difficulties. 

Eight days after the murders, the crime was still unsolved. The story made headlines across the country as the community grieved and worried about the safety of their own families, Routier and others in her family visited the gravesites of her two boys on what would have been Devon’s 7th birthday.  A television crew filmed the “birthday party”, the boys headstone decorated with colorful balloons, and Routier laughing as she and others sprayed “Silly String” onto the graves.  

The district attorney, as well as others viewed this news footage and were disgusted at what that believed was a lack of remorse by a “grieving mother” and a few days later Routier was arrested and charged with capital murder. 

 The state of Texas made a compelling case against Routier, from blood splatter experts, to evidence suggesting that a knife inside the home had forensic evidence showing it had been used to cut the screen outside.  This evidence pointed to the scene being staged, that Routier had cut the screen, then placed the knife back in the home, then stabbed her boys, ran 150 yards, 75 yards to dispose the sock, 75 yards back to the home, cut herself purposefully, then contacted 911 claiming an intruder had broken into the home.  They painted Routier as coldblooded, egotistical, and evil, and showed the jury the news footage of her celebrating her son’s birthday at his gravesite, and Routier was found guilty and sentenced to death row where she still sits to this day 22 years later. 

During those 22 years as Routier sits on death row, she has never changed her story, those closest to her, including her husband remain loyal to her, and they stayed married up until 2011 when they finally divorced. Even so, her husband still proclaims that Darlie is innocent. 

Legally, appeals have been made, and most have been denied, and although a federal court has concluded that the state should turn over evidence to the defense to test a bloodied fingerprint and reanalyze the DNA evidence since DNA testing has drastically improved since 1997, the state seems reluctant to comply with the orders. 

The Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that has led to the freeing of more than 360 wrongfully convicted people involving those on death row like Darlie Routier are actively involved in the Routier case as of May 2019. 

Although it is difficult to fathom why any person would murder someone, it becomes more perplexing when a mother kills her own children.  In 1994, two years before Routier made that horrifying 911 call, another mother contacted 911 to report that while she was stopped in her car at a red light, an African-American man approached her, forcefully pulled her out of the vehicle and drove off into the night with her two sons sleeping in the back seat. 

The story made national headlines as a young, white mother, Susan Smith from South Carolina tearfully pleaded on television for the African-American man who had carjacked her to return her two boys.  There was a massive manhunt conducted by police, but from the outset certain parts of Smith’s story didn’t add up.  Smith had stated she had been stopped at a traffic light that had turned red although there were not cars moving through the intersection. Investigators knew that the light would not have turned red for her unless another vehicle had approached the intersection activating the sensor. 

For nine days Smith continued to plead with the abductor to bring back her boys on national television, while investigators began looking into the possibility that Smith had made up the story and knew where her son’s were.  Although polygraph tests are not always reliable, it can be an effective tool when interrogating a suspect, investigators asked Smith to take one and she failed and soon after failing she broke down and confessed to having made up the story, and had killed her two sons by taking them to a local lake, placing her car in neutral, releasing the parking brake and rolling the car into the waters.  The car was found soon after 120 feet from the ramp to the lake, her two boys inside the car drowned, and Smith was arrested for murder. 

Smith was convicted of the murders and incarcerated and will not be eligible for parole until the year 2024. However, in this particular case, when examining the motive, investigators learned that she had been involved in an affair with a man where she wanted a serious relationship but he refused because he did not want children.  However, one could also surmise that Smith intended to commit suicide but at the last moment got out of her car, and pushed the vehicle into the lake. 

Smith’s case is important to understand when examining the Routier case.  The Routier case happened on the heels of the national headlines where a mother pleaded innocence and for the life of her children while knowingly having murdered her children.  People felt betrayed by this deception and in Routier’s case one could surmise that investigators, the jurors, the city had made up their minds to never be made fools of again by another self-centered, vapid woman who wanted to free herself of her children who were making it difficult to live her lavish lifestyle.  They were not going to feel sorry for the bleached blond who’d had breast enhancements, and was living beyond her means, in debt to credit card companies, and behind on their mortgage, and thus, there would be no sympathy for Darlie Routier. 

Never mind the wound to Routier’s neck which was 2mm away from slicing her carotid artery. To prosecutors and to several who had examined her at the hospital, one would think by their reaction that it was just a flesh wound and that the 2mm difference was as far away as the sock that had been thrown 75 yards away from the house.   When in fact the 2mm difference is about the size of the head of a sharpened pencil, and had it been cut there’d be no trial for Routier because she would have most likely died while still lying on the couch. 

The lies and deception of Susan Smith, who could on command openly weep and plead for the return of her children and had duped an entire nation when she confessed meant there was no way this bubbly “bimbo” who had the audacity to smile and laugh and spray “silly string” at her dead son’s grave would ever receive a fair trial.  Her fate had been sealed, and even if the news crews had filmed her fainting and crying and wailing and gnashing her teeth instead of spraying “silly string” it wouldn’t have mattered it would have all been an act. 

So it’s no surprise that the forensic evidence supported the theory that Routier premeditated the crime, cut the screen to the window in the garage, then killed her children, disposed of a sock 75 yards from her home, returned, then cut her own neck, stabbed her arm and her chest, and caused bruising that covered her hands to her elbow on one arm, then proceeded to stage the crime scene to look like an intruder had broken in and called 911 while the crime scene was still fresh, and no blood had coagulated and one of her son’s still clinging to life and had he lived could have pointed out his mother as the person who stabbed him, again never minding the fact that a mere 2mm’s to the right Routier would have bled out and there’d be no need to write about this.

Therefore using the Modified Schrodinger’s Cat Thought Experiment Methodology (MSCTEM), the purpose of the examination is to reexamine the known facts of this particular case.   The MSCTEM has been established as a tool to examine missing persons, unsolved homicide, and unidentified body cases in attempt to create a profile of a possible suspect(s), identify a unclaimed body, or help determine how a person became missing and what steps may be utilized to locate the missing person. 

Although, the state of Texas considers the Darlie Routier case and the deaths of her two children as “solved” and the suspect, Routier, has been arrested, tried and convicted and sentenced to death, this report will re-examine the state’s evidence against Routier. This report will be non-biased and will rule out Routier as suspect if the facts substantiate this.  However, if the facts substantiate the case against Routier, this report will make that conclusion. 

Primary Suspects:

In the Routier case there are three primary suspects:

  1. Darlie Routier
  2. Darrin Routier
  3. Unknown male suspect(s)

Location: Rowlett, Texas middle class neighborhood (Suburb of Dallas) 2 story home end of cul-de-sac at 5801 Eagle Drive.

Date and Time: June 6, 1996 231AM

Brief Summary of Crime and Darlie Routier’s Conviction: On the night of Wednesday June 5th, 1996 Darlie Routier, her husband Darrin, and their three sons six year old Devon, five year old son Damon, and the youngest son 7 month old Drake were at home watching television.  They made popcorn and the two oldest boys retrieved their blankets from upstairs and stayed up with their mother to watch a movie.  Darrin took the youngest son upstairs and they fell asleep.  Darlie and her two eldest sons stayed in the living room and fell asleep. 

First floor of Routier Home
East View Back of Home as seen from Alley

According to Darlie at some point she was awakened by her son Devon pushing her shoulder and she witnessed a man in her home.  The man took off running and ran out of the house, dropping the murder weapon, and broke a glass. The house was dark and Darlie turned on the lights and only then realized that she was covered in blood and so were her two boys and she began screaming. 

Darrin, asleep upstairs, woke up to the sound of breaking glass, and then heard his wife screaming. He hurried downstairs.  Darrin states everything was happening so fast and he hadn’t noticed the injuries to Darlie, but realized his youngest son, although severely injured was still alive, and began doing CPR. As he did, blood gushed from the wounds.  Darlie called 911 around the same time and was on the phone with operators for about 6 minutes.  Officers arrived at the scene around three or four minutes after Darlie made the call to 911 and immediately secured the home in case the intruder was still inside. Finding no one in the house besides the family, the officers allowed paramedics to enter the home.  Devin was pronounced dead at the scene, while Damon and Darlie were rushed to the hospital. At the hospital, Damon was pronounced dead, and Darlie was rushed to surgery and would survive although she also had multiple injuries. 

Crime scene investigators began looking for evidence soon after.  Multiple investigators made statements that from the outset it appeared to them that the crime scene was staged.  Investigators noted that Darlie had made it known during the call to 911 that she had touched the knife prior to police arriving to explain why her prints would be on the weapon.  They also noticed that at the kitchen sink blood from Darlie had dripped down the cabinet doors and after utilizing Luminal on the sink the tests showed that the sink had been cleaned where blood had been present. This suggested to investigators that Darlie had most likely cut her neck and caused the other injuries to herself at the sink, and then attempted to clean up the blood. 

The murder weapon was a knife taken from inside the Routier home from a butcher’s block.  Investigators argued that if the intruder’s intent were to kill, the intruder would have most likely brought their own weapon as opposed to using what was inside the home.  They also noted that while there was jewelry and other valuables in plain sight, nothing appeared to have been stolen.  Blood spatter evidence also suggested that blood on the back of Darlie’s shirt was that of her two sons and they speculated that the only way the blood could have formed where it was on her shirt was if she were wielding the knife, stabbing her children, and the blood drops came from the knife as she lifted it over her head as she was swinging.

Darlie remained in the hospital for two days and after she was released she and her husband were interrogated on several occasions. The two came voluntarily and without a lawyer.  Investigators claim that Darlie changed her version of how the events unfolded at least three times during those interviews but never arrested her. 

On what would have been their eldest son’s Devon’s seventh birthday, the Routier family and several friends celebrated the boy’s birthday posthumously at his gravesite.  They decorated the gravestone with balloons. A local news channel filmed a portion of the event that showed Darlie smiling and laughing and singing Happy Birthday as she and another person sprayed “Silly String” on the graves of her two recently murdered boys  

This video was shown on the nightly news and many people, including the district attorney were “disgusted” by what they believed was an evil, self centered mother, behaving inappropriately just days after her sons’ were brutally murdered. 

A few days after the segment aired on television Darlie was arrested and charged with the murder of only her youngest son because in the state of Texas because of his age, it would allow the state to seek capital punishment. 

The trial lasted for about five weeks, and arguably one of the most crucial pieces of evidence examined by jurors was the news cast of the Routier family celebrating her son’s birthday at the cemetery.  After the jury deliberated for a day and a half, and having asked to review the video tape of the party several times, the jury elected to find Darlie Routier guilty and she was subsequently sentenced to die by lethal injection. 

Darlie remains on death row as of 22 years later, and only recently in the last few months after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Routier to test the evidence 8 years ago has the state of Texas allowed for new testing on DNA and fingerprint evidence to begin. 

Darlie and Darrin stayed married until 2011 when they divorced amicably according to several reports.  Darrin still supports his wife’s innocence.

The Motive According to the State of Texas:

Although the Routier’s appeared to be living the American Dream on the outside, law enforcement found evidence that the Routier’s were deeply in debt.  Darrin had started an electronics company in Texas and was doing quite well, allowing them to build a very nice home in an affluent suburb of Dallas near the lake.  They purchased expensive vehicles and a boat, and traveled often.  At some point however, Darrin’s business slowed, and they fell behind on credit card and mortgage payments and had been recently refused a loan. 

Investigators also found Darlie’s journal and discovered an entry made by her in May of 1995 in which she wrote about contemplating suicide.  Law enforcement believed that Darlie was an unhappy stay at home mom, and believed her son’s were preventing her from living a frivolous, carefree life, and overtime became angry blaming her sons for her predicament and concocted a plan to murder them and stage the crime as a burglary gone wrong. 

The state ruled Darlie’s husband out as a suspect knowing Darrin had been in bed during the crime, and there was no blood evidence showing he had been involved in the murder of his two eldest sons. 

The State’s Theory of Motive is Problematic:

One would be hard pressed to find another case in which a mother has been convicted of a capital murder utilizing a theory the state of Texas has established as Routier’s motive.  In fact one of the only cases that fit the state of Texas’s operating theory is the murder of 10 year old Joel Kirkpatrick in 1997. Kirkpatrick’s parents were divorced, and on the morning of October 13th, he was with his mother Julie Rea per the visitation arrangement at her home in Lawrenceville, Illinois.  Rea woke up when she heard screaming and as she went to her son’s room she encountered an intruder who began beating her. The intruder used a knife found inside the home and dropped it when confronted by Rea.

As in the Routier case, Rea was the primary suspect in the stabbing death of her 10 year old son.  Her case was also built on circumstantial evidence and blood spatter evidence in which an “expert” deemed Rea were wielding the knife. The state also assassinated her character, using the fact that at one time she had wanted to have an abortion. 

Rea was convicted by a jury of her peers, but was not sentenced to death.  When her case was profiled on television an author who had worked on a book about a serial killer named Tommy Lynn Sells recognized Sells MO and on a hunch she wrote the serial killer who was on death row in Texas for rape and murder and suspected of anywhere between 10 to 70 murders across the United States. Sells wrote the author back and informed her that he had killed a boy in Illinois and had been startled when his mother entered the room and dropped the knife, beat her and ran away. As a result, the state of Illinois overturned Rea’s conviction and she was freed from prison. 

The prosecution in Routier’s case has claimed that Routier has “selective amnesia” a sarcastic way of saying she chooses to forget specific details of the case when she is cornered about details of the crime.  In Rea’s case however, she did see her attacker and described him in detail and she was still convicted. Nevertheless if you review the case against Susan Smith, she also was able to identify the African-American man who took her car and kidnapped her two children, although in Smith’s case she fabricated the entire story. 

In Routier’s case it was not one specific piece of evidence that led to her conviction, but the totality of evidence put together that built a relatively strong circumstantial case.  However, most would argue it was the video of Routier celebrating her son’s birthday eight days after the murder that the DA claimed was as if Routier was “dancing on her son’s grave”, that sealed her fate. 

However, what prosecutors did not show the jury was where law enforcement had actually “bugged” the gravesite and videotaped the Routier’s earlier at the cemetery before the news media arrived and filmed the infamous “Silly String” footage.  The reason this was not shown in court is there had been no warrant given to bug the Routier’s. Law enforcement did so because they believed maybe they would catch the Routier’s confessing to the crime at the grave. That did not happen and instead what they filmed and what they heard was the exact opposite of a mother “dancing on her children’s graves and instead witnessed and heard a grieving family lamenting the loss of their child.  Video of police Surveillance not shown in court

In fact, one of the jurors has gone on record to say if they had viewed the video that was secretly taped by law enforcement they would have most likely voted to not convict Routier. 

Another crucial piece of evidence not heard by the jury was the testimony of one forensic expert who after reviewing Damon Routier’s autopsy stated that due to the severity of his wounds and the blood loss as a result, from the time he sustained his injuries he would have only lived 9 minutes.  The prosecution was aware this would have most likely gone against their theory because their argument is Routier, after stabbing Damon left her home, ran 75 yards to plant the sock, ran back 75 yards, caused the multiple injuries to herself, then contacted 911 which she was on the phone with for nearly 6 minutes.  During Routier’s call and at the time first responders arrived at the Routier home Devon was still alive.  This would mean that Routier would have had at the most three minutes to perform all these actions after she stabbed her son.

The financial motive also seems in question because although there was life insurance on both sons, the amount was $10,000 dollars and the funeral costs approximately $14,000 dollars.  However, the life insurance policy against Routier was nearly half a million dollars, so it would seem if this crime was financially motivated that Darrin Routier would have had a motivating factor to kill his wife, or Darlie Routier would have had motivation for killing her husband, but there’d be no motive to kill the children. 

The prosecution’s push to arrest Routier without further examining other aspects of the case was rushed, and the push to bring her to trial and convict was also done within 6 months from the day Routier called 911.  This does not mean the prosecution’s case is wrong, but what it does suggest, most especially in a capital punishment case, is that it begs the question as to if law enforcement and prosecution rushed to judgment focusing on Routier within minutes of arriving at the home in Rowlett, Texas and as a consequence created an environment of Group Think in which the case against Routier was nothing more than a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.  Although there is evidence to suggest something more sinister may have taken place at the home and Darlie Routier was a victim, by rushing the case to arrest and convict it gives the appearance that police and prosecutors purposefully overlooked any evidence that would show Routier is innocent.

The 911 Call:

Listen to 911 Call Here: 911 Call

Darlie Routier contacted 911 at approximately 231AM.  The case against Routier has postulated there is evidence in the taped conversation pointing towards Routier’s guilt by claiming the call is scripted.  Prosecutors point to the statement Routier makes about having found a knife and had picked it up then later states the police may have been able to get the prints off the knife if she hadn’t have picked it up. 

However, when reviewing the transcript it seems that when Routier makes this statement she is talking to police who have already entered the home and is making the police, not the 911 operator aware that the intruder had gone into the garage but had dropped the knife.  The 911 operator hears Routier make this statement and informs Routier not to touch anything, and only then does Routier make the statement she had already touched it and picked it up. This conversation between 911, Routier and what appears to be an officer who has already arrived in the house and begins searching the home for the intruder in the garage happens at 4 minutes into the conversation. 

When reading the transcript and listening to the recorded 911 call, it appears Routier is speaking at times to the operator, at other times to her husband who has come down stairs after waking up to her screaming, and then later to the first officers who arrived at the home, as well as speaking to her son Devon who at this time is still alive and she is telling him to “Hold on”. 

First responders on the scene did not allow paramedics into the home on arrival, because first responders were unsure if the intruder was still inside the home or not.  The scene is chaotic, and Routier wants paramedics tending to her son, while police need to secure the home and it seems that there is a miscommunication between Routier and the 911 operator.

The taped call is difficult to listen to as Darlie Routier is clearly hysterical, and how any person can conclude that anything Routier is saying is scripted, or that Routier is “acting” seems to be a matter of that person’s assumption of guilt or innocence. 

If one believes the call is being acted out by a cold-blooded killer and the call is scripted then that’s assumedly what they will hear.  On the flip side, if one assumes that Darlie is innocent then what they will hear assumedly is an hysterical mother begging for help after she’s been stabbed and beat up by an unknown intruder and is watching her babies dying right in front of her as she talks to the operator, her husband, comforts her child who is bleeding, speaking to the first officer on the scene, and all this while she is severely injured and bleeding all in the span of about 5 minutes. 

This report believes the call is subjective and is dependent on a person’s assumption of Routier’s guilt or innocence.

Also, it is important to note that while Darlie Routier is talking to 911 her youngest son is still alive.  This is an important detail especially for someone who the state of Texas claims just stabbed her son, but during the call is begging for an ambulance to save her son who had he lived could have pointed his own mother out as the person who stabbed him. 

It is important also not to forget that Darlie’s throat has been cut, she is bleeding profusely from several injuries, and most likely may be in shock from her wounds and from the trauma of witnessing her sons dying. 

Again, listening to this call from the perspective assuming Routier is guilty one may ask why is it important to note that she may have inadvertently tampered with evidence.  At the same time, listening to this call from the perspective that Routier is innocent, one may surmise that at the time she believes she is dying from her wounds and she wants to assist law enforcement with details of the crime to aid in their investigation in case she does not survive, but wants the person who committed this crime to be caught and arrested for killing her babies. 

This call is important because it may have directly influenced investigators from the outset in which they believed the call was scripted and then sought to qualify this by looking for evidence that would fit their predetermined belief that Routier was guilty. 

If in this case law enforcement are allowed to hypothesize that Routier stabbed her sons as a cold blooded killer, then one would be fair to test this hypothesis by asking if Routier’s goal was to murder her children, why would she contact 911 while her youngest son is still alive and beg 911 to hurry and bring an ambulance and save him?

The idea that the absence of evidence supporting an intruder entered the home is a nuanced debate that suggests if an intruder were in the house there’d be overwhelming evidence the intruder was there. 

This report supports there was evidence of an intruder because investigators were informed that an intruder had entered the home as a result of the call Darlie Routier made to 911.  Furthermore, Darlie qualifies this visual observation to police of her having witnessed this intruder with physical evidence of the multiple wounds and bruising on her body made by an unknown intruder.  These two facts alone are evidence supporting an intruder had entered the home.  The only way to disqualify this evidence is to make the argument that Routier not only lied about her visual observation of an intruder inside her home, but then for law enforcement to qualify this observation by discounting the extent of her injuries and opine that she inflicted the injuries to herself.

This report also suggests that once law enforcement committed to the theory that Routier lied about the intruder within a few minutes of arriving on scene to investigate the crime, any evidence that proved otherwise such as the injuries to Routier, the fact that had she stabbed her sons yet called 911 while one was still alive and could have pointed her out as the person who stabbed him when she could have waited until after her son was dead before making the call, the next leap for law enforcement once they’ve centered on Routier as the suspect most especially in a capital crime case is nothing more than a paint by the numbers lackadaisical investigation.

Furthermore, in 2008 a federal court ruled in favor of Routier in allowing her defense attorneys to test the fingerprint evidence, and DNA evidence due to the advances in DNA technology since 1996. However, the state of Texas waited another ten years to allow Routier’s defense team to begin analyzing the data under terms established by the state of Texas. 

If the state of Texas is absolutely certain that Routier is guilty, why would the state of Texas have any issues with any person testing their hypothesis that may or may not lead to another conclusion? 

In fact, as a result of this reluctance by the state of Texas to have their hypothesis tested independently further supports this reports finding that from the outset investigators and prosecutors failed to investigate the possibility of an unknown intruder, most likely made multiple missteps along their investigation that may have contaminated evidence that was used during the trial to convict Routier, and knowingly are obstructing justice in order to justify their self fulfilling prophecy that Routier and Routier alone is guilty. 

And if this is true, and as the DA has stated in multiple interviews that if in fact the courts were to overturn Routier’s conviction he would be prepared to prosecute her again, using the same evidence and would convict her again, why are they reluctant to allow the defense to retest the evidence if they are this confident in their case?

The argument this report is making is not that Routier did not receive a fair trial, but that she was the victim of a biased investigation from the outset and the prosecution rushed to arrest, rushed to trial, and used biased evidence to convict her. 

Unfortunately this report cannot sufficiently rule out Darlie Routier as a suspect in this particular case based on the fact that investigators did not examine other possibilities faithfully and judicially to examine the unknown intruder theory.  This report does however beseech the courts to overturn Darlie Routier’s conviction based on the fact that this being a capital punishment case, the state did not and could not have in the 6 months from the time Routier made the 911 call to her being convicted have exhausted all avenues to rule out Darrin Routier or an unknown intruder as being responsible for the murders of Devon and Damon Routier and the attempted murder of Darlie Routier. 

This report suggests that the case be re-opened and all the evidence reevaluated and after this is complete if prosecutors still believe they have a case against Routier, retry her and allow a jury to not only examine the new evidence allow them also to justify the original guilty verdict or admonish the prosecution in rushing to judgment in the original trial and allow Routier to go free by finding her not guilty.

Reasonable Doubt:

As a legal term the evidence against a defendant must be beyond a reasonable doubt to validate a criminal conviction.  If in the Routier case there were no reasonable doubt to suggest she is innocent of the crimes she was convicted of, this report suggests that the DA’s case was flawed from the outset and centered on Routier from the time she made the call to 911 and dismissed with extreme prejudice any evidence of Routier’s evidence by ignoring the possibility that Darrin Routier may have had a motive to murder his wife and kids because he had a financial motivation in which he would have collected life insurance against Darlie.  Investigators also dismissed the unknown intruder theory even though there had been multiple reports made my neighbors of someone in a black car that had been seen stalking the Routier residence in the days leading up to the murders, and on the day of the murder.    

Hypothesis 1: Unknown Intruder:

Examining the unknown intruder hypothesis, one has to examine possible motives.  It’s possible that the intruder entered the home to rob the house and was surprised to find the two children and Darlie asleep in the living room.  Still, if this is the case and the catalyst was to rob the home once the intruder encountered the Routier family in the home, the intruder could have turned around and left the scene.  Instead of leaving however, the intruder takes a knife from the kitchen and decides instead to murder the family. 

When examining the crime scene, the location of the home and other factors however, another hypothesis is that the victims, whether it is Darlie or the two boys were targeted and the motive was to assault, physically or sexually, and had premeditated the murder. 

Two possibilities emerge from examining this hypothesis:

  1. The intruder lived within walking distance of the home and knew the victims
  2. The intruder may have had other reasons for having been in the neighborhood when he spotted the Routier family and then targeted the home.

Several witnesses described seeing a suspicious person driving a black car stalking the neighborhood, and not just the neighborhood but the Routier home specifically in the days before the murder, and more importantly the car was spotted near the Routier home on the day of the murders and neighbors reported this to police. 

The Routier residence is in a subdivision with only a few ways into it and directly behind their home is a narrow paved ally that is primarily used by residence to enter their homes from the back way where the garages to the houses are located.  The Routier home is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, surrounded by homes and is not necessarily remote even if one could suggest that the neighborhood subdivision has few points of entry and the part of Rowlett Texas where the neighborhood is located appears as if on a peninsula surrounded by Lake Ray Hubbard. 

The city of Dallas is approximately 20 miles from the town of Rowlett. However, Garland Texas is five miles and has a population of over 200,000 residents as of 2016.  Although Dallas County and Rockwall County do have higher than average crime rates, and multiple of unsolved murder cases mostly in Dallas County, these statistics do not specifically relate to the crime rate in  Rowlett as being relevant to better understanding the events that unfolded in the Routier home in 1996.

There are no reported clusters of crimes in this particular area involving murder, but a possible 1-50 chance of home burglary.

It is difficult to arrive to a determination as to whether the unknown intruder lived near the Routier residence.  It is possible the unknown intruder lived in the neighborhood and only needed to walk a reasonable distance to the Routier home, but it is also possible the unknown intruder lived outside of the neighborhood, wherewith the person needed a vehicle to access the Routier home. 

In either example it is possible to hypothesize that the intruder could have been stalking the home for several days, if not weeks casing the house in and out of a vehicle.  The alley way behind the Routier home could have been used for an individual in a car to park perhaps in a driveway where no resident lived and then walked to the home. 

Nevertheless, the driver of this vehicle in doing so takes a risk of being spotted by parking a car in the area and not be reported as being suspicious.  However, it’s possible that the time of night, most residents were sleeping and would not have noticed if a car had parked at some point in the alley.  One cannot rule out the possibility that the suspect parked in the driveway of the Routier home also.

According to reports the Routier family had parked both of their vehicles inside the garage that particular night giving the intruder the ability to pull directly into the driveway that faces the alley. 

The reason this important to note is because 75 yards from the Routier home a sock belonging to Darrin Routier, that had blood on it belonging to Devon and Damon was left on the ground in the alleyway three houses away from the Routier home on the left hand side of the road. 

This would fit a scenario of a person driving and possibly throwing the sock out of the car as it left the scene from the driver’s side window as the intruder drove south away from the scene of the crime down the alley. However, it also suggests that a person on foot running away from the crime scene threw the sock attempting to throw it into the storm drain but missed and the sock landed on the grass instead.  If on foot, it’s possible the person lived in the neighborhood and ran back to their home, but one cannot rule out that the suspect had driven into the neighborhood and parked south of the Routier home in the alley at an abandoned lot. The suspect threw the sock, ran to the car, and then drove away leaving the neighborhood.

Another important factor is examining whether the crime was opportunistic or if the suspect had been stalking the home prior to the night of the murders.  Darlie Routier has stated that since her boys had been out of school they would often sit up at night and sleep in the family room by themselves.  On the night of the murders however, she decided to spend time with them and sleep downstairs.

If this is true, one could speculate that the intruder had previously targeted the home and had perhaps been in their backyard and viewed the two boys in the family room through the back window that faced the back yard and the alley.  The suspect would have either had to jump over a picket fence or go through a door at the north of the fence facing the driveway and enter. 

As the intruder looked through the window, the family room was situated with the television facing the south wall.  The couch that Darlie was sleeping on, the back of it faced the west wall meaning that if an intruder had looked into the window on the night of the murders he would not have seen Darlie in the room but only the boys. 

On the night of the murders, examining the scenario in which an unknown intruder had previously stalked the home and witnessed the two boys sleeping in the living room, the intruder enters the fence, looks into the room but does not see Darlie, only the boys as per usual. The intruder enters the home through the garage/laundry room, grabs the knife from the kitchen counter, enters the family room and goes directly to Devon who is lying closest to the television. 

The intruder turns to see Damon waking up Darlie on the couch and lunges towards them; Darlie struggles with the attacker leaving little blood evidence but becomes unconscious during the attack and blacks out. Believing Darlie is dead, the killer then goes after Damon. While attacking Damon, Darlie wakes up again in a haze and the killer hastily leaves the scene with Darlie in a state of shock and confused follows after him and she or the intruder breaks the glass and knocks over the vacuum in the dark.  The killer drops the knife and Darlie picks it up and places it on the counter.

Darlie turns on the light and realizes she is covered in blood and then notices her son’s have also been attacked.  She begins screaming, and grabs the phone to contact 911.  Darrin comes down the stairs and begins CPR on Devin. She moves to the sink and looks into the window to see her wounds and begins wetting towels for Darrin to use for Devin and Damon or for her to use on her own wounds. 

By this time, the intruder is out of the house, through the fence runs south down the alley or jumps in his car parked in the Routier driveway, drives south down the alleyway and tosses the sock and either returns to a house nearby or if on foot goes to his car and leaves the area immediately before police respond. 

This hypothesis will be labeled as Operational Theory 1 Unknown Intruder/Motive to Harm Routier Children.

Operational Theory 1: The Bloody Sock Evidence

Bloody Sock

This operational theory suggests that an unknown intruder, most likely a white male, had been targeting the Routier home and more importantly the children.

One of the most vital clues in understanding the validity of this operational theory is the sock disposed three houses away in the alley between homes on Eagle Drive and Willowbrook Drive. The sock was found near a drainage ditch and a trash can on the grass.  The sock had blood from Damon and Devon, and belonged to their father Darrin. 

The prosecution’s case made the argument that Darlie, after stabbing her children, ran out of her yard, 75 yards away, deposited the sock on the grass, then ran back 75 yards to the home and then created the injuries to herself. 

However, this goes against the blood spatter experts testimony that Darlie had been bleeding at the time she stabbed her boys, because he stated that their blood had mixed.  This also goes directly against the sock evidence that contains only Devon and Damon’s blood, because there is no blood evidence leading away from the home which Darlie would have left if she had been bleeding and made the 150 yard round trip, and her blood was not discovered on the sock. 

Location of Sock 3 Houses From Routier Home 75Yards South
Sock found in Grass by Storm Drain

To explain this, prosecutors opined Darlie stabbed both of her children, left the home with the sock containing their blood, ran back to the house, cut herself and realized that Damon was still alive and went back and stabbed him again and this is how the blood cross contaminated. 

Still, at the time Darlie contacts 911, and even after the first responders arrived at the home, Damon was still alive.  

Investigators have also gone on to state that just outside the window where Darlie stated the intruder exited the home, they found no evidence of anyone coming in through the window or out the window and stated there was mulch just outside the window that would have been disturbed if someone had entered or exited there. This evidence is contradicted by Darrin Routier when a few years later he showed reporters the window and how easy it was to step in and out of, and that there was no mulch for anyone to disturb.  Another point made by investigators that contradict their own theory is that if they found no evidence of an intruder leaving the home, but in doing so, how can they also find no evidence of Darlie leaving the home either? This poses a fundamental problem to the state of Texas’s case against Routier, because the sock had to be deposited from someone within the home after the attack.  

By using the MSCTEM which poses the hypothesis of there being a cat inside an enclosed box, if this hypothesis is correct, then one should find the cat inside the box.  If one opens the box and there is no cat inside the box, this leads to negative evidence relative to the hypothesis statement established by law enforcement as opposed to the hypothesis of the absence of evidence of there being no unknown intruder.

Darlie Routier’s statement to police was that an intruder broke into her home and attacked her and her children. However, when the police investigate the crime they state there is no evidence of an unknown intruder having been in the home.  Therefore, the sock should be inside the home and not 75 yards away.  If law enforcement states that there was no evidence that anyone in the house had left the home, this would have to include Darlie; as a result, the sock being out of the home becomes negative evidence relative to their own hypothesis. 

Because the sock is found outside of the home and with the blood from the two Routier children, this is evidence that someone from inside the home left the home and deposited the sock and as a consequence it no longer fits the hypothesis of the absence of evidence of an unknown intruder posited by law enforcement and the prosecution’s case against Darlie Routier.

Darrin Routier as Primary Suspect Theory:

Over time attorneys, journalists, and private investigators have investigated Darlie Routier’s case there has been growing speculation of Darrin Routier’s involvement in this crime because of his acknowledgement of attempting to procure someone to burglarize his home in order to commit insurance fraud.  Darlie Routier and Darrin Routier divorced in 2011 and in an interview Darlie Routier has stated that if she were released from prison she would not reunite with her husband based on learning of her husband having sought someone to break into their home. 

Also, one has to note that Darrin was losing money as his business suffered, and was behind on his bills, credit card payments and mortgage, while raising three children and supporting his wife who was a stay at home mom.  There are reports suggesting that Darrin had a life insurance policy on Darlie between the ranges of half a million to eight-hundred thousand dollars. 

In 1997, Darrin Routier volunteered to take a polygraph examination and failed the test miserably as to his involvement in the murders of his son’s and the attempted murder of his wife.  Although, Polygraph examinations are not conclusive in determining a person’s innocence or guilt, it is an invaluable tool law enforcement can use when interrogating a suspect. 

Darrin Routier has admitted to attempting to procure someone to fake a burglary into his home, he states that he never hired anyone. However, one has to suggest had this been known during his wife’s trial, it may have shown reasonable doubt to the jury. 

Over the years, Darlie Routier has been adamant that her husband was not the man that attacked her and killed their two eldest sons.  This information is somewhat contradictory if Darlie has suffered from dissociative amnesia and cannot remember vital details about the crime and attacker.

If Darlie was unaware of her husband’s attempt to procure someone to break into their home this shows that Darrin was keeping secrets from his wife showing his capacity and willingness to lie and commit a criminal act of insurance fraud. 

 Another piece of information that may prove vital is that on the night of the murders, first responders noted that both Darlie and Darrin were barefoot. However, when investigators asked to examine Darrin’s shoes they found Darlie’s blood on his shoes. 

Examining Darrin’s possible involvement in the murder of his two eldest son’s and the attempted murder of his wife does not necessarily imply he personally committed the crimes, but may have procured someone to commit the crime expecting a huge financial windfall had Darlie been killed. 

Even so, this report will examine whether or not Darrin would have been capable of committing the murders and the attempted murder of his wife the night of June 6th and been able to cover-up his involvement.

This will be labeled Hypothesis 2: Darrin Routier as Primary Suspect/Motive: Murder/Insurance Fraud.

There are multiple problematic issues to come to a conclusion that Darrin Routier would have been able to commit this crime.  If his motivation was to murder his wife in order to collect insurance on her life, one would surmise he would have been fully committed to making sure Darlie did not survive the attack. 

Thus, this hypothesis will be ruled out.

However, this does not eliminate Darrin Routier as being involved as a conspirator in a murder-for-hire scenario and this will be labeled as Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3: Darrin Routier as Primary Suspect with Co-Conspirator/Motive: Murder-for-Hire/Insurance Fraud:

Based on information that Darrin Routier actively attempted to procure someone to break into his home to steal furniture and a car prior to the murders, and because he would have profited from the death of his wife one has to examine the hypothesis that Darrin Routier conspired with someone to commit the crimes on June 6th 1996.

Although Darrin Routier has admitted to his willingness to break the law due to his financial insecurities, and this fact may have contributed to their being divorced in 2011, it shows he is willing to commit a crime for financial gain and establishes a possible motive in conspiring with someone to murder his wife. 

As with hypothesis 2, hypothesis 3 is problematic.  If the motive were to kill Darlie Routier, and her husband conspired with an unknown person to murder her, one would have to speculate that on the evening of June 5th Darrin would have had to make contact with the co-conspirator and plan the crime.

According to Darlie’s own testimony she admitted it was her choice to sleep downstairs the night she and her family were attacked.  However it is possible that Darrin planted the idea and Darlie accepted.

Before going to bed, Darrin could have opened the window to the garage and cut the screen and given the co-conspirator information about the interior of the house and how to make entry. 

Even so, if Darrin and a co-conspirator had conspired to murder his wife and sons (one has to speculate that if this scenario is plausible then Darrin Routier would have known his sons would be sleeping downstairs also) had Darlie died as a result of her injuries one could argue that even though she lived, Darrin’s involvement should have been properly investigated by police as a primary suspect. 

However, Darrin Routier has been a leading advocate proclaiming Darlie’s innocence. At any point over the last 22 years he could have turned against Darlie and informed police that he believed his wife were responsible for the murders and testified against her.

Darlie Routier’s defense teams as well as her supporters have spent several thousand dollars over the last 22 years to find any evidence to support her innocence and in doing so have investigated Darrin Routier’s possible involvement and insofar have found little evidence to support hypothesis 3, besides learning of his attempts to procure someone to break into their home to commit insurance fraud.

Thus, this hypothesis cannot be ruled out and will be labeled as Operational Theory 2.

Final Report: Darlie Routier Convicted on Faulty Circumstantial Evidence:  

This report based on evidentiary facts known about the case of the State of Texas vs. Darlie Routier on the count of Capital Murder stipulates the state of Texas erred in its conclusion that Darlie Routier murdered her two children and then staged the crime to appear that she too was a victim of an unknown intruder. 

The report has based these conclusions on the fact that investigators failed to

A. investigate allegations her husband Darrin Routier’s attempted to conspire with others to commit insurance fraud prior to the crime.

B. completely discarded the evidence pointing to an unknown intruder although there is substantial evidence including unidentified fingerprints that did not match anyone in the home or investigators, shoe prints, and the sock discovered 75 yards from the Routier residence.

C. Darlie Routier’s was a victim of character assassination by prosecutors and relied on controversial footage of her celebrating her son’s birthday, but jurors were not made aware of surveillance footage filmed by police earlier in the day showing a somber and emotional gathering at her sons’ graves.

D. The blood evidence was contaminated by investigators who bagged clothing still wet with blood before allowing the shirt to dry and as a result the controversial blood spatter experts testimony as to how the blood of Devin and Damon Routier mixed with their mother’s blood on her shirt was biased.

E. the 911 call Routier made on the night of the murders is subjective.

F. Furthermore, the 911 call indicates that Routier was speaking to at least four people and statements she made are taken out of context, in which Routier did not script the call, but was speaking with two people being asked questions in a very chaotic crime scene.  It is clear that Routier is directing the first responder to the home about where the intruder had exited, and in doing so she pointed out the knife the unidentified suspect dropped. The 911 operator is unaware a police officer was already in the Routier residence and when the operator hears Routier make the statement about the knife informs Routier to not touch anything, and only then does Routier state she has already picked up the knife. 

G. The bloodied sock found 75 yards from the Routier home contradicts investigators and prosecutors who state there was no evidence of any person, unknown or even Routier from having left the house.  The sock is proof that someone within the Routier home left the home running away from the crime scene.

H. The bloodied sock found 75 yards from the Routier home contradicts the original timeline of events presented by investigators from the controversial blood spatter testimony that Darlie Routier first stabbed her sons, left the home and ran 75 yards, returned back to the home making a roundtrip of 150 yards, then stabbed herself. The controversial blood spatter expert determined that in order for Devin and Damon’s blood to have crossed contaminated with their mothers, she had to have created the injuries to herself prior to stabbing her children while the sock is found with blood from Devon and Damon only.

I. Expert testimony from a forensic examiner when questioned about the severity of Damon’s wounds speculated that as a result of the injuries and the loss of blood Damon would have most likely died within 9 minutes. However, this contradicts evidence by First Responders and collaborated by the 911 call that Damon Routier was still alive.  This also disputes the credibility of the prosecutor’s timeline because the 911 call lasted nearly six minutes, in which Devon was still alive, and it was another one or two minutes before first responders secured the home and allowed paramedics to enter.

J. During the 911 call Darlie Routier is clearly aware that her youngest son is still alive and is heard telling her son to “hold on” and she is also heard asking why an ambulance has not arrived and paramedics allowed to enter her home to treat her son’s wounds. If in fact Routier had committed these crimes, and had Devon survived his injuries he may have been able to collaborate his mother’s story that an unknown intruder had entered the home, or testified it was Darlie who had caused his injuries.  This behavior does not seem indicative of a person who has just committed a heinous crime and yet at the same time is attempting to administer help to the person she had injured. 

J. Darlie Routier’s wounds and bruises are indicative of someone attacking her and attempting to murder her as opposed to her creating the multiple injuries and bruising to herself.  The fact that prosecutors seemingly dismiss the throat wound which came within 2mm from severing her carotid artery and instead make it appear that 2mm is merely coincidental is an absurd argument. 

Darlie Routier in Hospital Post Surgery
Darlie Routier Bruising Indictive of Defensive Injuries

K. Darlie Routier had no motive to kill her son’s, no prior history of abuse, mental health issues, no financial motivation, and no criminal history.  In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a similar case involving filicide wherewith the main motives behind these types of crime are: altruistic, maltreatment, unwanted child, or spousal revenge. There were no reports or signs of physical abuse prior to the murders, and no indication that Routier felt trapped by her children.

This report concludes that the Rowlett Police Department was overwhelmed by the brutality of the crime and their investigation was not thorough, their investigation was incomplete, chaotic and incoherent.

Once Rowlett Police centered in on Routier, they ignored and failed to follow through on evidence that pointed towards Routier’s innocence.  Within thirty minutes of beginning the investigation it is clear that investigators had determined Routier was the primary suspect, and as a result their investigation was prejudiced from the outset. 

Their investigation failed to find evidence that Darrin Routier had previously sought to procure someone to aid him in committing insurance fraud by burglarizing the Routier home and other property.  

The investigation failed to investigate the various reports made by neighbors of a mysterious black car stalking the Routier home. 

The investigation failed to properly secure the crime scene and properly store evidence gathered from the scene of the crime in which the state’s case against Routier is primarily based on and as result this evidence should be inadmissible.

Furthermore, the state has failed to examine crucial evidence including fingerprint evidence that indicate an unknown intruder had left a bloody fingerprint behind at the crime scene. Even more incredible is that although in 2008 a federal judge sided with Routier’s defense to make the fingerprint as well as DNA evidence available to her defense for further testing that may point to her innocence and towards the unknown intruder.

In fact it has taken 9 years and another court order recently handed down that again sided with Routier’s defense team ordering the state of Texas to hand over the aforementioned evidence to be tested.  According to recent breaking news in the Routier case this evidence is finally close to being examined for the first time in 22 years since Darlie Routier was sentenced to death. Fingerprints in Routier case to be tested

Darlie Routier has always maintained her innocence and has even turned down a chance for clemency and have her sentence commuted to life when prosecutors attempted to grant her clemency only if she admitted to the crimes and she refused to do so. 

The state of Texas’s refusal to turn over evidence that may prove Darlie Routier is innocent is not uncommon in a high profile case, but tends to show that those involved in investigating and prosecuting this case have prospered as a result of the conviction. If Darlie Routier’s case is overturned the state made be found liable for a wrongful conviction, and it would confirm this reports conclusion that prosecutors and law enforcement professionals were overwhelmed by the brutality of the crime, did not complete a thorough investigation and instead zeroed in on Routier and created an environment of “group think” and their investigation nothing more than a “self-fulfilling prophecy” based on personal prejudices of Routier, and their circumstantial case against her based on contaminated forensic evidence and controversial blood spatter testimony.  Blood Spatter Faulty Science 1 Blood Spatter Faulty Science 2 Blood Spatter Faulty Science 3

It must also be noted that the blood spatter expert in Routier’s case has been involved in at least three other cases in which his testimony helped convict innocent people of crimes that were later overturned.  Moreover, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences noted that faulty science was found to be responsible for several wrongful convictions and specifically pointed out that Bloodstain Pattern Analysis was subjective and there is no empirical evidence to support the findings. In fact, the state of Texas’s Forensic Science commission has made it a requirement starting in 2019 that in order to testify as an expert witness as a bloodstain pattern analyst one must have proper accreditation in Texas courts. Source: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, The National Academies Press, Washington DC (2009), pp. 42, 177-179.

Thus, as a result of this report’s findings Darlie Routier’s case should be re-opened, and her sentence overturned most especially considering this is a capital murder conviction based on faulty contaminated circumstantial evidence and law enforcement’s reluctance to investigate Darrin Routier’s attempts to procure an unknown person(s) to commit insurance fraud or follow up on the information that several eyewitnesses observed prior to and on the day of the crime a person in black car stalking the Routier home. 

Operational Theory 1: Unknown Suspect

Crime Classification: 108.02 Situational Felony Murder—unplanned prior to commission of the felony. Homicide committed out of panic, confusion or impulse.

This report finds the evidence points towards an unknown suspect who acted impulsively having most likely stalked the Routier family and cased their home in the days leading up to the crime. 

This report however, does not believe that the suspect was organized, but investigators were overwhelmed by the brutality of the crime and overlooked evidence, did not properly store evidence and as a result the evidence was contaminated and failed to investigate this matter thoroughly instead centering on Darlie Routier from the outset.

The report suggests that the primary suspect at the time of the murders will be between the ages of 18-25, white male and will have lived near the Routier’s or had come in contact with them from someone who lived in the neighborhood or the suspect lived in the neighborhood. 

Operational Theory 2: Darrin Routier-Unknown Co-Conspirator:

Crime Classification 107.1: Individual Profit Murder

This report suggests that the individual profit murder is less likely when examining the evidence but cannot be ruled out because Darrin Routier has admitted to attempting to procure someone to stage a robbery for the purpose of insurance fraud prior to the crimes on June 6th 1996.

The individual profit murder is problematic because Darrin Routier would have most likely been in contact with the co-conspirator the day of the murder or the night of after his wife chose to sleep downstairs. 

This would suggest that the plan was improvised and the co-conspirator was on standby waiting for Routier to call. 

As in Operational Theory 1, this theory cannot be ruled out because law enforcement failed to investigate Darrin Routier’s involvement although investigators noted early on in the investigation Darrin Routier had a financial motivation, but failed to investigate further by centering on his wife.

In fact it was Darlie Routier’s defense team along with private investigators who learned that Darrin Routier had attempted to commit insurance fraud prior to the murders.  Had investigators completed a more thorough investigation into Darrin Routier’s activities and motivations they too would have had more incentive to suspect Darrin Routier as the primary suspect, but because they failed to do so this report cannot rule out Darrin Routier operating with a co-conspirator who together planned to murder Darlie Routier for profit.

Conclusion of Report:

Darlie Routier’s capital murder conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and proffered by faulty unaccredited scientific expert testimony.  The case against Routier is biased, prejudicial and subjective.

There is no obvious or apparent motive for Darlie Routier to have committed filicide and murder her two eldest sons and then stage the crime scene. In fact, when comparing this case to similar cases, this report finds zero evidence of motive in which a mother without a catalyst has committed such a heinous and cold-blooded murder.

However, there are multiple examples of wrongful convictions based on investigators being overwhelmed by the brutality of a crime and will make faulty assumptions, contaminate or lose important forensic evidence; assassinate the suspects character when cases are circumstantial, and utilize unaccredited “experts” to validate their highly subjective conclusions. Furthermore, investigators and prosecutors even when presented with evidence opposing their case become defensive; will move to obstruct all attempts by the defense to re-examine evidence, and stonewall all appeals, while maintaining the case against the defendant is solid. 

This report finds that the state of Texas’s case against Darlie Routier is more indicative of similar cases of wrongful conviction based on subjective assumptions and contaminated evidence, while discounting all evidence that pointed towards a Situational Felony Murder, or Individual Profit Murder.

This report shows that prosecutors have attempted to grant clemency to Darlie Routier if she confessed to the crime and she refused, stonewalling a federal court ruling to allow Routier’s defense team access to important forensic evidence for 10 years which again is indicative of similar wrongful convictions where prosecutors and investigators are in denial that their departments erred in its case against a defendant.

Furthermore this report believes that Darlie Routier’s case will most likely be overturned by new forensic testing of fingerprint and DNA evidence, but prosecutors will most likely reject this information and will attempt to procure an Alford Plea maintaining their case against Routier could be retried and she’d be found guilty, but will not want a protracted jury trial in which Routier may be found not guilty and the state be sued for wrongful conviction. Unless the forensic evidence directly points to a previously unknown suspect and the case is overturned and the DA moves to dismiss the charges against Routier altogether.

All theories on this page are my own and I do not represent law enforcement.

FSC: The Springfield Three: The Disappearance of Sherrill Levitt, Suzie Streeter, & Stacy McCall; ; June 7, 1992

The Springfield Three Missing Persons Case

Abduction:  47 Y/0 Sherrill Levitt; 19 y/o (daughter of Levitt) Suzie Streeter; 18 y/o (friend of Streeter) Stacy McCall

Crime scene contaminated by friends and family

No suspects

Multiple persons of interests

Date of Abduction: June 7, 1992

Location: 1717 E. Delmar Street, Springfield, MO

Time of Abductions: 300am-800AM

Sunrise: 553AM

Possible timeline 300am-600AM

Personal belongings of victims left in home; No signs of Struggle; Family pet (Yorkie) Left in Home; glass globe covering outside light on porch broken (but swept up by friend may have contained clues unknown where light broke if on porch or off porch)

Victim Levitt lived in the home from April 1992 until abduction; unknown if she were renting or buying.

Levitt was a cosmetologist and worked at a salon in Springfield. She was well-respected and had several clients.

Streeter, 19 y/o daughter graduated the night before, was not set to go to college but to go to school to become a cosmetologist. Had been in a relationship with a young man who broke into cemetery and vandalized it, and Streeter had cooperated with LE informing LE of her knowledge of the vandalism.

McCall graduated the night before also and had been with Streeter partying with friends and by happenstance ended up at Streeter’s house the morning they were abducted. McCall was preparing to start college in the fall after graduation.

Variable Timeline:

On June 6th after graduation, Streeter and McCall stayed out with friends in the Springfield, Missouri area celebrating their graduation.  The original plan was for the two girls and others to travel south to Branson, rent a hotel room, party, and then the next morning go to a nearby water park. These plans changed, most likely from having had too much to drink and they decided to stay in Springfield and go to Branson the next morning.

In the meantime, Levitt was at home and had contacted a friend around 11PM and informed the friend that she was painting an armoire.

Sometime around 2-230AM Streeter and McCall decided to leave the friend’s house because the home was crowded and there was no place for them to sleep and they decided to drive back in separate cars back to Streeter’s home on Delmar.  It is assumed they arrived sometime around 230-3am.

At around 8AM June 7th, friends of Streeter and McCall attempted to contact the two to meet up and travel to Branson, but were unable to reach them. The two friends then drove to the home and noticed nothing out of place besides a glass globe covering the outside patio light had been broken.

Streeter’s and McCall’s vehicles were both parked in the circular driveway and Levitt’s car parked beneath a carport.

The door to the house was unlocked and the friends entered but all three women were not in the house.  It was noted by one of the friends that all the victim’s purses were in the house, including cigarettes smoked by Levitt and Streeter.  It also appeared that Levitt’s bed had been slept in and that Streeter and McCall may have possibly gone to bed, because their makeup and jewelry had been removed.  It was also noted that the family dog appeared anxious and nervous.

While in the home, the phone rang, and the friend answered and stated that the caller made obscene comments and she hung up.  After hanging up, immediately after the phone rang again and it was assumedly the same person making the same lewd type of comments and the friend hung up again.

Later that afternoon, McCall’s mother arrived at the home looking for her daughter at the house on Delmar and also felt something was amiss, but again there was no evidence of a struggle having taken place in the home.  McCall’s mother reviewed a voice message left on Levitt’s answering machine and listened to a male caller who had left a “strange” message on the phone (police have gone on to state they do not believe the message left on the machine was linked to the two obscene calls made when the friend was in the home) however, McCall’s mother accidentally erased the message and it has never been heard by LE.

Another thing noted was that the television had been turned on, but was not on any channel, just a “fuzzy screen.”

Soon after McCall’s mother contacted Springfield Police, but she was informed to contact them the next morning. 

Once LE began their investigation there were tips, but nothing substantial. LE questioned several people of interest but to no avail. 

27 years later there is still no information on the whereabouts of Levitt, Streeter, and McCall, no suspects, and the case has gone cold.

There have been some intriguing developments (information that the three women may have been murdered and buried in concrete at a local hospital, but this information has been ruled out because records indicate the hospital parking lot where the information states the women to be buried began construction after the disappearance of the three women.)

Robert Craig Cox, a convicted Kidnapper and a suspect in a murder in Florida lived in Springfield during the time the three women were abducted.  His alibi proved to be falsified, but although he is imprisoned in TX and has made claims he may have knowledge of the case and possible involvement, he has not been connected to the abduction and refuses to cooperate with LE.

Another interesting side note is that the son of Levitt and the brother of Streeter has been recently arrested on suspicion of false imprisonment of a 15 year old girl. 

The brother at the time of the abduction of the three women in Springfield was no longer welcome at the house on Delmar because of his abusive, argumentative behavior and his heavy drinking.  Although, he has cooperated with LE, given an alibi and passed a lie detector, it is unclear if he is still a person of interest or has been ruled out as a suspect. 

Utilizing the MSCTEM to Examine the Case:

The absence of evidence is overwhelming, but the lack of evidence is not the absence of evidence altogether and it may be possible to not only rule out certain scenarios, it may help in creating a profile of the possible suspect(s) and the motivation behind the crime.

For example, it seems highly unlikely that the three women left the house on Delmar of their own volition.  All three of their vehicles, the family pet, and their personal items are left at the residence. 

1717 E Delmar St

Although there have been cases where families have disappeared and left their homes under “mysterious circumstances”, this particular case doesn’t seem to fit.  

To move this forward, the hypothesis that the three women left of their own volition will be ruled out.

In this particular case, one has to surmise that the three women were abducted while they slept in their home by an intruder and the motivation for doing so is also unknown. (See Graph)

The graph above represents that in these types of cases there are two types of suspects, Domestic, and Unknown. Commonly those labeled as Domestic, are individuals who know the victim such as a family member, a spouse, a relative, a boyfriend, girlfriend, prior, or current.

An unknown suspect has two sub-categories: Random and Outlier.  A random suspect would be someone who is opportunistic, and could be organized or disorganized, but prior to encountering the victim had either limited knowledge of the victim or no knowledge of the victim until the opportunity presented itself and the suspect seizes the moment to attack.

An outlier suspect is someone who may have had limited interaction with the victim to even a friendly business or social relationship with the victim prior to the crime, and may often be overlooked by investigators because the person is on the periphery of an investigation. 

To give an example of an outlier, it could be a person who has been in the home prior for business related reasons, or perhaps invited by a friend by a friend, a landlord, or a past or current client. 

In this particular case one could postulate that the suspect was organized, the crime was premeditated and this is why the crime scene contains little or no evidence linking back to the suspect.

Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the crime may seem organized, but that may not necessarily be the case and the crime was improvised and happened so quickly that the suspect by happenstance left little evidence behind giving it the appearance of being organized and premeditated.

However, we can move forward with three hypotheses:

  1. Victims abducted by Random/Opportunistic Suspect
  2. Victims abducted by Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect
  3. Victims abducted by known/Non-Opportunistic Suspect

One of the key differentiating factors is the abduction of the three victims.  This factor could help understand the motivation of the suspect(s).

Abduction: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2:

Why would the suspect(s) abduct the victims if the suspect has already established control over the victims inside the home is relevant when it seems the suspect is taking a higher risk by abducting three victims, removing them from the home, then transporting them to another location? 

One could posit that the abductions were premeditated or argue that the abductions were improvised.

In scenario 1, if the abductions were in fact premeditated prior to the suspect entering the home, one could then hypothesize that the suspect also had prepared a location to take the victims afterwards.

In scenario 2, if the abductions were improvised the suspect may have also improvised the location as to where the victims would be taken. 

Neither scenario rules out hypothesis A, B and C, because the aforementioned scenarios could fit all three types of suspects.

However, by examining the two scenarios it could help in understanding the motivations of the suspect, and enable one to establish a profile of the suspect. 

Scenario 1 does pose an even greater challenge because if in fact the suspect(s) premeditated the abductions, was organized, and had a predetermined location to take the victims after abducting them this reduces the chances LE has in ever locating the victims or the suspect(s).

One could theorize that Scenario 1 fits best because of the lack of evidence and the fact that the victims have been missing for 27 years support this scenario as being most likely. 

Even so, Scenario 2 should not be ruled out because of the absence of evidence over the last 27 years, because even if the abductions were improvised and the location the victims were taken subsequently improvised, it does not mean that the suspect did not go to great lengths afterwards to cover up the crime, it only means that the location has been overlooked or never searched. 

Still, one could opine that both scenarios fit the actions of one suspect versus two or more suspects. 

The rationale behind this is that one suspect could in fact been able to enter the home on Delmar, control the victims, abduct them under scenario 1 or 2, but because the suspect acted alone and if the suspect remains quiet about the crime, the one suspect never has to worry about the accomplice breaking his or her silence to LE or to others. 

Although it cannot be ruled out that one or more suspects were responsible for the abductions of Levitt, Streeter, and McCall, this report is going to operate under the premise that the crime was carried out by one suspect. 

The rationale behind making this judgment is based on the fact that the lack of evidence supports one suspect, where if the crime were committed with two or more suspects they may have acted in two different pursuits and there’d be evidence suggesting that one suspect behaved differently than the other.

It would seem that the suspect’s motivation, operating under the theory of only one, was not robbery.  It is not uncommon for someone to break into a residential home while someone is in the home for the purpose of burglary, but in this particular case it seems more likely that the suspect entered into the home because the suspect targeted the victims and not the home.

This would fit scenario 2 if in fact the suspect targeted the home and in the act of committing the burglary was interrupted by the victims the crime shifted from burglary to kidnapping.  The problem with this scenario is that the suspect could have ran when confronted or could have murdered the victims or subdued the victims leaving them alive inside the home and then continued to burglarize the home afterwards as opposed to abducting them. 

However, for the purpose of this report, robbery will be ruled out as a motivating factor.

This report will instead operate under the presumption that the suspect targeted the victims prior to entering the home with the intent to abduct the women, or the suspect targeted the victims prior to entering the home and perhaps it wasn’t until after inside the home that the suspect decided to abduct the victims.

The Evidence; Timeline:

Because of the lack of evidence it is best to examine this case by looking at the evidence and examining the timeline of events leading up to the abductions.

For example, if it is presumed that the suspect targeted the victims but only Levitt and Streeter who occupied the house on Delmar, the suspect would not be expecting to enter the house and find McCall at the home. 

On the other hand, if the suspect targeted Levitt only, it’s possible that the suspect had already entered the home prior to Streeter and McCall’s arrival and was interrupted in the process of committing a crime. 

Even still, if the suspect targeted only Streeter, Streeter was not supposed to even be at the residence on Delmar that night. 

One could postulate that on the morning of the abductions the suspect had targeted the victims but arrived after Streeter and McCall and was unaware that Streeter and McCall had not been at the home earlier in the evening. 

It could also be argued that the suspect after encountering Streeter and McCall arrived at the home on Delmar after following the two women and had no knowledge that Levitt was in the home.   

Examining the Broken Globe:

It is unknown if the porch light was turned off or on at the time the suspect entered the home. 

If the light was on, one could argue that the suspect purposefully took the globe off to access the bulb to unscrew it disconnecting the light and hiding him from neighbors or people passing by the home. 

However, if the light were not on, there’d be no reason for the suspect to remove the globe and disconnect the bulb. 

This leads to different scenarios. If the light was on and the suspect purposefully removed the globe to access the bulb the suspect accidently dropped the glass globe and broke it or the suspect after taking off the globe set it on the porch and in the process of abducting the women in the dark someone accidentally broke the globe.

The other scenario is if the light were off and the globe were not removed, it is quite possible that while taking the women from inside the house, there may have been an attempt by one to escape and as the suspect and victim struggled the light was inadvertently broken by the suspect or the victim. 

The broken globe was swept up the next day allegedly as an innocuous good will gesture to clean up the broken glass by one of Streeter’s and McCall’s friends who came to the house looking for the two women. 

Even so, the person who cleaned the glass should have been able to inform LE as to where the glass was, whether it was on the porch below the light fixture or off the porch on the ground or steps.

The reason this information as to where the broken glass was found is important is that it might help investigators understand where the globe may have been when it was broken.

If the globe had been broken as a result of a victim struggling to escape and the suspect while trying to maintain their hold on the victim swung back with their arm and struck the globe with their elbow, it might give a clue as to the height of the suspect. 

Another reason to understand the relevance of this evidence is to show if the suspect removed the globe purposefully prior to entering the house to access the bulb to disconnect the light and prevent the suspect from being seen from neighbors or people passing by. 

Examining the globe and the style and how it was fixed to the fixture, might also determine how organized the suspect was before entering the house. If the fixture needed to be removed by some type of tool, it’s possible the suspect had the right type of tool on his person to remove the globe. 

This type of evidence when there is a lack of evidence becomes important in understanding because it might help investigators in theorizing the steps the suspect took prior to, during, or after the crime.

The Family Dog:

Although at first glance understanding the relevance of the family dog may seem unimportant, it is possible to suggest that the dog may have alerted the victims in the home of the presence of an intruder.  If the dog had started barking, this may have spooked the suspect and caught him off guard.  If the dog did not bark and the suspect went undetected it might suggest that the dog knew the suspect and it did not bark because the dog did not perceive the suspect as a threat. 

If for example the suspect targeted Streeter and McCall, entered the house after following them, approached their room and the family dog began barking the dog may have awakened Levitt causing her to get out of bed and encountering the suspect.  The suspect may have had no intention to harm anyone up until the point the dog began barking and woke up Levitt.  Once the dog barked and alerted Levitt, the suspect could have ran or if he hesitated and was seen by Levitt and recognized, the crime of breaking and entering for the purpose of possibly assaulting Streeter or McCall, may have escalated to abduction.

On the other hand, it’s possible the family dog was not overly protective and not prone to barking at noises at night and the dog may have slept through the entire abduction. 

Again, like the broken glass, the dog may have been inadvertently involved in effecting how the suspect behaved once inside the home and this information could prove vital in understanding the suspect and the suspect’s motivations. 

The Timeline:

Examining the timeline along with the lack of evidence is important because if the suspect were targeting only the occupants of the house, Levitt and Streeter, McCall was only abducted as a result of coincidence. At the same time, if Streeter and McCall had stuck to their plans to stay elsewhere other than returning to the house on Delmar, would the suspect passed on the home or attacked Levitt only?

The premise behind this is to understand if the suspect targeting the home on Delmar was dependent upon Levitt and Streeter only, and if Streeter had not been home would the suspect have moved on?

The issue with this is that Streeter and McCall did not arrive at the house on Delmar until after 230AM and it was a last minute decision.    When Levitt went to bed, one would assume she was not expecting for her daughter to come back to the house. 

It is also unknown that when Streeter and McCall left the home they had planned on staying how intoxicated they were and how far they would have to drive to arrive at the house on Delmar.

One would assume that if Streeter and McCall were intoxicated those in the home they had intended to stay would be reluctant to allow the two teenagers to leave the home unattended. Even so, it’s possible that Streeter and McCall were not inebriated and there was no conceived concern for their safety that would cause someone to be reluctant to allow them to leave. 

The rationale behind this is to examine whether it is possible that if Streeter and McCall felt compelled to leave the house they had planned on staying due to overcrowding, did anyone else make the same decision and leave the house at the same time or soon after Streeter or McCall decided to leave?

It could be speculated that each individual staying at the home Streeter and McCall left have been approached by LE and questioned.  If this is the case then, one would have to speculate that Streeter and McCall left the house, drove directly from that home to Delmar and made no stops on the way or were followed by someone at the house they left. 

This would lead to two scenarios: the abductor may have been in the home at the time Streeter and McCall arrived, or only after Streeter and McCall arrived at the house on Delmar the suspect arrived unaware that Streeter or McCall were not there earlier. 

It is important to note that the suspect had to have a vehicle.  The question is did the suspect come prepared to abduct the three women, targeted only Levitt and was surprised when Streeter and McCall arrived, the suspect had no intention to abduct anyone but something changed that escalated the crime from breaking and entering to abduction? 

Organized or Disorganized:

All signs point to the suspect being organized.  Whether the suspect premeditated the crimes for a lengthy period of time or acted spontaneously once he selected his target, the suspect’s motive may have not originated as a plan to abduct but was prepared to abduct. 


When examining this case we know that Levitt and Streeter, mother and daughter, lived in the house on Delmar alone.  Levitt was divorced, was working as a cosmetologist and had lived in the home since April 1992. 

Levitt did not date according to most facts, but was having issues with attempting to attain some support from her ex-husband. Levitt seemed to be well liked and had several clients at the salon she worked. 

Nevertheless, Levitt had a falling out with her son, due to his alcoholism and had cut ties with him prior to her abduction. 

Streeter had at one time moved out of the home with her mother and moved in with her older brother, and their relationship soon soured also because of the brother’s alcoholism and she soon moved back in with her mother on Delmar.

Streeter had also been involved in a relationship with a young man who had been recently charged with vandalism at a local cemetery and Streeter worked with LE essentially cooperating as a witness against her boyfriend and another young man who had vandalized the cemetery. 

At this time, the brother and the two men have not necessarily been ruled out as suspects, but they have cooperated with police in the aftermath of the abductions. 

Another factor to note is that Levitt and Streeter lived alone in the home on Delmar, and this could have contributed to them being targeted making them a high risk for abduction.

It is assumed that McCall may not have been targeted by the suspect but was by happenstance at the home on Delmar on the morning they were abducted, unless the suspect targeted Streeter and McCall and followed them back to the house on Delmar. 

Operational Theories:

In this particular case there are three operational theories.

Operational Theory 1: A suspect targeted Streeter and McCall the night of the abduction and followed them back to the house on Delmar

Operational Theory 2: A suspect targeted Levitt and Streeter between April 1992 and June 1992 and arrived after Streeter and McCall entered the house on Delmar.

Operational Theory 3: A suspect targeted Levitt and Streeter who was angry with them and wanted to punish them.

Operational Theory 1 suggests that on the night of graduation sometime soon after Streeter and McCall left the home they had intended to stay, the suspect left also and followed Streeter and McCall to the house on Delmar. 

Operational Theory 2 suggests that at some point between April 1992 and June 1992 someone targeted Levitt and Streeter. This could be anyone from someone Levitt and Streeter knew well, to someone who had met them possibly at the home and then contemplated abducting them. 

Operational Theory 3: suggests that the suspect had been angered by Levitt and Streeter and wants to punish them. 

Victims’ Purses & Porch Light

Examining Operational Theory 1:

On June 6th 1992, while out celebrating their graduation and partying with friends someone followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar after they decided to leave because the house was overcrowded.  The suspect would have left under the same excuse or offered another excuse for leaving the home.  The suspect followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar and most likely parked outside the home and waited for the lights to go off inside the home. 

The suspect may have been drinking also.  It is unknown if the suspect knocked and then was allowed entry into the home or perhaps broke into the house under the pretense as a voyeur.  It’s possible the suspect may have walked around the house peeping into the windows prior to going into the home contemplating whether or not he should leave or stay or making excuses to knock on the door to be allowed entry. 

It’s possible this suspect had a crush on either Streeter or McCall but he was rebuffed by them.  Under the influence of alcohol he now has the nerve to attempt to confront them.

This suspect has most likely never killed before and once inside the home under whatever pretense (voyeurism or knocked on the door under some false pretense that his vehicle broke down and needed to use the phone) the suspect is either caught inside the home when Levitt wakes up after the family dog begins barking or once he is asked to leave refuses and he becomes angry and lashes out. 

The suspect overpowers one of the women with some type of weapon and binds them and contemplates what to do moving forward, but also realizes he cannot leave them alive because they know his identity. 

Because the suspect has never murdered anyone but cannot leave them alive he decides to abduct them and take them out of the home to a secluded location where the suspect can make up his mind as to what to do next. 

After he has the women in his vehicle and drives further away from Delmar, his aggression towards the women intensifies, and he realizes he is in total control.  The suspect takes the women some place secluded within a ten to twenty mile radius of the home.  It is also possible that the suspect informs the victims that if they remain calm once he takes them to the isolated location he will set them free and then drive away.  After arriving at the location the suspect realizes he cannot leave them alive and yet at the same time is hesitant and only wants to undo what he has done. 

After murdering the three women, the suspect drives back towards the home on Delmar and perhaps notices that the friends have arrived so he stops at a payphone nearby and contacts the home disguising his voice and basically making a scripted call to the home.  The suspect does this to distance himself from the crime and act out the part of someone who would commit such a heinous act.  At this point he psychologically disassociates himself from the crime. 

The suspect will be between the ages of 18-27 years of age.  Perhaps he is also a recent graduate and is getting ready to leave Springfield for college or the military and is able to distance himself from the crimes by moving away or could possibly be in college and on summer break and leaves soon after to return to college.

Examining Operational Theory 2:

Assuming that the suspect is a male and examining the lack of evidence found at the home on Delmar, one could postulate that the suspect was organized, orderly, and methodical who enjoys the hunt and taunting the victims.  It seems the only misstep was removing the globe to switch off the light and leaving the globe in the path to be knocked over and broken upon entering and exiting the home.  The suspect’s motive is one of being in total control, and sexual sadism.

It would seem that the suspect lived nearby or was visiting nearby and more likely that the suspect had targeted the victims prior to June 7, 1992.

The suspect was prepared and brought his own weapons and tools utilized to enter into the home, subdue the victims, abduct them, leading them to his vehicle and taking them to a location he was familiar with.  

Also, it would seem the suspect has been in the home prior to the attack, knew the phone number, and may have broken into the home prior to the attack, knew the victims personally, or operating as a professional (e.g. service technician) entered the house and targeted it after. 

According to this theory the suspect is a professional type, technician, organized, methodical, and lives within the area.  The suspect wants total control and within the home is unable to do so. At the same time the suspect is aware of his physical presence and the evidence he sets out to maintain control of the crime scene by leaving no evidence behind.

This is someone who wants complete control. There is an underlying anger and the suspect is often able to suppress it, but when he commits to this crime, it’s about control, methodology, and organization. 

The location of the house on Delmar worked because it was not visible to nosy neighbors, and he may have picked the house with a mother and a daughter purposefully because of his own issues with interpersonal relationships.

He is a hunter, an outdoorsman and has a prime spot he hunts and knows the area well, using it to get away from problems at home by going hunting where he isolates himself but he bores easily from hunting game and it no longer satisfies him. He may have a cabin or land that he owns or has access to property that gives him privacy.

The suspect will between the ages of 24-35 at the time of the killings.  This suspect is most likely a sexual sadist.  The suspect may be respected in the community. He most likely owns his home or sizeable amount of land.  The suspect will have access to several vehicles and most likely a company vehicle and lives within 10-20 miles from the victims. 

Examining Operational Theory 3:

This theory operates under the assumption that someone targeted Levitt and Streeter out of anger and wanted to punish the women.  This suspect came prepared to abduct the women because the suspect knew they would be the first to be questioned about the crimes. 

This suspect has anger issues and most likely has been arrested prior to June 7th and after June 7th

This suspect will have gone out of his way to dispose of the bodies and is able to play the victim to dissociate himself from being capable of ever committing such a crime. 

Victims’ Bedrooms

Analysis of all Three Operational Theories:

In all three operational theories, the suspect is someone who knew the victims and is not considered to be a random/opportunistic suspect who targeted the home or targeted the victims by happenstance the day of the abductions. The suspect knew pertinent information about the victims.

Although Operational Theory 2 and 3 are plausible, the lack of rage or lack of evidence seems indicative of a suspect who was conflicted about what to do as the crime unfolded.

It’s as if the suspect had not committed to abduction or murder but was acting impulsively and had followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar and then hesitated for a while before committing to entering the home. 

However, after the suspect was confronted by someone in the home and recognized only then did the crime escalate from what may have been a breaking and entering or voyeurism charge to one of self preservation and he felt as if he had no choice but to silence the victims. 

For example, once the suspect was encountered in the home and recognized he had two choices: run or commit to silencing the women his first choice was to bind the victims and leave the house. Once the suspect leaves the house and goes back to his vehicle he decides to take the women as opposed to killing them because even at this time the suspect is not committed to murder but is slowly realizing that murder may be the only solution.  Abducting the women buys the suspect more time to consider his options. 

This time the suspect pulls into the driveway and goes back inside the home and abducts the women. The suspect wants to get away from the home and the further he drives away and the more isolated of a location he finds the further he can psychologically dissociate himself from the crime he is committing. 

Perhaps even once the suspect finds an isolated location he is still hesitant on committing murder, but by this time the crime has escalated from breaking and entering to kidnapping and now the suspect sees no other recourse but to silence the ones who know the truth. 

Operational theories 2 and 3 are problematic because if the suspect had been targeting only Levitt and Streeter, Streeter was not home and not expected to be home that night.  Although it may appear the crime was premeditated and carefully planned, the suspect may have been apprehensive about approaching the home when he noticed an unfamiliar third car in the driveway.

Theory 3 also seems problematic because if the suspect were angry with the women in the home and acting impulsively out of anger, there is nothing about the crime scene that suggests any signs of struggle.

Therefore, moving forward, Operational Theory 1 will be examined as the most plausible theory because it answers more questions than it asks.

Victims’ Vehicles

Operational Theory 1: Suspect Targeted Streeter and McCall:

The most plausible theory is that the only thing different about June 6th-7th is that the two women had graduated and were out of the house celebrating with friends.  One has to argue that if a suspect had previously targeted Levitt and Streeter, this suspect could have acted anytime before June 7th, but on this particular night Streeter was not at home and not expected to be home. 

Something significant happened that set these events into motion.  This theory operates under the premise that the catalyst was the graduation.  The suspect was with the group after graduation having also just graduated, a friend of a friend of someone who graduated, or a person who had graduated and was already in college or military and had returned home for the graduation. 

It is this event that set all other events into motion.  Once Streeter and McCall changed plans to leave the overcrowded home and go back to the house on Delmar, the suspect also made an excuse to leave. 

The suspect is between the ages of 18-27.  He is likeable, a former Boy Scout maybe, who has issues with girls his age and is seen as a friend by the girls he knows and not datable.  It’s possible he is a virgin and was raised in a strict religious home and has been bullied by some at school.  He comes from a lower to middle class family.  Internally he struggles with this nice guy image. 

It is possible that this suspect worked mowing yards while in school to make extra money and had been employed by Levitt because the suspect was a friend of Streeter’s.  He possibly drives a van or a dual cab pickup truck. 

This suspect is on the periphery of the investigation because he is an outlier who like many other people knew Streeter and McCall, but does not fit the profile of someone who could commit such a heinous act. 

Once he left the place he buried the victims he disassociated himself from the crimes altogether as if it never happened.  If he has returned to the place he buried the victims it was only to ensure their graves have gone untouched, but it’s quite possible he has never been back and is at this time not concerned with anyone finding the victims because he believes any evidence concerning his involvement has over the passage of time been washed away. 

Re-opening the Investigation:

It is highly recommended that Springfield police along with the State Police and FBI re-open the investigation and proceed to re-interview all people from the home Streeter and McCall had been at the night of graduation.  It would also be recommended to investigate any person from the landlord who Levitt rented or bought the house from to anyone who may have worked at the home such as a landscaper who may have also been friends with Streeter from school. 

Information about previous search areas should be provided to allow volunteers to either search those locations again, and new locations established within a 10-20 mile radius from the home on Delmar.

The rationale behind the victims being east of Springfield is that the house on Delmar was right of center of the heart of the city and the closest rural area from Delmar would be to head east. 

It is also possible that by re-opening the investigation into the matter and re-interviewing those who knew the victims might rattle the suspect.  It’s possible that the suspect has been charged with crimes since 1992. 

It has to be a strong investigation one involving several agencies and possibly reexamining the home on Delmar and attempting to reenact the crime using different scenarios. 

These reenactments should be publicized to the local media. 

If the suspect has disassociated himself from the crime the only way perhaps to unnerve him would be to come at the case with every investigative tool Law Enforcement can bring by calling in volunteers to search new areas, to using drones to fly over locations looking for evidence, to increasing the reward.

If the operating theory is this crime was not random and the victims were targeted by someone they knew, the most difficult obstacle would be is if the victims were taken to private property where in order to search LE would need a warrant to do so.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that there may be less than 5 potential people of interest and some may be ruled out rather quickly and the ones that remain LE maybe able to provide PC to execute a search warrant. 

Conclusion of Report:

The most plausible operating theory is that the catalyst that set the events into motion the morning of June 7th 1992 and resulted in the abductions and possible murders of Sherrill Levitt, Suzie Streeter, and Stacey McCall was the high school graduation Saturday June 6th and the celebratory parties that followed. 

It is believed that the suspect was with the groups as an invited guest to the celebratory parties. The suspect is a white male between the ages of 18-27. He may have graduated also, or is a friend of someone who had graduated, or was a former student who has returned to visit with friends from the school and this person had a crush on Streeter or McCall. 

Around 230AM Streeter and McCall decide to leave the house they were staying because it was overcrowded and there was no place for them to sleep.  It is believed that the suspect also was in the house and soon after Streeter and McCall left the home, the suspect left also under a similar excuse.  However, the suspect follows Streeter and McCall back to the house on Delmar. 

The suspect has most likely been drinking, and parks his vehicle on the street and fantasizes about being with the girls in the home.  He may even exit his vehicle and walk around the property peering into windows which further excites him. 

After the lights go out in the house, the suspect takes a screwdriver or buck knife, something with a straight edge to use to wedge between the door and the lock to break in. It is also possible that the suspect decides to remove the globe using the knife to unbolt the screws holding the globe in place sets the globe on the porch and then disconnects the bulb preventing anyone who passes by from seeing him enter the home.

Once he does this he proceeds to break into the home, but finds the door unlocked.  The suspect enters the home and there maybe some light inside allowing him to find his way around and he looks for the room Streeter and McCall are in. 

It is possible that at some point he goes to Levitt’s room, or while roaming through the home the family dog begins barking and wakes up Levitt. Levitt leaves the room and finds the man in the home and confronts him. In doing so, he panics, and Streeter and McCall are also awakened and they all recognize the man. 

He reacts by taking the knife and taking Levitt hostage and threatening to kill if the women do not obey his instructions.  The suspect forces Streeter and McCall to turn over on their stomachs and hide their faces and the suspect proceeds to bind Levitt with items in the house most likely using clothing items from Streeter’s room.  With Levitt tied, the suspect proceeds to tie up Streeter and McCall. 

The suspect checks and double checks the knots he has used to bind the women and believing they are secure he exits the home and returns to his vehicle. 

Once in his vehicle he hesitates, a part of him wanting to drive away, but he knows that he cannot leave because the women recognize him.  He is still not committed to murdering them, so he drives to the house and backs into the driveway. 

Back inside the home, he begins taking the women out to his vehicle. During one of these trips he or one of the victims run into the globe the suspect had removed earlier and sat on the porch, and the globe breaks.  It is possible this happens after he is leaving with the last victim, because there is no blood indicating that the barefoot women stepped on the broken glass.

With the victims in his vehicle the suspect drives east to 65B then turns right or left, and proceeds north or south till he comes to the closest intersection that will take him east and out of the city into a rural area. 

After the suspect finds a suitable secluded location he stops and contemplates his next move.  Although he may still be hesitant to kill, he realizes there is no other alternative.  The suspect removes the victims one by one and murders them.  The suspect either has tools on hand to cover up the bodies or the suspect is forced to leave the area, go find the tools necessary and then return to the area. 

The suspect is able to leave the area after sunrise, perhaps some time around 840AM and drives back towards the house on Delmar.  However, once he arrives he recognizes that friends of Streeter and McCall are at the home. 

The suspect concocts a scripted call, and drives to a nearby payphone and calls the house.  The suspect disguises his voice and makes obscene statements purposefully in an attempt to psychologically disassociate himself from the crime by attempting to confuse the friends and make it sound as if Streeter and Levitt were being stalked.  He goes on to leave a voice mail but it is accidently erased. 

The suspect returns home, cleans up, and possibly even attends church with family thereby having an alibi for his whereabouts on the day of the abductions.

It is possible the suspect left Springfield in the next few days to return back to college, start college, or joined the military. 

The suspect is possibly a former Boy Scout, knows how to tie knots and is a hunter.  He is friendly, and a hard worker, liked by others, but is seen as a nice guy which he resents because he sees the boys with bad reputations get the girls he likes.  He comes from a lower class-middle class family, strict religious background, attends church regularly and is a decent student with average grades.  He has a job, probably outdoors work, and has access to a vehicle to carry his tools needed to perform his duties. 

He is most likely happily married with children and still attends church regularly and is considered an upstanding citizen who doesn’t fit the profile of someone who could commit such a heinous act. 

This suspect would be considered an outlier, someone who knew the girls from school or through other friends and acted impulsively, possibly also under the influence of alcohol on June 7th 1992.

The victims are most likely buried within ten to twenty miles from the house on Delmar just outside of Springfield, Missouri in a rural area.

All theories on this page are of my own and I do not represent Law Enforcement. If you have any information about the disappearance of the Springfield Three, please contact the Springfield Police Department: (417)-864-1810  

The Case for Moving to Indict the Primary Suspect in the Disappearance of Patti Adkins:

Patti Adkins Missing Person Case

It seems highly unusual in the case of the disappearance of Patti Adkins in July 2001 where a prosecutor would be unable to take this case to a Grand Jury, show probable cause to indict the Primary Suspect and proceed to bring charges against the Primary Suspect and move to trial.   

Defendants are convicted where the evidence is circumstantial every day.  But to continue to allow this Primary Suspect to walk free until the DA’s office has direct evidence is unjustifiable, when perhaps the only way to break this case is to indict rather than wait another nineteen years.

Of course having “Direct Evidence” would be best to proceed with any trial, but after nineteen years in spite of no body, or admission of guilt, it now rests in the hands of the DA to press the matter by making an indictment and perhaps in doing so, press the Primary Suspect to face a jury of his peers and allow them to decide upon the preponderance or circumstantial evidence if the Primary Suspect is guilty or not guilty.

There is enough evidence in the testimony, the supporting facts based on the testimony, and inference putting the testimony and the supporting facts together to not only indict the Primary Suspect, but to posssibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Primary Suspect can be proven guilty in a court of law as being responsible for the death of Patti Adkins. 

Testimony would show that Patti Adkins and the Primary Suspect were in a relationship prior to her disappearance in July.  The defense will argue against this evidence, but would find it near impossible to explain away how witnesses would have any knowledge including Ms. Adkins about the Primary Suspects purchase of the Tonneau Cover purchased by the Primary Suspect prior to June 29, 2001 and picked up the cover he ordered and installed the day Ms. Adkins disappeared if Ms. Adkins and the Primary Suspect were not in a “relationship”.   

The defense would find it difficult to refute the witness testimony that those closest to Ms. Adkins were aware that on the night of June 29th 2001 Ms. Adkins and the Primary Suspect were expected to leave for the week and that to keep their relationship secret Ms. Adkins was encouraged by the Primary Suspect to leave her work station early, exit the plant they both worked, proceed to his truck and hide in the bed, under the cover the Primary Suspect installed the day of the night she disappeared. 

The only defense that could be proffered is that Patti Adkins was stalking the Primary Suspect.  However, this evidence would be refuted by the testimony of the “banker” that Ms. Adkins had withdrawn several thousands of dollars to give to the Primary Suspect. 

The jury would be able to infer based on the witness testimony in regards to the relationship, the Tonneau Cover being on the vehicle, and the banker that the Primary Suspect was not being stalked by the victim, but the victim was being preyed upon by the Primary Suspect. 

The defense team would most likely attempt to infer that Ms. Adkins, a scorned woman, stalked the Primary Suspect and when the Primary Suspect rejected her she set forth to stage her own disappearance in an attempt to frame the Primary Suspect. 

Nevertheless, the DA has to trust the jury to surmise that Ms. Adkins could have taken the Primary Suspect to court and sue him for loans she had given him as opposed to staging her disappearance.   

If in fact the DA of Union County of the Great State of Ohio were to bring forth charges by first indicting the Primary Suspect with a Grand Jury, this would allow the DA to attempt to make a plea with the Primary Suspect on lesser charges of A) pleading guilty to a lesser offense B) enable the DA to stipulate that a plea bargain be accepted only if the Primary Suspect lead investigators to the body of Ms. Adkins. 

However, until the DA presses the matter by first indicting the Primary Suspect, it is reasonable to speculate that the Primary Suspect, unless pressed will ever admit to guilt, and only by pursuing the case in a court of law will the Primary Suspect ever be held accountable, or allow prosecutor’s after attaining an indictment to press the Primary Suspect to negotiate a plea and bring closure to this case. 

Allow the citizens of the great state of Ohio to examine the evidence against the Primary Suspect and allow them the opportunity to hold the Primary Suspect accountable or find the Primary Suspect Not Guilty. 

By not allowing the citizens to do so is a miscarriage of justice.  By waiting on “Direct Evidence” when there is enough evidence, albeit circumstantial, to indict is justice, even if the Jury finds the Primary Suspect  Not Guilty.

Doing nothing however, is wrong most especially since the District Attorney of Union County is the only governing body that can utilize its authority to bring an indictment against the defendant. 

How many more days, years, have to pass before the Primary Suspect is given a fair trial and allow a jury of the Primary Suspects peers to render a verdict and allow the jury to look at the evidence and hold the Primary Suspect accountable, or find the Primary Suspect not guilty? 

Patti Adkins is unable to speak for herself and the only governing body with the legal tools that can speak for her choose to stay silent and wait, and nineteen years of waiting for “Direct Evidence” when there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict is no longer justifiable when perhaps the only closure to this case is by indicting and pressing the Primary Suspect to face a jury and allow them, the jury, the opportunity to render a verdict.

Investigating Agency

  • Marysville Police Department 937-642-3900
  • Union County Sheriff’s Department 937-644-5010
  • Union County District Attorney:
  • Phone(937) 645-4190

Peggy McGuire Missing Person’s Case

Peggy McGuire Missing Person Case


On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, at around 3-4 pm, Peggy McGuire (PM) was reported missing by family when she did not show up to pick up her son from school. At the time of her disappearance PM was 28 years old and the mother of a young son. She was living in the small town of Stidham, Oklahoma (SO) about 15 minutes northwest from Eufaula, OK (EO). She was living with the father of their young son in SO. The father is also considered a Person of Interest and most likely the Primary Suspect (PS) by Law Enforcement.

The two had known each other and had a tumultuous relationship since meeting during her sophomore year in High School. His immediate family and her immediate family live in the EO area. On prior occasions there were allegations of abuse PM suffered at the hands of the PS. She had pressed charges against him in the past and even placed a restraining order against him, but both were eventually dismissed. PM went to nursing school and after graduating was working at a nursing home in EO. She was also living with the PS and their son at his home, but according to friends and family PM and the PS were in a platonic relationship. During this time period, it has been stated that PM was “dating” other people and at the time of her disappearance had a boyfriend in Texas (BFTX).

It is assumed PM lived with the PS as opposed to living with family or finding her own apartment because PM and the PS believed it would be best to stay together for their son. PM was a “country girl” and on her property she took care of cattle and other livestock. It has been stated that this was the attraction she had with the PS in HS because he loved the country life as well. It should also be noted that the county in which they lived is the same as the last name of the PS and his family may have been prominent in the area.

3 years later, PM is still missing, her case has gone cold, and no arrests have been made in her disappearance. She is not believed to have left on her own volition and many in her family and in LE assume she is dead. There have been no suspects named; however, her son’s father is still assumedly the PS even though no evidence has shown Probable Cause (PC) to arrest him, yet no evidence has been shown to rule him out as a PS either.



PM was last seen on November 16th, 2015 after she dropped her son off at Canadian Elementary School (CES) at around 745am.

Her last phone conversation was with her BFTX that ended at approximately 10am on the day she went missing. After this conversation she has not been seen or heard from again.


PM left her place of employment, picked up her son, drove him to school and then drove back to her home in SO. (At the beginning of this investigation there were reports that PM was spotted either at CES with someone in her truck with her; however, this information has been dismissed and hasn’t been discussed in follow-up reports). PM leaves work, picks up son and drops him off at approx.745am. CES is approximately 25-30 minute drive back to SO. ETA to home at 830am. (At around 815am PM calls her father and tells him she is heading home).


On 11/16/15, PM had informed her cousin and co-worker she was going to meet her BFTX on Monday (BFTX was supposed to drive from TX to OK to meet) and she was not coming into work Tuesday because she would be with him. She would however be back in time to pick up her son Tuesday afternoon. At some point before 10AM the BF in TX had to cancel their date. According to reports no one was aware of this change in plans besides the BFTX and PM.

At around 10am PM speaks with BF in TX.
After their call ends PM, according to LE her phone pings from her home, but after 10am her phone is turned off and is never turned on again.


At approx 3pm 11/17 family becomes worried because PM is unreachable by phone and isn’t at CES to pick up her son. He is instead picked up by his Father the PS. At approx 330pm 11/17, family contact police to report PM as a MISSING PERSON.

PM vehicle is found abandoned at a local bar called the Ice House.

(Surveillance footage from the Ice House shows that PM vehicle being dropped off at TJ’s Ice House at approx 528am 9 miles from her home. An UK person is seen exiting the vehicle. This UK person is seen by a driver, and when spotted the UK person ducks into the woods.)


According to PM relative and co-worker on 11/16/15, PM had made plans to meet her BFTX. This person was going to drive from TX to OK. PM had not informed other family members, but it is assumed she had made plans with someone other than family, including the PS to pick her son up from school Monday afternoon.

BFTX cancels plans to meet with PM, but is known as the last person to converse with her by telephone. This conversation ended around 10AM and it is at this time LE report that PM phone was turned off or disabled.

PM is not reported missing until Tuesday afternoon.

10am 11/16-300pm 11/17:


REVISED TIMELINE: Mon 10am 11/16-Tues 528am 11/17

PM truck was discovered later that day abandoned at the TJ’s Ice House (IH), a local bar in a desolate area off of Highway 9. This baffles her family because PM is not known to imbibe or frequent the IH.

A surveillance camera located at the IH is reviewed and PM truck is seen driving north, pulling into the IH, turns in the circular parking lot and is parked facing south. The time is 528am 11/17. It is raining, so the image is blurry, but a person is seen exiting the vehicle and walking away assumedly walking in a south-bound direction. The UK person is allegedly spotted by a driver who lived near the IH and was heading to work and as they approached the UK person, the UK person ducked into the woods as if attempting to evade being seen.

This evidence narrows the time from last time PM last communication to being reported missing from 29 hours to 19 hours.

PM truck being abandoned by an unknown person at the Ice House suggests that PM is a victim of foul play, ruling out leaving on her own volition, suicide, or having been involved in an accident, but impossible to rule out that PM has been abducted, or murdered.




The operational theory of a UK RI would suggest that PM and the RI had no known connection prior to 11/16/15. The possible motivation would most likely be residential burglary, not realizing anyone was home. Although these forms of random attacks make up 16% of crimes similar to the PM case, this operational theory poses several credible problems. There were no signs of anyone breaking into PM home, the RI does not need to abduct her, there are no reports of items being missing (besides a gun) the RI would have no need to abandon the truck at the IH versus dumping it elsewhere, PM home was not in a suburban area or in an apartment complex, and thus the RI would most likely have an accomplice(s) and need not take PM truck only to abandon it at the IH. There have been no reports of anyone attempting to use PM ATM or Credit Cards etc. Although a RI theory cannot be necessarily ruled out, it does not seem like the most plausible theory.


This suspect would be an outlier a person just close enough in proximity to the victim’s location or knew of her but not closely associated enough to be suspected. The motive for suspect 3 would most likely be sexual. This suspect would be aware that PM lives with someone and would have an incentive to abduct her. This suspect would have lived close by or was visiting close by. The problem with suspect 3, this suspect would have no rational reason for leaving PM truck at the IH versus leaving it anywhere else. It is also difficult to establish why suspect 3 would need 19 hours to commit this abduction and not only a couple of hours. One would also have difficulty in understanding why risk an abduction in daylight, and risk being seen in PM vehicle, yet also risk abandoning the vehicle at a location where the suspect risks being seen.


Although it is known that PM was “dating” other men, And it is possible that one of these men was someone PM kept secret for whatever reason, the motive behind this crime could be anything from robbery, to a crime of passion. One of the original reports soon after PM was reported missing was that on the day she was last seen someone reported seeing her with another UK person, not her son. Since that original report, it has not been heard of again, and its possible this witness was mistaken. However, it is possible that on the day she went missing she may have purposefully picked up someone and took this UK person to her home. However, because PM kept this relationship a secret this UK suspect may or may not have contacted her through SM or via phone. Even so, the problem with this theory as with the others is this suspect does take the risk of not knowing if others are aware of their relationship, risks being spotted in her vehicle and has no rational reason to leave the truck at the IH versus leaving it anywhere else.


At the time of PM abduction the two were living together in a platonic relationship, and apparently in agreement to dating other people. However, the PS as an operating theory answers more questions than it asks and fills in blanks where other theories leave questionable and somewhat doubtful.

The PS as the most plausible operational theory gives a rational reason as to why 19 hours lapses between the last time PM has contact with anyone and when her truck is left at the IH. The PS has a rational reason to leave the vehicle at the IH to establish a motive to give the illusion that PM is engaging in scandalous relationships, that insofar have not been discovered by SW examining PM online SM activity or call and text logs. If in fact the crime scene is PM home, the PS would have the time and the motive to clean the home and know specifically he has until 3pm to complete this task before anyone will know PM is missing. This time allows him the opportunity to clean up the crime scene, the time to organize and dispose of PM body leaving it virtually impossible for her to be found, clean the vehicle and then dispose of it at the IH establishing the narrative that PM ran away or was taken by someone she had met while engaging in scandalous behavior and even walk the 9 miles back home (which without assistance may have taken about 2 hours to walk conservatively) and still give him 7 hours before PM would be considered missing by family.

Missing Persons and other Crime Statistics (National and Local):

“The CDC analyzed the murders of women in 18 states from 2003 to 2014, finding a total of 10,018 deaths. Of those, 55 percent were intimate partner violence-related, meaning they occurred at the hands of a former or current partner or the partner’s family or friends. In 93 percent of those cases, the culprit was a current or former romantic partner. The report also bucks the strangers-in-dark-alleys narrative common to televised crime dramas: Strangers perpetrated just 16 percent of all female homicides, fewer than acquaintances and just slightly more than parents.”

“A popular homicide myth says that most female homicide victims are killed by strangers. The reality is that the majority of homicide victims, particularly women, are killed by someone they know. The UCR data over the years completely debunk the myth about “stranger danger” and homicide…women are most likely to be killed at home by a current or former male intimate—that is, a husband, boyfriend, ex-husband or former boyfriend. Making this point, the UCR data from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s found that a female is more than 2.5 times as likely to be shot by her male intimate partner as to be shot, stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned, or killed in any other way by a stranger.”


Although this report is hypothetical presenting multiple operating theories as to possible suspects and motives behind the abduction and probable murder of PM, all persons are legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This case has at this time no direct evidence and is based on circumstantial evidence that relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. In this particular case it is the absence of direct evidence whereby deductive reasoning establishes the most probable suspect as the PM long-time boyfriend and the father of her son as the Primary Suspect (PS) and the operational theory is that on 11/16/15 the PS motivated by jealousy assaults PM inside their home and the attack escalates and PM is murdered in her own home. Although the crime was most likely not premeditated, once PM is murdered, the PS, quickly moves to establish a plan to cover up the crime and dispose of PM body. The PS knows he has at least 29 hours to complete this coverup. One can theorize that the PS waits until after dark to remove PM body from the home and placing her into the back of her own truck. The PS has time to get rid of any incriminating evidence, retrace his steps and clean up any signs of the altercation.

The most compelling fact is that the person who committed this crime had motive, the means, and most importantly the time to organize how to elude LE and the motive to dispose of PM body in a location no one will find. In fact, while most reports suggest that family and friends and LE have searched 80 acres near the PS home and surrounding areas, the PS could have traveled up to 200 miles away to dispose of PM body and still have been able to return home again, and still have time to dispose of PM truck at the IH. Disposing of the truck at the IH was a huge risk, but at the same time, it is a risk that perhaps only the PS would have taken in order to divert LE attention away from him, but create the motive that PM was engaging in scandalous behavior that the facts and evidence do not seem to support.

No other possible suspect, would have motive to dispose the truck at the IH, nor any motive to abduct PM as opposed to killing her in her own home and attempting to pin the crime on the PS. It is the disposal of the truck at the IH in an attempt to divert LE that is indicative of the PS being the most plausible suspect, and although this evidence is circumstantial it could be enough PC to present to a Grand Jury

All theories listed on this site are of my own and I do not represent Law Enforcement. If you have any information concerning this crime, please contact Law Enforcement.

Investigating Agency:

  • McIntosh County Sheriff’s Office 918-689-2526
  • Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 918-423-6672

FSC: Ali Lowitzer: Missing Person’s Case

Ali Lowitzer Missing Person Case

Part 1: Ali Lowitzer Missing Person’s Case:

Ali Lowitzer was 16-years-old when she disappeared. By all accounts, it was a typical day. Lowitzer went to school that morning. After school she boarded a school bus as do hundreds of thousands of school kids do during the school year. The bus stop was three houses away from where Lowitzer lived. The school bus was equipped with surveillance cameras and captured her departing the bus around 245PM.  Then Ali vanished.

Ali’s mother reported her daughter as missing to the Spring Texas Police, by 11PM Monday April 26, 2010. According to reports the Spring Texas Police did not consider Ali a victim of foul play but believed she had runaway.  It would take a week for Ali to be listed as Missing and Endangered and another month before Ali’s case was handed over to Homicide Detectives with the Harris County Sheriff’s Department.

In the meantime, during those first few weeks, a non-profit organization, The Laura Recovery Center, came to the aid of the Lowitzer family and conducted searches and handing out fliers to bring attention to Ali’s case. 

Nine years have passed since the day Ali went missing.  Ali’s mother continues to run a Facebook page, reportedly still lives in the same home and Ali’s room has been left the way it was the day Ali disappeared. 

Over the last nine years the Lowitzer family has worked with at least 2 separate Private Investigators to search for Ali. The first investigator found evidence that Ali may have been seen talking to someone in a white truck on the day she disappeared.  Around the same time, a man by the name of Brandon Lavergne had been arrested and convicted for murdering a young girl in Lafayette, Louisiana. Lavergne was found to have ties to the Spring, Texas community and many considered this a breakthrough in the case when it was learned that Lavergne’s white truck was found burned a few miles North of Spring, Texas.

However, detectives working the case soon cleared Lavergne of having any connection to Ali’s disappearance when they learned that Lavergne had been employed and was working on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. 

A few years later, the Lowitzer family hired another Private Investigator.  This investigator believed it was possible that Ali had been abducted and was being held captive by sex traffickers.  The investigator received a tip from someone in Ohio claiming they had seen Ali at a local church. Following this tip, the investigator went undercover and began speaking to prostitutes in the area, and after showing them the photo of Ali, the women stated they knew and had visually seen Ali and could direct the investigator to a brothel Ali was being held captive.

According to the investigator, she along with one of the prostitutes working as a police informant visited the brothel under the pretense of purchasing or selling illegal narcotics, and during the undercover operation as the investigator walked through the home, she too spotted Ali. 

Nevertheless, for unknown reasons, the investigator did not immediately seek to correspond with the missing girl, and instead flew back to Texas to speak with the Lowitzer family.  A month passed before the investigator would return to Ohio, and working with local police, the alleged brothel was stormed by police armed with a search warrant, but by this time Ali was gone.

Although it is impossible to rule out the investigator’s story she saw Ali alive and being held captive in Ohio, it is rather difficult to understand why it is it took a month for the Private Detective to return to Ohio and why she didn’t act the day she witnessed Ali in the alleged brothel. 

While it is possible that Ali Lowitzer was abducted against her will on April 26th 2010, and subsequently forced into sex trafficking, this review will attempt to go back to the day Ali Lowitzer disappeared and retrace the movements, and actions of those closely associated with Ali, and examine possible theories and motives that led to Ali’s disappearance.

Background; Spring Texas; Harris County; Suburb North of Houston:

Ali Lowitzer lived in Spring, Texas, in Harris County, a suburb north of Houston, Texas.  Her home was in a middle-class residential area on Low Ridge Road. The neighborhood was situated a few miles from major highways and two interstates, an international airport and to the north bordering her neighborhood is the Spring Creek Greenway.  According to an overview of the Greenway, “There are nearly 40 Miles of green space with hiking and biking trails.”

With a population of approximately 60,000, the crime rate statistics do seem to be above-average when compared to national crime-rate statistics.  However, when examining the FBI database it appears that Spring Texas does not report data of crimes to this database making it difficult to know actual real-time annual data. 

Ali’s Family:

Ali lived with her mother in Spring, Texas on Low Ridge Road. Ali’s mother and father had divorced 2 years earlier and her father was most likely living nearby, but not at the residence. Ali’s 18-year-old half-brother was also living at the residence on Low Ridge Road with Ali and his mother. Ali’s mother was at work, it is unknown if her father was at work at the time Ali exited the school bus, while Ali’s half-brother was at home, but apparently left the home to meet with friends a few minutes after he heard the school bus stopping just up the street from the house. 

Ali Lowitzer’s known Movements on 4/26/2010:

On Monday morning, Ali slept in late and woke up just in time to get dressed, and make it to the bus on time, and went to school. 

After school, Ali boarded the bus to take her back home. During the ride back to her neighborhood, according to Ali’s mother, Ali contacted her and informed her mother she did not have her keys to get into the house. The mother purportedly contacted Ali’s half-brother, who was 18, recently graduated and still living at home, and informed him to keep the door unlocked for Ali.

Then according to the mother, Ali contacted her mother again and asked for permission to walk to her place of employment to a) obtain her paycheck b) to attempt to work an afternoon shift.  Ali worked as a waitress at a local restaurant, (now closed) called “The Burger Barn”. The restaurant is approximately 0.7 miles from Ali’s home, and should take approximately 10-15 minutes to walk from Ali’s neighborhood to “The Burger Barn.”

Ali had worked at the restaurant for the last five weeks. But according to the mother, this was the first time Ali had asked permission to walk to the restaurant.  The mother has stated in interviews she denied Ali’s request stating that she didn’t feel it was safe to walk on Treaschwig Road, because there were no sidewalks on the heavily traveled road leading to Cypresswood Drive, where The Burger Barn was located in a shopping plaza. She also stated that Ali always had always relied on a family member to drive her to work over the last five weeks.

Ali pressed the matter, and the mother relented and gave Ali permission to walk.  Ali departed the bus at around 245PM. After she exited the bus two other neighborhood teens witnessed Ali and stated she appeared as she was “lagging behind” and perhaps was heading in the direction leading out of the subdivision Ali lived.

At approximately 257PM Ali sent a text message to a friend known as “Jay” and asked him if he wanted to come to her house and visit after school.  This would be the last text message Ali would send and by 3PM her phone either died, or Ali turned it off purposefully, and Ali would never been seen or heard from since.  

*There is some confusion as to where Ali may have been when her phone died or was purposefully turned off. If Ali had began walking to her work one could postulate if she exited the bus at 245PM, left her neighborhood and it takes approximately 10 minutes to walk to Cypresswood Road via Treaschwig Road, she could have been on Treaschwig Road at the time her phone went off and Ali went missing. Nevertheless, according to the mother after utilizing AT&T’s Family Locater Application, Ali’s phone last pinged near where Ali exited the bus placing her still being in her neighborhood.

Ali Lowitzer’s Route

Ali is Reported Missing; Harris County Homicide takes over Investigation:

After work, Ali’s mother arrived to the empty house, and realized Ali was not home, but did not panic. She stated she believed that Ali must have taken a shift at work, and would arrive home, or text soon to ask for a ride.  As time passed and Ali did not answer her mother’s texts, Ali’s mom drove to “The Burger Barn” and realized the restaurant had closed for the evening (apparently this was around 9PM).

Ali’s mother then called her estranged husband and he did not seem to panic believing that Ali may have been visiting with a friend and after the call Ali’s mother began calling Ali’s friends, but no one had seen her since school.  After driving around the neighborhood looking for her daughter, Ali’s father met his wife at her home on Low Ridge Road and at approximately 11PM contacted law enforcement.

The family claims that an officer arrived at around midnight and took a report, but apparently the officer believed Ali had runaway and would come home soon.  The parent’s were given instructions to contact the police in the morning if Ali did not arrive. 

When Ali did not arrive home, police were called again, but still refused to list Ali as a missing person. The father also visited the school and was able to obtain the video footage of Ali leaving the bus that Monday afternoon. He also visited “The Burger Barn” and learned from the owners that Ali did not show up that day and had not picked up her check.  To verify this, Ali’s father visited a local convenience store at the corner of Treaschwig Road and Cypresswood Road and asked to review their surveillance footage that overlooked the pathway Ali would have most likely taken from her neighborhood to “The Burger Barn.” Ali was not seen in those tapes confirming that she never made it to the “The Burger Barn” that day. 

A week later, Monday May 3rd, the Lowitzer family contacted local police and showed them the footage from the school bus and the store near the plaza Ali worked, and police determine that Ali should be listed as missing and endangered. Police search Ali’s room. While searching her room the police came across a journal and found where Ali had written about running away from home.  The parent’s dismissed this claiming that Ali’s writings were not a reflection of reality.   

At this point, the family reached out to the Laura Recovery Center, a non-profit organization that assists in searching for missing persons.  The Laura Recovery Center began organizing and searching the wooded Spring Creek Greenway woods that bordered the neighborhood Ali lived, canvassing the neighborhood and placing flyers with information about Ali around town.

With this information and the publicity garnered by the search for Ali by the Laura Recovery Center being covered by local news stations, Ali’s case was turned over to the Harris County Sheriff’s Homicide Division.

Harris County Homicide Investigation:

Once Harris County Homicide Detectives took the lead on the case, they spoke with the young man “Jay” who Ali texted at around 257PM and learned that he had informed Ali he would not be able to visit due to prior obligations, and after the detectives checked out his alibi, ruled him out as a suspect. The detectives then focused on interviewing Ali’s father and Ali’s half-brother. While both men passed a polygraph test, only Ali’s father was ruled out as a person of interest.  It is unknown why detectives still consider the half-brother as a person of interest. 

9 years since Ali’s disappearance law enforcement still receive tips from the general public, and have looked into allegations stemming from investigations conducted by at least two Private Investigators hired by the Lowitzer family.  Detectives ruled out Brandon Lavergne’s involvement in Ali’s disappearance by confirming his alibi.  Detective’s also take note that although sex trafficking is rampant, they have found no credible evidence to suggest that Ali is a victim of sex trafficking believing that Ali would have most likely encountered Law Enforcement during the last nine years if she is engaged in prostitution against her will.  If so, her fingerprints would have been taken and would have been discovered through the national database. 

Re-examining the Investigation into the Disappearance of Ali Lowitzer:   

Using the methodology of the Modified Schrodinger’s Cat Thought Experiment (MSCTEM), in the case of the disappearance of Ali Lowitzer it appears that not only is the “cat” missing, but the “box” containing the answers and evidence is also missing.  It’s as if the cat and the box never existed and we only know of its existence because of the missing report filed with police.

The lack of evidence means that it is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rule out whether Ali Lowitzer:

  1. Left on her own volition/Left with someone on her own volition
  2. Left with the Intent to Commit Suicide
  3. Left due to an undiagnosed mental illness
  4. Left and subsequently died as a result of an accident
  5. Abducted Against Her Will 1. Unknown Random Opportunistic Suspect  2.Unknown Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect
  6. Murdered and Body Disposed

Finding Ali means finding the Box:

By examining this case by looking for the box as opposed to looking for the cat using the modified thought experiment, the box, and who holds the box has the answers. 

Hypothesis A:  Ali Ran away of her own volition:

If Ali left on her own volition one would have to surmise being 16 years of age, she most likely would have had help in “running away.”  This scenario would suggest that “Running Away” was premeditated at least within 24 hours prior to her up and leaving, and that her phone was turned off purposefully to prevent her movements from being tracked. 

It would also suggest that the conversation with her mother asking permission to walk to “The Burger Barn” was a ruse concocted by Ali to give her time to not only leave but distance herself from home before her mother realized she was missing. 

Still, one would have to argue, why ask permission to go to work if the intention was to runaway and had been premeditated? If this were the case, why would Ali call anyone and not just turn off her phone and leave?

Ali Running Away of her own Volition is Problematic: 

One of the major hurdles in attempting to work the hypothesis that Ali ran away of her own volition is there was no apparent need for Ali to ask permission to walk to work as opposed to just meeting with someone during the time Ali arrived home from school and her mother returning from work. 

The second hurdle is the text made to her friend Jay at 257PM inviting him to come over and visit that same day. Again unless this was a ruse to throw investigators off Ali’s track, it suggests that Ali had no prior plans and were looking to make plans.

The third issue is that during the phone call with her mother Ali made her mother aware that she did not have her house keys.  If Ali were preparing to leave of her own volition, she would not need her house keys, unless she planned on returning to the house to gather her belongings before running away.  However, according to the known facts, Ali’s personal belongings were never retrieved before Ali’s disappearance.

Reasons for Ruling out Hypothesis A:

There appears to be no evidence to suggest that Ali ran away of her own volition. In fact the hypothesis asks more questions than it answers. One would argue that if Ali’s intent were to run away and had made this decision prior to April 26th, she would have just left without calling anyone, and would have packed ahead of time because she would be excited about leaving.  There is no evidence of this. Instead, Ali is making plans to meet with another person and informing her mother she did not have the house keys expressing a clear intent that Ali had no plans after school, began making plans with a friend, and would need the keys in order to go home.  This evidence is not indicative of a person considering running away from home.

Ruling out Hypothesis A also answers Hypothesis B, C and D:

If Ali Lowitzer had a vehicle and her own means of transportation it would be difficult to rule out hypothesis A, B, C, and D. If her means of transportation were by foot, and she had no money to secure other means of transportation and her intent were to leave in order to commit suicide, as result of an undiagnosed Mental Illness or wandered away and accidentally succumbed to injuries and died, one would assume that Lowitzer would not have wandered too far from the immediate area and she would have been discovered soon after when searches were conducted in the general vicinity where Ali lived.

Hypothesis EF 1: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered (Unknown Random/Opportunistic Suspect):

Out of all hypothetical scenarios, Hypothesis EF1 is difficult to answer. Abductions can happen very quickly, in broad day light, and a victim subdued and taken to whereabouts unknown.

This hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 1A.

 Hypotheses EF 2: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered (Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect):

Hypothesis EF 2 operates under the assumption that Ali Lowitzer may have been using social media to communicate with individuals unbeknownst to family and friends. 

This is important to understand, because even if Ali had no intentions to run away from home, she may have been in contact with someone intending to harm her. 

*It is possible that Law Enforcement has been able to obtain access to Ali’s online profile and social media and ascertain that she was not engaging in communications with individuals who used information learned from the messages to locate her and then abduct her.

This scenario is real and cannot be ruled out.  One could argue that Ali may have been speaking with individuals online and inadvertently giving information to the person providing the person clues enabling them to find and stalk her. 

If for example Ali is having problems at home, she may be inclined to go to social media and speak with others about her problems. In doing so, it is not a stretch to hypothesize that while online she encountered a person using a fictitious identity, posing as someone Ali’s age, and gaining Ali’s trust. 

By gaining Ali’s trust the person may attempt to lure Ali into meeting and Ali accepts the invitation, or it’s possible the person does not attempt to lure her into meeting but are able to learn pertinent information enabling them to find Ali and begin stalking her.  For instance, if the perpetrator is aware of the school Ali attends, or her place of employment the perpetrator could be stalking Ali, following her from school to her home or from her work back to her home.  It’s possible in this scenario that Ali may have actually encountered the perpetrator not knowing this was the same person she was communicating with online. 

Following this hypothesis, if Ali has met the person prior to April 26th at work for instance, and the person were to appear on Low Ridge Drive after Ali exits the bus, the person would be familiar to Ali as a customer and seems non-threatening and Ali enters the person’s vehicle voluntarily. 

This scenario would be considered an Outlier type suspect, who knew Ali through some context whether it is from social media, to a person living in the neighborhood, or a person who has encountered her at her job. 

To better define the term Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect the recent abduction of Jayme Closs would fit this profile.  On 10/15/2018 Jake Thomas Patterson abducted the thirteen year old girl from her home after murdering her mother and father. Patterson held Closs captive 88 days until Closs managed to escape captivity.  Prior to 10/15/18 there is no evidence that Closs or her abductor had ever known each other.  However, after Patterson was arrested he made investigators aware that while driving home one day after work he spotted Closs exiting her school bus.  Although later Patterson apologized for his crimes and admitted that the murders and abduction were made “mostly on impulse”, he also stated the moment he saw her step off the bus he “knew that she was the girl he wanted to take.”

Patterson may state his crimes were impulsive, the moment he saw Closs exit her bus in September he began making plans on how he would go about abducting her.  Although he may not have come across Law Enforcement’s list of suspects had it not been for Closs escaping captivity, Patterson was not acting impulsively and the abduction was not opportunistic. If Patterson had stopped the day he first noticed Closs exiting her bus and abducted her it be an example of the crime being classified as disorganized and opportunistic.

As a result it is impossible to rule out Hypothesis EF 2, but it may be more probable than Theory 1A, in which an unknown person abducted Ali Lowitzer. 

The box in this case using the MSCTEM could be accessing Ali Lowitzer’s social media activity (if applicable) and learning if she were speaking with someone who may have had intent to harm her by stalking her or luring her into meeting. 

Subsequently this hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 2A.

Hypothesis EF3: Ali Lowitzer Abducted/Murdered by Known Suspect:

Unfortunately, an all too familiar suspect is someone the victim knows personally/intimately.  Statistics confirm this scenario (read Part 1).  At the time Ali Lowitzer was abducted, she was not married, and although she had a “boyfriend” he has apparently been ruled out due to having a strong alibi. There are no known person’s of interest in which Ali had dated and the break up was not amicable.

An example of this scenario is the disappearance of Kara Kopetsky in 2007.  At the time Kopetsky disappeared she was 17-years-old and was last seen leaving the high school she attended in Missouri.  It took ten years to find Kopetsky’s body and a suspect arrested. However, the suspect had been a primary suspect since Kara’s disappearance because they had recently dated and Kopetsky had ended the relationship and filed a restraining order against the man.  In 2017 Kylr Yust was arrested and charged for Kopetsky’s murder and the murder of Jessica Runions, killed in 2016.  He is currently in jail and his trial date still pending. 

To date, there is no information or evidence suggesting that Ali had problematic issues with a former or current boyfriend or that anyone Ali may have dated or even known socially from school or the neighborhood had any motive to hurt Ali.

On Monday April 26th 2010 when Ali Lowitzer exited the school bus she was near her home.  Her mother was at work, and her father did not live at the residence. However, Ali’s 18-year-old half brother was at home.  According to reports, Ali’s brother heard the bus when it arrived in their subdivision, but left within minutes of the bus arriving to meet with a friend(s).

A month later when Harris County Homicide Detectives took over the investigation Ali’s father and her half-brother were interrogated.  Although the father and half-brother took and passed polygraph tests, Homicide Detectives ruled out Ali’s father as a suspect, but refused to rule out Ali’s half-brother. 

It has also been noted that Ali’s half-brother continues to refuse questioning by Law Enforcement and the press and has subsequently moved away from Texas to the Seattle, Washington area. 

When examining this hypothesis it is possible to surmise that something happened to Ali before she left her neighborhood.  According to Ali’s mother in the last five weeks Ali had been employed at The Burger Barn, there was always a family member available to take her to work. 

It begs the question if Ali’s half-brother was at home, and was supposedly going to leave soon after Ali arrived from school, why didn’t the mother ask him to take Ali to work? 

Another question one has to ask is why Ali uses her mother to speak to the brother instead of texting or calling him herself?

The mother never states that when Ali asks for permission to walk to work that she reached out to Ali’s half-brother to take her to work and he refused.  Instead, Ali’s mother states she only made sure that the brother kept the door unlocked so Ali could get into the house. 

Also, it has been stated that soon after the bus arrived Ali’s half-brother left the house, and if this is true, depending on his direction of travel it is possible that he may have encountered Ali.

As a result of these questionable circumstances that happened the day Ali Lowitzer disappeared, Ali’s half-brother was the only family member at home when Ali exited the school bus and because Law Enforcement are reluctant to eliminate Ali’s half-brother as a suspect, this hypothesis seems as likely a plausible scenario as Theory 1A.

Therefore this Hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 3A.

Theory 1A: Ali Lowitzer was abducted By Unknown/Opportunistic Suspect:

It is impossible without ruling out Theory 2A and Theory 2C to rule out a scenario in which Ali Lowitzer was possibly abducted by an opportunistic disorganized suspect.  This theory operates under the assumption that if Ali left her neighborhood she may have been abducted at some place along her route from Low Ridge Road or as she traveled up Old Pike Road and took a left turn on Treaschwig Road. 

However, there are problems with this theory.  One would assume that 3PM were peak hours for traffic along Treaschwig Road and someone would have seen Ali fending off the suspect attempting to abduct her.  Also, there are no reports that Ali’s belongings such as her phone or her book bag she carried were found along the route that may have been dropped by Ali if she were being attacked. 

This does not rule out that Ali voluntarily entered into an unknown person’s vehicle and was subsequently abducted.

Theory 1A operates under a similar assumption detailed in Theory 2B in regards to the suspect that the suspect lived near Spring Texas within 30-50 miles. The most significant change would be an assumption that the abductor may between the ages of 30-55 years of age, married, with children/step-children, disorganized, but respectable, disarming personality and most likely expressed concern for Ali’s well being and offered her a ride to which she volunteered to get into the suspect’s vehicle.

Even so, this does not explain why Ali’s cell phone data shows no evidence of this. The only way this could be explained is to surmise that Ali’s phone died or the suspect subdued Ali soon after she entered the vehicle and took possession of her phone.

The search perimeters in respects to this suspect’s location would seem to stay in the same 30-50 mile radius as defined in Theory 2B.

Theory 2B: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered by an Unknown/Non-Opportunistic Outlier Suspect:

The rationale behind Theory 2B being a more plausible explanation then Theory 1A, is it seems more likely that due to the fact Ali Lowitzer had expressed thoughts of running away from home, was known to text 4000+ text messages per month, and there is doubt as to whether Ali even left her neighborhood, and if so was seen by no one as she walked down Treaschwig Road, Ali may have been stalked by someone she had met online, someone from work, school, and her abduction was premeditated by the unknown suspect.

Theory 2B is also dependant on a further explanation of Theory 3C to be analyzed in next chapter.  Because it cannot be ruled out that something happened to Ali by someone she knows such as a family member.

To understand Theory 2B, (Scenario 1) Ali may have been in communication with someone unbeknownst to her family and friends through social media.  Ali may have intended to meet this individual on the day she disappeared.  For example, Ali may have contacted her mother for permission to walk to work as opposed to asking her mother to ask her half-brother to drive her to work in order to meet with the person she has met on Social Media.  The person is running behind and as Ali waits she grows impatient and reaches out to her friend Jay to see if he wants to hang out later.  As she is sending this text the online “friend” arrives.  Ali gets into the person’s vehicle willingly and is abducted. 

It is possible as she enters the person’s vehicle she is subdued immediately and her phone taken and turned off or disabled. 

(Scenario 2) Another possibility is Ali had no intention to meet with anyone, but upon exiting the bus and walking towards work, she is met by a familiar face, perhaps someone who has met her through the place she works, and Ali enters the vehicle and then is subdued and her phone disabled. 

The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is that in the 1st scenario Ali intended to meet with the person versus, the person Ali was familiar and just so happened and without notice appeared in her neighborhood.

Scenario 1 and 2 of Theory 2B suggests that the suspect in Ali’s disappearance near Spring Texas. The suspect was organized and the abduction was premeditated. In both scenarios Ali entered into the suspect’s vehicle willingly because she had made prior arrangements to meet the person, or the person was familiar and she believed them to be non-threatening. 

The possibility of a chance encounter by someone who just happened to frequent the place she worked is possible, but it seems more plausible that in scenario 1 and 2, that the suspect may have had purposefully sought out Ali after meeting her through social media and a) lured her into meeting or b) began stalking the places Ali visited such as school or The Burger Barn using information learned during conversations Ali had with the suspect through social media to give the suspect vital clues as to how to find her.

Scenario 2 would imply that after gaining information vital to places Ali worked or visited, the suspect possibly approached her and met her at her work posing as a “polite” customer.  The suspect had visited the establishment on more than one occasion and becomes a familiar non-threatening face and on April 26th the suspect appears in Ali’s neighborhood under false pretenses (e.g. claims he too lives nearby) and offers Ali a ride and Ali enters the suspect’s vehicle willingly. 

Scenario 1 would imply that Ali accepted the suspect’s invitation to meet and subsequently entered the suspect’s vehicle willingly.

The suspect in Theory 2B is most likely between the ages of 20-35, and someone who spends a lot of time on the internet and social media, posing as a kind understanding, but depressed person who is able to hone in on vulnerable young girls and act as a kind mediator allowing the victim to vent and by doing so establishing a level of trust with the victim. 

The suspect lives near Spring Texas, within a 30-50 mile radius.

This suspect most likely has a criminal record and has been cited for this type of predatory behavior, but never has gone as far as actually abducting someone, but the thought of doing so becomes overwhelming and the suspect becomes more obsessed by the idea and begins stalking Ali over a two-three week period of their initial conversation.  This suspect is organized, and is sure to not send messages through text or give out his number and prefers to speak through some type of encrypted social media application. 

The suspect does not necessarily have to be tech savvy but clever enough to not use any personal information and is able to hide in the shadows on the internet. 

If this suspect has murdered Ali, it is quite possible that the suspect did not go to great lengths to dispose of her body, but placed her in a location off the beaten path, but in a location the suspect can return too and visit.

The suspect most likely lives outside Harris County, but uses the major interstates to travel quickly to and from their home to Spring Texas. 

The suspect is familiar with police procedure and technology and perhaps has considered working in Law Enforcement, but is aware that Law Enforcement uses Cell Phone data to track victims.  On the day Ali disappears, the suspect most likely subdued Ali quickly, using some type of weapon such as a stun gun, taking her phone and removing the battery immediately before leaving the area. 

Scenario 1 of Theory 2B seems to answer more questions than it asks.  It operates under the premise that Ali Lowitzer had known the suspect prior to April 26th, 2010, and on the day of had agreed to meet with the person she most likely met online, but believed it would be a short encounter, possibly one in which she believed the suspect would take her to her work to pick up her check and then maybe go on a date.  This would explain Ali’s behavior and asking her mom to walk to work, giving her an alibi as to where she would be, without informing her mother that she was meeting a stranger she had met online. 

This scenario operates under the premise that the suspect and Ali were to meet on Old Pike Road, which explains why Ali according to witnesses who exited the school bus with her states she seemed to be lagging, but also why her phone’s last ping seems to come from somewhere close to her residence.

As Ali waits for the suspect to arrive she grows impatient and texts her friend Jay to make other arrangements believing she had been stood up, but perhaps the suspect was running behind, and the suspect was running behind because of traffic issues or it’s possible the suspect drove around the neighborhood scoping it out ahead of the abduction.

It’s also possible that the suspect does not immediately subdue Ali, but does ask her to turn off her phone, and she does so willingly under some false pretense and the suspect after picking up Ali on Old Pike Road, turns right on Treaschwig Road, heading towards The Burger Barn, and then left on Cypresswood Road, and only then does Ali realize something is wrong as the suspect continues to I-69 or passes by Cypresswood Road via Treaschwig Road, to I-45. 

This theory will be expanded and labeled as Operational Theory 1AS1.

Theory 3C: Ali Lowitzer was a victim of someone she Knew (Domestic/Relative):



Although surveillance footage shows Ali Lowitzer exiting the school bus at around 245PM, prior to exiting the bus, Ali spoke with her mother.  Because Ali cannot verify the conversations she had with her mother we have to accept the mother’s version of the events that day as fact. 

Following the MSCTEM, everyone is considered a suspect and maybe even statistically, it is an absolute necessity to investigate those closest to the victim. One must also reiterate that Harris County Law Enforcement has not ruled out Ali’s half-brother as a person of interest even if her half-brother passed a polygraph test.

Theory 3C operates under the assumption that on the day Ali went missing there is no evidence to rule out that although Ali was seen “lingering” in the neighborhood on Low Ridge Road, that she ever left the neighborhood and instead didn’t turn around and go back to her home. 

If Ali did not leave the neighborhood and returned home she would have most likely encountered her half-brother.  And if Ali did return home everything that is known about this case changes dramatically.

According to Ali’s mother, prior to exiting the bus Ali contacted her and informed her mother that she did not have her house keys.  After this conversation, the mother contacts Ali’s half-brother to make him aware to keep the doors unlocked to the house. 

Ali’s mother then states Ali contacted her mother to ask permission to walk to work.  However, Ali’s request was declined because the mother did not think it was safe for Ali to walk down Treaschwig Road which had no sidewalk.  Also, in the past five weeks Ali had been employed Ali’s mother confirmed that there was always a family member available to take Ali to work. 

If this were the case, and the mother knew her son was home Ali’s mother never states she asked Ali’s half-brother to take Ali to work which again is only 0.7 miles from where Ali lived meaning it would have taken about 4 to 7 minutes for the half-brother to drive Ali to work. 

When the mother comes home a couple hours later the house is empty.  She states she texts Ali to make sure she made it to work and states she assumes that Ali didn’t text back because Ali was able to pick up a shift and was busy working. 

Ali’s mother does not contact Ali’s place of employment or drive the 0.7 miles to check in on her daughter, who only a couple hours earlier was worried about her daughter walking down Treaschwig Road.  Instead, at 9PM she drives to The Burger Barn and finds the restaurant closed. 

This is a perplexing and problematic issue: if the mother is reluctant to grant her daughter permission to walk to work at 245PM because she feared for Ali’s safety, when the mother returns home and has not heard from Ali in 2 hours, she assumes her daughter must have made it to work safely instead of verifying that her daughter made it to work safely by calling the restaurant she worked, or drive the 0.7 miles to the restaurant to verify her daughter made it safely to work. 

Perhaps even more perplexing is that Ali’s mother was not aware of the hours of operation of the restaurant her daughter worked and instead of being at the restaurant a few minutes early to pick up her daughter who she believed had made it safely to work, she arrives after the restaurant has closed for the day. 

Six hours have passed from the time Ali last spoke with her mother and Ali’s mother drives the 0.7 miles to the restaurant only to find it is closed.

Further complicating matters is Ali’s mother has claimed that Ali is never without her phone and on average sends 4000 texts per month.  If Ali’s mother had feared for her daughter’s safety walking down Treaschwig Road, and has not heard from her daughter in 6 hours, it would be safe to assume that Ali may have been involved in an accident confirming Ali’s mother’s worst fears, but Ali’s mother reportedly does not contact local hospitals or police to inquire as to whether her daughter may have been injured is disconcerting.  Instead, Ali’s mother contacts Ali’s father.  Again, instead of contacting hospitals or local police, they choose to contact Ali’s friends. 

To put this into perspective, according to Ali’s mother, Ali has never walked to work, tends to stay close at home in her room and on her phone texting on average 4000 texts per month, she does not know when the place Ali has worked for the last five weeks closes, and although her residence is less than one mile away does not call or drive there to verify that Ali made it to work safely.  Another troubling factor to consider is that Ali’s parents are adamant that she has never run away before, yet on a school night by 9PM Ali has not come home, is not at work, and yet they wait until 11PM to contact police to report Ali missing.  By this time 8 hours have elapsed since the last known communication between Ali and her mother, and the time the parent’s decide to contact police. 

Police arrive around midnight and give the parent’s the impression that Ali may have run away, and give instructions for the parents to contact the police in the morning if Ali doesn’t return home.  Another interesting fact is that although the police are seemingly under the impression that Ali has run away, and the parents are equally convinced Ali has not run away, 24 hours pass before Ali’s mother enables the AT&T Family Map GPS locator.  Once the application is activated, the data reports that Ali’s last pinged location was near the bus stop.

*In defense of Ali in regards to Law Enforcement: it is difficult to not admonish the local Law Enforcement in not classifying Ali’s disappearance as a “missing person’s case” immediately on April 16, 2010.  It is unknown if although Ali wasn’t classified as a missing person, that police were not actively looking for her.  It is also disturbing that it took an entire week for Law Enforcement to re-classify Ali as a missing and endangered person. 

**In defense of Ali in regards to the parents: it is plausible that the parent’s actions in the first 6 hours were appropriate, in which they too were holding out for hope that Ali would return home and were attempting to not overreact. Even so, it is difficult not to admonish the family as well as Law Enforcement for not acting more quickly to alert authorities that Ali was missing.  To wait 8 hours to contact police it is hard to argue that you know your daughter would not runaway, and at the same time not call police immediately once Ali was not found to be at her place of employment. 

The reason Theory 3C cannot be ruled out is that the parent’s statements seem contradictory.  If the argument is there is no way Ali has runaway, yet at the same time Ali is not where she stated she would be and has not communicated to anyone otherwise of a change in plans, and the mother was worried about Ali walking down Treaschwig Road, yet instead of calling The Burger Barn when Ali does not confirm her arrival at the restaurant or dive the 0.7 miles to visually confirm Ali arrived safely, if in fact Ali has never gone missing, or failed to communicate her plans and if those plans change, then it makes it difficult to understand how they behaved in the 8 hours between the time Ali last communicated with her mother and the time the parents contacted police.

In other words, if the mother is reluctant to allow her daughter to walk to work, it shows that the mother is aware of the safety hazards and expresses this concern to her daughter.  However, she also asks her daughter to make her aware that she arrived to work safely.  When Ali’s mother arrives home and has not been contacted by Ali, one could argue panic would set in at that point, and the mother would be prompted to make a call to the restaurant or drive and verify that her daughter did arrive safely. 

Another problematic issue is that Ali’s phone when viewed through AT&T’s Family Map Application shows Ali last known location 24 hours after her last communication with her mother as still being in the subdivision they lived. 

Even so, the mother becomes the most important witness in the disappearance of her daughter, because she is the last person known to speak to her, and her final conversations with her daughter are unverified because only Ali and her mother know the truth of what they discussed.  Therefore, one can either accept Ali’s mother’s version as fact, and if Ali’s mother’s version of events cannot be accepted as fact then Ali’s mother’s version of events needs to be dissected further by Law Enforcement.

Because there is no proof showing that Ali Lowitzer left her neighborhood, no evidence she was abducted,  evidence she had arranged to meet with anyone, no evidence reporting any eyewitnesses noticing Ali on Treaschwig Road, one has to point out that Ali may have never had intentions to walk to work that day and instead went home.  The only evidence pointing to Ali leaving her neighborhood to walk to work comes from one source that cannot be verified by any other source. 

If Ali went home minutes after exiting the bus, but did not runaway, then one has to make an argument that something malicious happened to Ali at home.  Nevertheless it is unknown if Harris County Homicide has ever searched the Lowitzer residence for forensic evidence or if Ali Lowitzer’s mother has ever been interrogated by police the same as Ali’s father and half-brother or if she’s ever taken a polygraph. 

Theory 3C operates under the assumption that Ali Lowitzer’s movements on April 26, 2010 have possibly been fabricated by family members in order to provide cover for someone within the Lowitzer household. Theory 2B also answers more questions than it asks similar to Operational Theory 1AS1, but in one Ali Lowitzer is engaging in deceptive behavior and Theory 2B the family is engaging in deceptive behavior.

Thus, Theory 3B cannot be ruled out and will be labeled as Operational Theory 2BHB.

Summary of Part 1:

Hypotheses A, B, C and D have been ruled out because there is no evidence supporting that Ali Lowitzer left of her own volition on April 26, 2010.  In fact, Ali had reached out to a friend through a text message inviting him to come over to visit with her that day.  This message has been confirmed and unlike the communications with Ali’s mother if they cannot be verified through text and were conversations made through telephone, one has to take Ali’s mother’s version of events at face value, or question their validity altogether.

Theory 1A has also been ruled out because there is little evidence suggesting that Ali Lowitzer was abducted by an opportunistic unknown suspect.  Although it’s possible, when one examines the geographical location as to where Ali Lowitzer lived, the time she disappeared being around 3pm after school, on a heavily traveled road during peak hours and no one witnessed Ali being abducted or witnessed her being on Treaschwig Road, this hypothesis does not merit inclusion to be labeled as an operational theory.

Part 2: Operational Theory 1AS1:

This theory operates under the assumption that before April 26 2010 Ali Lowitzer had met an unknown individual through social media that she was able to vent to about problems she felt unable to talk about with friends or relatives.  Ali and the unknown suspect had a secretive relationship that for Ali was exciting because the suspect possibly posed as someone Ali found not only relatable but lived a unique interesting life that appealed to Ali. 

The suspect is highly manipulative and predatory and exploits Ali’s curiosities and vulnerabilities he learns through their conversations.  Ali may be the first to actually initiate the meeting, although the idea was planted by the suspect, he waits for Ali to actually make the suggestion. 

It’s possible that within 24-48 hours prior to meeting, the suspect has driven the neighborhood Ali lives or has viewed it online through a map application and chooses the location, somewhere near, but relatively secluded to meet.  The suspect chooses Old Pike Road and Ali accepts. 

On the day of April 26th 2010, Ali contacts her mother to ask about the house keys perhaps under the pretense of seeing if her half-brother is home because she wants to ensure the half-brother does not see her getting into the vehicle with a stranger.  She also asks her mother’s permission to walk to work, and when her mother refuses Ali presses the issue further until the mother relents.  This gives Ali an alibi as to where she is going, and if the meeting goes well also gives Ali time to prolong the date with the person she is meeting by suggesting she may pick up a shift and work that day.  Either way if the meeting goes well or doesn’t go well, Ali has created an alibi to her whereabouts for that afternoon that will enable her to stay out longer, or return early. 

After exiting the bus, Ali lingers near Low Ridge Road and the intersection of Knotty Pine Lane, slowly making her way to Old Pike Road as she waits on the suspect.  Impatient, because the suspect is not answering her, because the suspect cannot answer her because the suspect is driving, Ali believes she has been stood up. Aggravated and having look forward to the planned meeting she makes other plans.  Soon after sending this text the suspect arrives on Old Pike Road and Ali enters the vehicle voluntarily. 

The suspect either asks Ali to power off her phone under some false pretense and she does so purposefully or he subdues her soon after Ali enters the suspect’s vehicle and the suspect takes her phone, and removes the battery. 

With Ali subdued the suspect forces Ali down into the floorboard, and continues driving and drives to the interstate.  From there, the suspect drives home, or quite possibly to a remote location somewhere outside of Spring and within 30 to 50 miles from the spot the suspect abducted Ali Lowitzer.

Operational Theory 1AS1 assumes the suspect to be between the ages of 20-35, possibly a white male that has some experience in computer technology enabling him to mask his IP address or lurk online using assumed identities for the sole purpose of meeting young girls online.  The suspect is a misanthrope, not social, and prefers the anonymity of being online, and suppresses his impulses and fantasies, but overtime becomes overwhelmed by these impulses and takes advantage of Ali’s insecurities establishing trust with her and they begin an online relationship that evolves to them making plans to meet.  The suspect may inform her that he is older than her, and as a result they have to maintain secrecy, but this also intrigues Ali that an older man is attracted to her so she keeps this relationship secret. 

This operational theory answers more questions than it asks, and assumes that Ali “knew” the suspect but the suspect had preyed on her insecurities and posed as someone who made Ali feel special and desired. 

This operational theory may answer why Ali pressed for permission to walk work, showing that Ali did not want her mother to worry, but at the same time Ali was not being truthful in order to establish an alibi, but also to reassure her mom she knew what she was doing. 

Using the MSCTEM to Find Ali or the Suspect:

The “box” in this particular operational theory would be in accessing Ali’s social media accounts.  Nevertheless, without access to Ali’s phone, it may be impossible to know what applications she was utilizing. 

Another way to access the “box” in this operational theory is to look for suspects who may have been involved in similar altercations with law enforcement for offenses classified as crimes of moral turpitude.

The suspect may live on the outskirts of Harris County, most likely in a rural area, within 30-50 miles from Spring Texas (See Map).

 A: Dayton

B: Moss Hill

C: Cleveland

D: Conroe

E: Navasota

F: Prairie View

With the “epicenter” represented as G: Spring, Texas.

To locate this individual the best practical approach is to speak with Law Enforcement in these jurisdictions and ask them to create a list of possible suspects who may fit this profile in order to cast a wider net within these geographical perimeters. (Theory 1A which has been ruled out as being a less probable theory, cannot be ruled out but operates under the same search perimeters but suggests the suspect may be between the ages of 30-55.)

Operational Theory 2BHB:

This theory operates under the assumption that on April 26th 2010, Ali Lowitzer exited the school bus and went home.  What is unclear is what happened once Ali made it home. 

In order to move forward with this theory, Ali’s mother’s version of the last conversations she had with her daughter before Ali exited the school bus need to be scrutinized further by Law Enforcement.  It operates under the opposite assumption of Operational Theory 1AS1 where Ali was being duplicitous and surmises that the family is being is being duplicitous in order to cover up a crime most likely committed within the Lowitzer home perpetrated by a family member. 

Harris County Homicide Detectives investigating this case have been unable to rule out Ali’s half-brother as being a person of interest.  It is unknown if the Lowitzer home has ever been forensically examined for evidence, it also unknown if Ali’s mother has been interrogated and administered a polygraph test. 

Furthermore, the version of events made known by Ali’s mother seem to demonstrate duplicitous statements in which on one hand Ali’s mother is reluctant to allow Ali permission to walk to her place of employment, but relents after Ali presses the matter with the caveat that Ali were to contact her once she arrived to work safely. 

However, once Ali’s mother returns home after work and has not received a confirmation from her daughter verifying she was safe, her mother does not contact Ali’s place of employment nor does she drive the 0.7 miles to her daughter’s place of employment to verify her daughter is safe.  In fact, Ali’s mother allows two hours to pass from the time she returns home from work and four hours from the last time she spoke to her daughter before she makes the decision to drive to Ali’s place of employment at 9PM only to find it closed.

Ali’s mother does not contact police or local hospitals to see if her daughter has been involved in an accident, which was one of the mother’s concerns causing her to originally forbid her daughter from walking to work.  She contacts Ali’s father instead who makes the case that Ali may be with a friend, so they contact Ali’s friends and another two hours pass before Ali’s parents make the decision to contact police at 11PM meaning that 8 hours have passed since the last time Ali communicated with her family. 

The reason these statements come across as duplicitous is it is known that Ali on average makes 4000 texts per month and is always with her phone.  Also, the mother has stated that during the last five weeks Ali has been an employee at The Burger Barn she always had a family member available to drive her to work.  However, on April 26th 2010 although Ali’s half-brother is at home at the time Ali exits the school bus, Ali’s mother does not ask him to take Ali to her place of employment, but she does ask him to make sure to keep the door unlocked because Ali forgot her key to the house when she left home that morning. 

This begs the question why Ali’s mother is seemingly playing the part of the go-between with Ali and Ali’s half-brother and why Ali isn’t communicating with her half-brother. 

In addition to this Ali’s parents have been adamant from the outset that Ali did not run away from home of her own volition, and it also begs the question that if they were never convinced Ali would run away, but at the same time feared for her safety when Ali asked to walk to work, when Ali is given permission and does not contact her parents to verify she is safe, why it takes 8 hours to contact police. 

If the parent’s are adamant she didn’t run away, and yet she is not home and is not communicating her whereabouts, then the only other explanation would be something is wrong and Ali may be in danger.  This seems to be a major contradiction with the statements made when measured against the actions taken when Ali does not confirm her whereabouts on the day she went missing. 

As a result, one cannot rule out the theory that there may have been troubles within the Lowitzer household that involved problems between Ali and her half-brother, that led to Ali’s journal entries expressing thoughts of running away from home, and that on April 26, 2010 the troubles between Ali and her half-brother worsened and the subsequent events that followed involved a cover up in which Ali’s last known movements as told by Ali’s mother were crafted in order to misdirect law enforcement away from home and only until after the cover up complete and the story misdirecting law enforcement concocted and rehearsed 8 hours after Ali exits her school bus the Lowitzer family contacts police. 

Using the MSCTEM to Find Ali:

The “Box” in this operational theory is by officially ruling out Ali’s mother and half-brother by scrutinizing Ali’s mother’s version of events through interrogation and forensically examining the home, and vehicles owned at the time of Ali’s disappearance. 

Although Operational Theory 1AS1 is plausible and most likely, in order to move forward it may be necessary to rule out Operational Theory 2BHB. 

All theories listed on this site are of my own and I do not represent Law Enforcement. If you have any information concerning this case please contact Law Enforcement.

Investigating Agency

  • Harris County Sheriff’s Office 713-221-6000