If we head down the road of "Suzanne knew her killer" I would agree. However, I think if we work backwards we end up going down a different road. My logic is as follows:
1. We all agree a car was used at some point
2. The lack of blood spray and quantity at the crime scene strongly suggests she was not murdered there, not to mention no bruising or grass stains from a fall, the location and angle of the body, why the wounds were localized when the killer had access to her entire body, etc.
3. Lack of time (among other things) makes it unlikely Suzanne were killed anywhere but in a car. Very hard to imagine one person knifing another in a car a) without hitting that person in the side, b) without that person putting up a hand to defend themselves, and c) localizing all blows to the head and neck given the angle a driver would have and the roof possibly getting in the way of blows.
4. If there were more than one person then a) much less likely Suzanne knew her killer, b) it would explain how the blows might not have been expected if she were held face down or restrained, and c) it would explain the localized blows to her head if she were restrained say by someone leaning on her back.
5. Suzanne therefore might have been a) going for a walk, b) going to a party, c) going to meet someone who was not expecting her, d) going to get a snack, etc. After all, it was a Friday night, it was warm, she had had a long day, etc.
- Jeff |
