Paul, there has never been any reference to Suzanne being sexually assaulted. So, for sake of argument, let's say murder was the motive. Would you plan a murder with a flimsy six inch carbon steel blade? As for "the brutality of the attack", can you explain to me how you can kill someone with such a blade in such a way that the end result is not "brutal" (read: messy, as all murders are essentially brutal)?
Considering the knife tip broke off in her skull, I'd say, sadly, the number of blows was necessary to kill her, not overkill. The fact the killer slashed her throat, even after all this, implies to me he still wasn't sure she was dead. Had the throat slash been the primary method of killing, I'd think there would have been multiple slashes to the point of almost decapitation. There's even reports that the person who found Suzanne worked on her at the scene. You can't have overkill if someone isn't dead by the end of the attack.
All this implies to me that murder was not the primary reason for the abduction. Rather, events led to murder. The problem here is that very little time elapsed from abduction to murder, so it's very hard to imagine what could cause a "friend" to fly off the handle that quick. I suppose an unwanted sexual advance would top the list. But, if so, I would think Suzanne would have been unrestrained and able to at least put up a hand, if even instinctively, in self defense. There's never been any evidence of that.
As for whether Henry Lee spent time looking at the case, the answer is only briefly. The NHPD both refused to have him check out the crime scene the day it happened and to reconstruct the crime months later. Lee did an interview on CNN ( see: Message 12231709 ) and expressed his dismay at this.
Once again, I need to say that all this doesn't mean I'm totally against the "she knew her killer" theory. Only that I think, as in the Zantop (Dartmouth) Murders, the random killer theory makes much more sense based on what I know.
- Jeff |
