When a person is murdered, standard procedure is to do a victimology profile. That includes understanding why victims were targets, what motivations were most likely, what was going on in their lives the day they were murdered. Another relevant factor is, why were they killed there? Why was this location chosen? The obvious answers would be.
a.) that is where things of value were to be taken
b.) to send a message that no one is safe even in their home
d.) controlled environment.
Opportunity is ruled out because this wasn’t a spontaneous crime.
Also, why was THIS method and tHIS mode of murder used? why so many guns? why the manpower?
a.) guns used for assured kill
b.) manpower of that magnitude needed for crime
- elderly man and wife in environment not fortified seems overkill
- number of assailants increases likelihood of capture due to increased chance of DNA, hair etc.
- number of assailants increases likelihood someone will tell someone else who will snitch
- number of assailants that were not loyal to one another due to short or non-existent relationships increases likelihood of capture for self-preservation–to reduce pressure on themselves if caught
- not insuring camera system was off-careless. number of men could have ensured that camera was not an issue
No real need to have 5 men enter to subdue elderly man and woman who were not armed and not suspecting anything. Couldn’t one, maybe two men have entered–zip-tied them for the remaining to come in carry safe. That way if something went wrong, only the 1st two would be inside the residence. Again, for a planned, military style approach, strangers with no real bonds to each other wouldn’t have been used. Extra measures would have ensured video cameras were taken care of. By the way, if this was a robbery, why not knock Byrd off leaving or coming in a car? He’d have the money with him and be an easier target. Also why leave the briefcase behind if there was that much money in it. They walked right passed it, supposedly with the knowledge of its contents.
Forget all the confessions. They are all unrepresentative of the evidence. No one tells a story that fits the physical evidence or the known concrete facts of how the murder went down. There are variations that cannot be squared. Who was where, for example? Who drove? What happened after? Not one of the 4 people who talked have a story that is consistent with each other or the crime scene evidence. So disregard those entirely and focus on just what can be seen, smelled, or touched.
The family had the most to gain. The family was never properly investigated. The son had gunshot residue. It’s Ockham’s razor. “A principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.” (Source: Wikipedia)
No matter what you believe happened in this case, the one thing that cannot be disputed is that this case was not properly investigated. That begs the question of why? Why not rule out all the possibilities before taking the case to trial or settling into one theory that is outside the logical flow of everything known about how and why murders happen?
Next step: Look at anomalies in investigation. What happened that shouldn’t have happened? What didn’t happen?