The purpose of the outfit & assumptions about the video
Trying to think through what could be behind the outfit selected, it seemed like two different avenues opened up based on two different assumptions.
1 If the killer knew (or assumed) that there would be video surveillance inside the building, then the primary job of the outfit is to disguise his/her identity. It would allow the killer to move about inside the church without concern that his/her body or face would be positively identified.
If the killer knew (or assumed) that there would be video surveillance, that means that the killer wasn't attempting to make it look like a robbery in any meaningful way. Obviously, a robbery hardly makes sense in the first place, but would be focused on the main office or business office of the church. And the suspect's behavior inside the building belies the idea of a robbery.
2 If the killer didn't know or assumed that there would not be video surveillance, then the outfit serves slightly different purposes. It could (1) serve to obscure his/her identity to any witnesses and/or the victim. (2) It could be used for effect (either to scare/disorient the victim or to briefly confuse her into thinking that he/she was actually police).
Further, if we assume that the killer assumed he/she would not be captured on video, then the staging of the robbery might make a little more sense.
One purpose behind the outfit that would fit with both assumptions is that it's a method for limiting the amount of forensic evidence one leaves behind. It's become easier and easier for police to find and identify discarded hair or so called "touch DNA." Indeed, it's hard to imagine that anyone could ever be in any room without their being some microscopic evidence present of their presence. Wrapping oneself in layers, covering most skin and mouth, etc. significantly decreases the odds of any forensic evidence being left behind.
But depending on whether we assume that the killer knew that he/she was being recorded, the entire get-up seems different.
Posted Sep 11, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC
Good points! I’d have to think the killer knew there would be cameras. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they visited the church before this to scout out the place (alarms, cameras). Just come to a Sunday service a few weeks before the murder (I would think they don’t just store all footage indefinitely). Nothing odd about going to church.
Definitely. I assume that the footage would be erased after a certain amount of time.