Thursday, March 22, 2012

Smiley Face Killer...Let's Hit The Pause Button

Following the recent local tragedy of Thomas Hecht, I've already seen a number of "Smiley Face Killer" links, stories, etc, pop up on facebook...

I get it...it's hard to understand how such a terrible thing could just "happen."

But before you start jumping on the "It must be a serial killer" bandwagon, I want to point out a few weird things that make me very skeptical about the serial killer theory...Note, none of these discount the theory, none of this proves it's wrong, and I'm not saying they are incorrect...but the last thing we need following a legitimate tragedy is an illegitimate frenzy of facebookers searching for killers that may not exist...

Let's look at a few points from the "theory" that give me a bit of doubt...

-The theory connects over 40 murders across 11 states.  This would already make this person one of the most prolific serial killers in US history...

-If you look on the "theory" website, they list MANY "clues" left by the killer such as
CHICAGO, IL - Brian Welzien, 21 (12-31-1999)
OAKWOOD, IL - Ryan Katcher, 19 (11-05-2000)
LACROSSE, WI - Patrick Runningen, 23 (03-01-2001) 
DULUTH, MN - Ken Jason Christiansen, 19 (04-13-2001) 
One repeated pattern of the Smiley Face killers is that the killer takes various details from newspaper articles about his victims and incorporates it into other deaths and cryptic clues. On 04-11-1999 Jeffrey Geesey (age 21) died in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Then on 04-14-1999 Nathan Andrew Edberg (age 21) vanished from White Bear Lake, Minnesota and is still missing. On 07-16-1999 the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported on Edberg's disappearance. The following is the first line of the story: 
"A bartender at Decoy's Bar and Grill remembers the cold, drizzly night Nathan Edberg vanished."
The very next suspected smiley face death in December of 1999 happened in Chicago and is the beginning of the COLD word.
The need to go this deep in to prove a theory indicates a lack of good, physical evidence, something I would expect to find at least some of over 40 separate cases....

- The detectives in the case have claimed they can connect over 40 victims...yet only about 12 have been found with a smiley face...not very consistent. not to mention the smiley faces are where the detectives "think" the killer dropped the bodies...not where they were found or where they were known to have been.

- All victims were drunk and near water. When I hear "drunk" "near water" and "death", my gut reaction is not "There is a serial killer pushing people into rivers" its, "drunk people and water don't mix."

- The FBI has investigated the case put forth by the two detectives and stated...
"...The FBI has reviewed the information about the victims provided by two retired police detectives, who have dubbed these incidents the “Smiley Face Murders,” and interviewed an individual who provided information to the detectives. To date, we have not developed any evidence to support links between these tragic deaths or any evidence substantiating the theory that these deaths are the work of a serial killer or killers. The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drownings. The FBI will continue to work with the local police in the affected areas to provide support as requested..."
- The Smiley Face website also makes a claim that the killer may be connected to the Zodiac killings of the 60s/70s. It's possible...but....ya...

Anyways...I just dont think we should jump to "serial killer." Yes its weird that so many guys seem to die this way...but hundreds of thousands die in car wrecks, falling through ice, falling down stairs, drowning in lakes and oceans and even more random things...anything really, and many of those people aren't drunk. When you throw drunk into the mix, you have to start there...not serial killer.

It's a tragic accident and until someone puts forth some real physical evidence to the contrary, I'm leaving it at that.

But, check it out for yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley_face_murder_theory
conspiracy website.

10 comments:

  1. The wiki article is crap. Starting in 1997 someone started calling LE after a young men went missing . They were giving them cryptic clues. The FBI is aware of this but they did not look to see if he was connected to all the disappearances. They considered him as a possible suspect only for areas where they knew he had a definite connection to. They found out about this man that was obsessed with creating patterns and numbers from an ex girlfriend. The ex girlfriend received threatening e mails and she retaliated by turning him for possibly killing and for the calls he made to LE as a fake witness to seeing a victim before his death. If you don't believe it look at the police reports and news articles. They never looked at the lacrosse drowning as being connected to him though someone called LE using victims initials not to mention other places.

    ReplyDelete
  2. lets look at some facts.
    What the FBI considered to be the affected areas were only places they could identify a suspect having ties to. This is not because they could rule a suspect being somewhere else. Then when they can't prove that suspect was in that area at the time of the disappearance the suspect is ruled out as being involved.One suspect was ruled out because his mail was sent somewhere else at the time. Well,of course it was. He was on a road trip and had his mail sent to his final destination. Has anyone been able to say they saw this suspect at the final destination where the mail was sent? The answer is no. The detectives claimed there were similarities in disappearances in 11 states. Did the FBI look at all those cases. The answer is no. The FBI never says they looked at cases in several states because they never did. In fact they did not even look at all the cases in the same state the suspects lived in. Now as for the wiki article. It emphasizes the smiley faces which the detectives themselves said was no proof of a killer. We also have Pat Brown debunking something they never said was proof in the first place. Yet there is nothing in the article about 11 different distinct markings they claimed to find including the nicknames the suspects use. It was their contention that the bigger picture indicated something suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not asking anyone to believe there is a killer but here is a comparison of some things said by LE to other facts

    1- by LE -"victims were drunk". -victims may have been drugged and not all had a high blood alcohol content

    2- by LE -"Victim fell in water or tried to walk over ice covered water and fell through"- Some victims were afraid of water and some were going in another direction or to their home that was in another direction than the body of water.

    3- by le-"Only one set of tracks in this case"- They only counted human tracks that went to the edge of water.

    4- "WE investigated to see if drowning were related"- They did not even share information about known suspects

    5- FBI investigated this- FBI reviewed information about drownings already often labeled accidents and ruled out a suspect without knowing where he was at time of drownings

    6- "No evidence of struggle"-This is their interpretation since they assumed injuries were caused while in the water.

    Independent investigations do not agree with official versions. Even with over 50 experts disagreeing with the official finding by one forensic examiner they refuse to reopen the case of Todd Geib.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love the discussion everyone and I would love to see any and all contrasts to any official stories. If something posted is factually incorrect, I'd love to know what is wrong and what it should be. BUT, If you are going to discuss discrepancies of facts, please cite them and link them if possible, so that people can check them out and not have to just take your word for it. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. So then get your facts right. A review is not an investigation and either is making up your mind from day one as LE has done something was a drunken accident then make their so called facts fit what they already made up their mind about. A logical process to to gather the facts first. You are talking to the wrong person about facts. It is not my job to educate people everything they don't tell you.I suppose we should just take the word of LE ,but everyone else is supposed to educate people like you to prove them different. Just like LE has done you have done. As long as there are unanswered questions and there are many the burden of proof should be on them and people like yourself because if you and they are wrong someone will keep dying. BTW they had the justice for Todd Rally yesterday. That is one case I would suggest reading about.over 200 experts disagreed with the official finding of accidental death. Those were the top in the field BTW. Also the Chris jenkins case and Greg Hart,just to name a few. They also looked into the Grendel case again because he apparently was not in the water the whole time he was missing. I would also suggest looking at the controversies surrounding some of the forensic examiners . Just because LE is selective about what they want you to know is not my problem. It is not a good idea to jump to conclusions when so much of what was said was nothing more than a sales job on the public.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The case of Joe Clark, in Baraboo. A victim of his got away and and reported his confession of killing another boy. This case was riddled with incompetence. There were a series of blind mistakes by medical examiners and law enforcement because of stereotyped thinking about drowning deaths. Everyone was just willing to believe that the first (known) victim just somehow ended up in the river - from his own house - and drowned. He was examined and found to have drowned , and that was that..The pathologist said he had no injuries. But he did and there are still bodies taken out of waters with injuries. No more questions. Call this an accident and don't reason any further with ourselves about it. He had to be examined AGAIN, then it was found that his legs had been shattered before he was in the river. Just keep telling yourself these victims don't deserve a voice that are not here to speak for themselves. Nothing has changed . Forensic examiners have been exposed for their imcompentence and the very ones that would tell you there was no sign of foul play. Don't worry people because Barney Fife is on the case.If a victim does get away maybe they will even take him back to the killer like they did with one of Dahmer's victim and then give the officer an award.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The case of Craig Myers. They already decided ahead of time there were no murders. They had a previous case of 2 young men chased and having rocks thrown at them.One victim drowned and the other lived to tell about it. No footprints all the way to the water. They did not have to be right behind them as they were throwing fist sized rocks. They say we found one set of footprints. The snow was fresh the night he disappeared. What about the dog prints and why was the snow disturbed? Why was not there a smooth blanket of snow besides the footprints? Someone had to be throwing something and what was it? Did they even bother to find out why there were spots everywhere where something had to have fallen into the snow? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AGAIN....love to read what is wrong with what ive read...but please give links. I don't claim my assumptions to be correct as I can only go off of what I've read...if that is incorrect then I would love to find out what is wrong and how it's wrong. You typing things doesn't really prove much...just as mine doesn't. I'd appreciate to confirm what you and others are saying...and if I've posted something incorrect, I'd love to fix it.

      Delete
  8. The burden of proof is with you as far as a reasonable person should be concerned . Missing people and drownings are not a priority and never have been. You must be aware of google> You were given several names. I am too busy contacting LE agencies to spend my day educating the uneducated. Murders ,rapes etc have priority. cases like this they want a picture of the killer before they do a thorough investigation. In fact one police captain used those very words.Your ignorance is not my problem ,but when you repeat the sentiments of the same people who ignore all the unanswered questions you should be called on your spreading of propaganda.Opinions like yours are based on arrogance and not on knowing the facts. No one asked you to make a stupid statement about any drownings so why would you think any one owes someone that promotes propaganda an answer?There are a lot of stupid people like you and I don't have time to call every one of you morons on your stupidity .If you want me to correct your mistakes then you should pay me.You were told there was no FBI investigation retard.What the hell are you talking about what is incorrect? There was no investigation. If the FBI says there was an investigation what kind of retard would think the burden of proof should not be with them? A retard. Thats who
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:znWgzX--cYoJ:www.justicejournalism.org/projects/kamb_lewis/kamb_021803.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjyqUVB0jHPpuXwAmcHSyB2QEIYhVCwiKr_fyjinVHywC77XW1PlYDo_EMfHV9j5cRW82P6Gx7KEKgXrprOLeXjOS2IUc24gBby1Q2JXFjCD_VCifm9E60CUsqUtxjYWfVZtC3H&sig=AHIEtbTL6rILfFBdHqMWqswuP7MefSTjmA&pli=1
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:znWgzX--cYoJ:www.justicejournalism.org/projects/kamb_lewis/kamb_021803.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjyqUVB0jHPpuXwAmcHSyB2QEIYhVCwiKr_fyjinVHywC77XW1PlYDo_EMfHV9j5cRW82P6Gx7KEKgXrprOLeXjOS2IUc24gBby1Q2JXFjCD_VCifm9E60CUsqUtxjYWfVZtC3H&sig=AHIEtbTL6rILfFBdHqMWqswuP7MefSTjmA&pli=1

    ReplyDelete
  9. Police are educated in and depend upon crime statistics, so they know full well that any non-recreational water fatality is suspicious. In fact, the actual odds of a person *accidentally* falling into a body of water and drowning is slim to nil--only 1 in 720,000 individuals perish annually in this unlikely manner. These victims include both males and females from every demographic and age group, not only bright, popular and athletic young men.

    In contrast, a whopping 1 in 18,000 people will meet their demise each year through some act of foul play, making murder here much more probable, statistically speaking.

    Moreover, according to the Center for Disease Control’s most recent statistics, murder is the second leading cause of death for young males. Motor vehicle accidents are listed as the first, by the way, not drowning, and the CDC additionally cites suicide as the third. (Which is no doubt the reason why certain homicide *experts* desperate to debunk the Smiley Face Killer theory invented the idea that the questionable drowning deaths were actually “auto-assassinations”, since the vast majority of drown victims had otherwise NEVER exhibited or expressed suicidal ideations to anyone.)

    *If drown stats and forensics are of interest to anyone, you'll find more of them @ http://KillingKillers.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete