Posted on 01/22/2023 5:09:36 AM PST by Tired of Taxes
The 911 call alerting law enforcement to the murders of the four University of Idaho students has long been shrouded in mystery after Moscow Police said that the caller initially reported “an unconscious individual” in the home.
The call was made from the cellphone of one of the two surviving roommates at around 11.58am on 13 November, with the dispatcher speaking to multiple people.
Officers arrived at the home to find a bloody scene, with Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin all dead from multiple stab wounds.
Since then, questions have persisted around why the caller reported an “unconscious individual” when officials described the crime scene as one of the worst they had ever seen.
A potential reason for the mysterious 911 call has now been revealed in Air Mail’s article “The Eyes of a Killer”.
Civilian employees at Whitcom 9-1-1, an agency in Pullman, Washington, handle the 911 calls to the Moscow Police Department as well as several other agencies, according to the report.
The agency is severely understaffed to such an extent that the dispatchers’ guild has previously warned that “our ability to uphold public safety is at risk”.
Under standard protocol, when callers “are agitated” the dispatcher will often assign the call with the generic label of “unconscious person” rather than waste valuable time and resources trying to gather specific details.
In this case, it is possible that the dispatcher assigned the generic label while speaking to the students who were panicked by what they saw and were passing the phone from one to the other.
The explanation comes as many questions remain unanswered about the case that has sent shockwaves through the small college town of Moscow, close to the Washington state border.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
This article explains how that term is used at the 911 call center.
I suppose if I had a call from a couple of hysterical (with good reason) young women reporting a massacre I might fumble trying to “code” it. Of course, I am not a trained and experienced call center operator.
There is almost certainly an audio recording of the 911 call.
Therefore, the investigators would know what was actually said.
The public has no need to know at this time.
I assumed it was just part of the general spin to throw off the killer during the investigation. They didn’t want the killer to know there was a witness and the fake 911 story would have sent the signal that the surviving roommates hadn’t seen anything.
The public never has a need to know, Citizen.
I assumed the same. Police did play their cards close, just as they should have.
“Since then, questions have persisted around why the caller reported an “unconscious individual” when officials described the crime scene as one of the worst they had ever seen.“
When they’re done doing that maybe they can explain why some people call someone who has just done an unspeakably evil thing a “gentleman”. In trying situations people often don’t think. Though the caller here seems to have been distancing himself from the horror.
Around here they use the term “male/female fallen”.
Why would the guy arrested ask the police, “Has anyone else been arrested?” He did ask.
This strongly suggests someone else was involved.
In light of what we know now, the killer walked right past one of the room mates as she was standing in the door of her room. She described him as thin, wearing a surgical mask, and had bushy eyebrows. He had to know there were survivors. Were their doors locked and he bypassed them because of that? Or was he just done killing?
So many questions.
Possibly, or else he thought they might have arrested his daddy too who was in the car ride back to PA. Thinking daddy might be arrested for helping him get away because by now he knows the Indiana traffic stops were planned by the cops. He probably knew it when he was stopped but daddy probably didn’t.
Unless his dad helped kill the 4, which I doubt.
After all, he was a criminology student.
“They didn’t want the killer to know there was a witness “
Killer knew there was a witness. She looked him right in the eyes.
Brian’s father didn’t know anything ...
Maybe so. Or maybe he was trying to play a mind game with the police.
That’s an assumption. Nothing I’ve seen in the reports states that there was recognition by the killer that there was a witness. That statement only covers the perspective of the witness, so the killer might not have actually seen her since he walked right by her. Better for the police not to assume he actually saw the witness.
why the delay in reporting....again suspicious minds would say they had to empty the house of certain things....
who the heck knows whats true...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.