A view of Puget Sound from Port Orchard’s Bay Street. Image courtesy of iStockphoto.
Note: This is the eighth in a series of articles examining the details surrounding the murder of Linda Malcom. The first article provides information on the known facts and evidence in her case. Read the second article to learn about crowdsourcing and how this tactic can greatly assist in solving cold cases. The third article offers information on the use of victimology and how it can be applied to Linda’s case. The fourth article details my recent visit to the Port Orchard area. The fifth article provides information on the probable murder weapon. The sixth article discusses the applicability of genetic genealogy to Linda’s case. The seventh article provides an overview of behavioral analysis and insight from several retired FBI profilers.
At around 4 a.m. on April 30, 2008, emergency services received a call regarding a house fire on Sidney Avenue in Port Orchard, Washington. Once the fire was extinguished, the nude body of Linda Malcom, 47, was found on the floor in the master bedroom.
The coroner determined that Linda had been stabbed 24 times and was deceased prior to the fire being set. Her death was ruled a homicide.
In my seventh article about Linda Malcom’s murder, I explained the concept of criminal profiling, also known as behavioral analysis. I discussed the various behavioral aspects Linda Malcom’s killer exhibited both during and after her murder.
The previous article also introduced three retired FBI profilers, Julia Cowley, Robert Drew and Susan Kossler-Drew, who host The Consult podcast. I presented the first half of their analysis on Linda Malcom’s case in that article, and here is the second half of that analysis.
The Significance of the Living Room Window’s Removal in Linda Malcom’s Murder
Fire investigator Alan Haskins and I spent a great deal of time with the FBI team discussing the removal of Linda’s living room window. No one on the team had investigated a case where a window had been removed to start a fire.
So, this window removal was a curious detail and one Julia, Robert, and Susan felt provided great insight into the killer’s knowledge and mindset. Linda’s killer likely had experience with construction-type projects and had reason to believe the window was the most vulnerable point of the home. It’s also possible he previously completed some repairs on Linda’s house and knew it would be fairly easy to remove the window.
Another idea presented by the team of former FBI profilers was that the killer was an employee of the moving company Linda hired to assist with her upcoming move. That employee may have come to Linda’s house to provide a quote for services and obtained the necessary information about the window.
Information from the investigative files indicates that at the time the fire was set, both of Linda’s doors were locked. That was probably why the killer didn’t re-enter the house through one of those doors when he returned to start the fire. He probably also chose to remove the window to reduce the amount of noise he made while he lit the fire.
There was an occupied home approximately 40 feet away, and those neighbors did not report hearing anything out of the ordinary prior to their discovery of the fire. We all wondered why the person didn’t go to the back of Linda’s house and break one of those windows to start the fire.
Using a back window would have been quicker and would have placed the killer away from the street and next-door neighbors. Why a back window wasn’t used remains an unanswered question at this time.
Arson and Returning to the Crime Scene
The arson part of the crime was pre-meditated, because Linda’s killer brought the necessary tools to remove the window and start the fire. The fact that the killer left after Linda’s murder and returned to the property indicates an overwhelming need to destroy the house.
Returning to the scene of a homicide is inherently risky. Robert Drew explained to us that “the motivation [to return to the scene] would be not only that you want to hide forensic evidence, but more than that, you want to obscure and delay or prevent the discovery of what actually occurred there. Because if the nature of what occurred there is known, then this offender felt that would prioritize them as being one of the prime suspects in this case.”
We discussed the logical motives for Linda’s killer to return to the scene of the crime. We opined that the offender may have been injured during the altercation and bled inside the home. The knowledge that his blood would easily lead to his identification would have provided a strong motive for the arson.
An alternate theory was that he lost a personal item – such as a wallet – that would lead investigators to him. The FBI team also explained that if a neighbor of Linda killed her, that person may have wanted to destroy her home to remove the daily reminder of the crime he’d committed.
What Was the Likely Motive for Linda Malcom’s Murder?
A sexual encounter could have been the underlying motive, even though there is no evidence that a sexual assault took place. The killer may have hoped to engage in sexual activities with Linda on this night or attempted to sexually assault her. In response, she may have rebuffed him.
Linda might have said something the killer perceived as personally offensive and insulting. In turn, a fight ensued, and the murder was the result.
The sex motive for Linda Malcom’s murder could also potentially be the result of Linda being a mistress to someone who was married or in a serious relationship. If this situation was the case, the killer might not have intended to try and approach Linda for sex. Her killer may have been motived by the knowledge that Linda had had sexual relations with that person’s significant other.
We discussed the possibility that Linda’s murder was connected to her 2005 drug charges or her own use of drugs, but we felt this situation was unlikely. Nearly three years had passed since her drug charges, which were ultimately dropped.
Anyone she upset through that legal process had adequate time to plan an attack and confront her much sooner. Additionally, that person had plenty of time to plan a swifter and easier attack method.
Although the use of drugs elevates a person’s risk of victimization, the fact that no drugs or alcohol were found in her toxicology analysis lowered her risk on this particular night. Linda’s family and close friends felt confident she would have been drinking if she’d had company over on the night of her murder. The lack of drugs or alcohol indicates she spent the evening alone.
What Suggestions Did the Retired FBI Profilers Provide for Further Investigation?
The FBI team felt it was pertinent to determine who Linda had called upon for help with her upcoming move. We know of at least two specific people who she reached out to, requesting assistance.
But the team brought up the idea that maybe she invited someone to spend the night on April 29. The purpose might have been for that person to be ready early in the morning to help her pick up a moving truck, pack, move furniture, and load the truck. If Linda extended such an invitation, it’s possible that person mistook that request as an invitation for a sexual encounter that Linda denied.
The team also suggested investigators work to establish what company Linda used to reserve a moving truck. Once this information is determined, details about whether the truck was to be delivered or picked up and if she hired professional movers to assist her need to be ascertained.
The retired FBI profilers presented the idea that a moving company employee could have come out to the house ahead of time. That employee’s purpose would have been to assess the amount of furniture and other household goods to be moved and provide a quote.
During this process, the employee could have learned critical information about Linda’s living situation and location. They could have determined that she was a single female living alone.
The idea was floated that maybe such a representative suggested that the easiest way to remove some of the furniture would be through the living room window, rather than forcing entry through the front or back door. That would have obviously given the person the opportunity to examine the window and understand what it would take to remove it.
Julia, Robert and Susan spoke extensively about the possibility of one of Linda’s neighbors committing the murder. They explained how a neighbor in close proximity to her home would collected a great deal of information about Linda’s schedule, habits and the frequency of her visitors.
That neighbor would have known the home’s layout and possibly the best way to gain access to the house. They probably would have known she intended to move, and the night of the murder was one of the last opportunities to approach her and/or attack her. The team highly recommended investigators re-interview the people who lived near Linda in 2008.
Julia finished with a simple and poignant statement, saying that “This is a very solvable case.”
All of the team’s analysis and recommendations have been provided to the Port Orchard Police Department to assist them in their investigation.
Readers Can Learn More about Linda Malcom’s Murder Case
Readers interested learning more about Linda Malcom’s murder case can follow the AMU team’s renewed investigation by listening to Season 3 of Break The Case, an investigative podcast. Readers may also join the Facebook group, which is dedicated to seeking justice for Linda Malcom.
Administrators of the group regularly post updates and start threads that are intended for discussion by followers. Additionally, my recently established nonprofit has a page that contains content relevant to the Linda Malcom case.
Anyone with information about the death of Linda Malcom can email our confidential tip line at tips@justice4linda.com. Another option is to call Detective Luke or Detective Smith of the Port Orchard Police Department at 360-876-1700.
Anyone with information is guaranteed their identity will be kept confidential. There is currently a $7,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Linda’s killer.
Comments are closed.