It is possible Mr. Sparkman was killed by people growing or makingdrugs in the area.
An Associated Press article by Roger Alford and Jeffrey McMurray provides additional details about the death of census worker Bill Sparkman more than two weeks ago.
Two people briefed on the investigation said that Mr. Sparkman’s census bureau ID was found taped to his head and shoulder area. The word “fed” was written on his chest with a felt-tip pin.
The man who found the body, Jerry Weaver, told the AP that Mr. Sparkman had been gagged, and his hands and feet were bound with duct tape. Mr. Sparkman was naked except for socks. His clothes were found in a pickup truck, presumably Mr. Sparkman’s, 50 yards away. Suicide seems less and less likely an explanation for the death.
It is not completely clear whether Mr. Sparkman was hanged where thebody was found or whether the body was brought to the location andhanged for display.
And how would a single person drive Mr. Sparkman’s truck (assumingthe pickup was his truck) to the remote area in the national park andthen get out of the area?
The presence of a second vehicle at the crime scene would create thepossibility that there is other evidence, such as tire tracks, at thescene. Of course, the materials used to bind and gag Mr. Sparkman arealso sure to be studied.
It is possible Mr. Sparkman was killed by people growing or makingdrugs in the area. However, it is not clear why such people wouldchoose to display the victim rather than hide the body as long aspossible.
A warning to anyone investigating production of methamphetamines or cultivation of marijuana? Maybe. Maybe not.
Criminal profilers will look at the method used to kill the victimbut will also look at the “signature” left by the killer or killers.The signature, roughly defined, is the way the crime scene is arrangedor displayed by the perpetrators, sometimes to make a statement andsometimes to mislead investigators.
It was reported, for example, that Mr. Sparkman died fromasphyxiation. Did the killers arrange the hanging apparatus at the sitein an attempt to distract authorities from looking at other sites wherethe victim was killed?
If so, it suggests that the killers were, at best, simplistic intheir understanding of criminal investigations into the causes andtimes of death.
Investigators are tight lipped about this investigation, but itseems highly likely that Mr. Sparkman’s whereabouts on the day of hisdeath will be identified, narrowing the search considerably. Thisinformation is especially important if one assumes, as seems likely,that the perpetrators did not “hunt” for the victim but rather reactedto his unexpected presence. And criminals who react to an “opportunity”are unlikely to have made thorough plans.
The possibility that more than one person participated in the murderalso creates data trails for investigators and risks for the criminals,who frequently have difficulty not discussing their exploits. But itseems even more likely that one person committed the murder and calledan associate to help with the disposal. This also creates openings forinvestigators.
Though I’ve studied criminal behavior for most of my professionalcareer, including study of investigations, interrogation and criminalprofiling, there is too much unknown about this case to draw anydefinite conclusions.