VTech update: Cops find no link between Cho and victims; Update: Cho still had ammo left when he died
posted at 9:51 am on April 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Including Emily Hilscher, the woman murdered in the first shootings in Ambler Johnston dormitory who was first identified as a girlfriend he’d quarrelled with, then as someone he might have stalked, and now … what?
In an interview Tuesday night with The Associated Press, State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said authorities have found no evidence that could begin to explain the massacre that ended when Cho took his own life.
Authorities also have no link between the 23-year-old loner and his victims…
Flaherty said investigators also have been unable to answer one of the investigation’s most vexing questions: Why the spree began at the West Ambler Johnston dorm, and why 18-year-old freshman Emily Hilscher was the first victim.
He said police have searched Hilscher’s e-mails and phone records, but come up empty. Hilscher’s mother said she had not been updated on the investigation Friday night and declined to comment.
“We can’t make a link at this point,” Flaherty said. “We haven’t found anything to link Mr. Cho and Ms. Hilscher.”
My “target of opportunity” theory is sounding more likely. From last week’s post:
Just thinking out loud about the first shootings, but it seems to me there are two possibilities. One is that Cho was fixated on Emily Hilscher and targeted her specifically on Monday morning. That’s certainly plausible given his history of stalking, although in that case it’s odd that she doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in his rantings (or else NBC probably would have said so). The other possibility is that he was looking to kill someone, anyone, on Monday morning just to get a taste of what it felt like, and Hilscher ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s also plausible when you consider that her roommate, Heather Haugh, told the LA Times that “she and Hilscher typically spent Sunday nights with their boyfriends, but met at their dorm on Monday morning to head to their 9 a.m. chemistry class.” I.e., in all likelihood, Hilscher wasn’t asleep in bed in Ambler Johnston when Cho came calling; she was outside, on her way home from her boyfriend’s room. Imagine Cho standing around outside his own dorm at 7 a.m. or so, looking around for a victim but finding the pickings slim given the hour and the fact that it was Monday. And then, suddenly, here comes pretty Emily Hilscher passing by. You can picture the creepy bastard following her or even approaching her to ask whatever bizarre question he had in mind (“Are you a hedonist?” or what have you) while she kept walking and tried to ignore him while becoming increasingly alarmed. If he followed her into the dorm and upstairs, she must have been terrified by the time she got to the fourth floor. That would explain the “argument” she and Cho allegedly had — she was probably screaming for the freak to get away and leave her alone. Ryan Clark, hearing the commotion, would have come out of his room to intervene and that would have brought about the moment of truth.
Again, just thinking out loud. But it won’t surprise me at all to find that Hilscher was purely a target of opportunity.
There’s a presser scheduled for this afternoon so that the cops can update everyone on any new leads. Sounds like it’ll be a short one, but I’m sure there’ll be updates here of some kind. Stay tuned.
Update: Decision time for VTech admittees. Well, look at it this way — by the law of averages, the campus is probably uniquely safe now.
Update: Via Slublog, some of the families are angling to sue VTech. The question is whether they were negligent or grossly negligent.
Update: What will Hitchens make of this, I wonder:
Queen Elizabeth II will pay tribute to the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings when she visits the U.S. state next week, Buckingham Palace said Tuesday.
Though it was not immediately clear what sort of ceremony will be held, a trip to the campus in Blacksburg, Va., was ruled out, a palace spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity in line with royal rules.
Update: The press conference was uneventful. Bob Owens notes a report from USA Today, though, that despite having fired 170 shots, Cho still had rounds to spare when the cops finally arrived. The theory right now is that he shot himself when he heard them shoot through their way through the front door of Norris Hall. Which makes the fact that VTech was a gun-free zone that much harder — if he’d heard a gunshot in the building earlier in his rampage, he might have turned his own gun on himself sooner thinking it was the police.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I guess, but it still seems odd to me. He wanted to be seen as some kind of martyr, so why go out and kill the pretty freshman unless he had some reason?
But really, as many have said before, it isn’t logical to kill 32 kids in the first place. I shouldn’t bother trying to make this part make sense.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Does this REEEEEALLY need to be “investigated”.
Respectfully bury the dead.
Heavily arm the living.
Move on.
seejanemom on April 25, 2007 at 10:02 AM
similar MO that the columbine killers had, which Cho referenced. I would love to know if Cho watched the National Geographic “final report” on Columbine that was on TV a month ago, it was very interesting. Although I think it glossed over the most important parts more than should’ve.
jp on April 25, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Looks as though some families are challenging VTech’s sovreign immunity on the grounds of gross negligence, potentially opening the door for lawsuits against the university.
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Question for the lawyers (you know who you are):
What’s the standard for gross negligence versus negligence?
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 10:18 AM
I dunno. Should this be allowed? I mean, it’s a huge tragedy. But how is Virginia Tech culpable? Maybe I’m just not getting it.
If this is allowed, it seems to me like any university can be sued from now on for anything from students tripping over something to bad food.
I dunno. Comments?
SuperManGreenLantern on April 25, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Slubo wrote: “Looks as though some families are challenging VTech’s sovreign immunity.”
I hope they pull it off.
I really do.
georgej on April 25, 2007 at 10:21 AM
The experience of a friend involved in an accident with a state snow plow was that she has to submit her claim to the state’s “court of claims,” which was set up by the legislature to handle issues of negligence caused state employees.
While the state constitution contains a provision disavowing “soverign immunity,” there is also a provision that allows the legislature to “immunize the state” in certain areas. The DOT is explictly “immunized.”
She, instead, subrogated her claim via her insurance company, which will persue the case on their dime. She’ll receive the same percentage of her deductible back that the insurance receives on the gross dollar amount of the total damage.
It will take years…..
georgej on April 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Personally I wish they’d become more paranoid after what happened in 2006 with the convict, but I can understand why they assumed the earlier shooting was just an isolated incident.
So, I don’t know either, but I can bet the next time this happens the school will be as paranoid as humanly possible, just like what happened with Hurrican Rita the one that came right after Katrina.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:38 AM
The MSNBC piece mentioned a Korean student hearing stories of discrimination and attacks on Asian students after the shooting. Where are those stories? Did that actually happen?
icelandicfarmer on April 25, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I predicted lawsuits last week. Sad to say, I seem to be correct.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 25, 2007 at 11:07 AM
SuperManGreenLantern
VTech could be considered liable because they’d been advised that their forced helplessness policy put students at risk and not only continued it, they worked hard in the state legislature to make sure they could continue it.
Because they refused to let students defend themselves then by default the duty to protect those students would fall back on the University, along with the liability for their failure to do so.
Or at least that’s the basic theory people have expressed regarding possibly suing their employers who disallow CCW.
KCSteve on April 25, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Except for the clinical evaluations prior to, by teachers, and others, saying he needed help. Plus his emails, plus is detailed video tape he left for us tell us why… And a complete medical/emotional history of mental problems…
And they just can’t figure it out…
{sigh}
Lawrence on April 25, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Pretty good analysis, AP. That’s pretty much how I see it, too. In addition, for background, it looks as though Cho had Asperger’s syndrome, which is characterized by an overly internalized, withdrawn “self-dialogue”, which in itself isn’t dangerous. Actually, most shrinks believe Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Bill Gates, and others, have been Aspergers.
But Cho was also a paranoid-schizophrenic, which makes this an incredibly bad combination. He was nuts, and didn’t seek out other people for help, so he was just fanning his own flames, leading to this disaster.
stonemeister on April 25, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Man, they haven’t even mopped up the blood and they have lawyers already talking lawsuits. Anyone wonder why the world thinks lawyers are PoS?
Tim Burton on April 25, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Heard Gov Kaine all fussing about this worry today and it was really annoying. I’d say that was a stinking smear against Americans. We were at a school ceremony just Saturday during which awards were presented to a number of students. The school has a lot of Korean nationals. Several Koreans received awards, two of whom were named Cho, to make it more cringe-worthy if one was from MSNBC, but they got as much applause for their work and awards as the other students with them, in front of a big crowd of students, parents and visitors. No problems. This after a minute of silence for the VT students killed, plus VT students in attendance, plus VT alumni mixed through the crowd. If that wasn’t an apparently volatile mix, what is? No one was bothered, no one took out anything against the Koreans nor their parents who were there.
In foreign countries, it is common to have riots against specific groups for the crimes or even just rumored crimes of one. How many Indian Sikhs were killed by Hindus in rampant rioting sparked by Indira Ghandi’s assassination by her two own Sikh bodyguards? Hundreds, houses trashed, businesses looted, etc.
Tired of Americans being smeared with habits Americans typically don’t engage in,but that other societies are guilty of. This sort of thing is what distinguishes Western culture from others: Individual accountability. The guilty one is responsible, not the group.
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Strafor terror analysts wrote early on that the dorm shooting was in their opinion suspiciously similiar to a tactical diversion that would draw the police to one side of the campus while the real damage was to be done on the other side.
Bottom line, the shooting in the dorm did indeed give Cho a tactical advantage when he went into the engineering building.
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I guess, but it still seems odd to me. He wanted to be seen as some kind of martyr, so why go out and kill the pretty freshman unless he had some reason?
Hello, he was INSANE. By definition there is no point in trying to determine the “reason” for something an insane person does. He had no reason – he was fuckin’ NUTS.
Lehuster on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Well, Lehuster discovered a glitch in the censors.
Editor on April 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Screw him. Burn the body, and the loony “legacy” along with it. Scatter the ashes to the four winds and strike him from all the rolls of humanity.
Let it be as if he never existed.
mojo on April 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM
It was just an imaginary gun-free zone, of course, and it seems it would be better always to be clear on the point. “Gun-free zone for magical thinkers” wouldn’t be too harsh.
Kralizec on April 26, 2007 at 10:39 AM
“Sovereign immunity” is coming to light as imaginary, too. I’d leave it to the faculty of Virginia Tech’s political science department to make such a point, but most such faculties are too busy studying “voting patterns” to give much attention to any so “pre-scientific” as political philosophy.
Kralizec on April 26, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Actually, he gave quite an lengthy logos of his actions. Understanding it, including its flaws, may be interesting to political zoologists, and useful for everyone’s sake.
Kralizec on April 26, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: