Good analysis, staceyslaw and everyone. It’s amazing what we can come up with out of a short letter like this. I like the idea of looking at writing or spelling "signatures" i.e. habitual uses or misuses of grammar and spelling rules which are probably completely unconscious and would be reflected in the author’s everyday handwriting. It’s not likely to help lead anyone toward a suspect but might be important to look at if/when a suspect is being considered.

Zodiac, for instance, always incorrectly started his sentences with the conjunctions AND, BUT and OR, which is present in the Confession letter as well. He seemed to randomly guess at spelling words with double letter combinations that I really doubt is feigned even if you believe many of his spelling mistakes were purposeful. This stuff may seem insignificant but can be really useful since they are consistent yet unconscious writing traits. Perhaps there are more to be found? Back to the topic at hand…

Hi guys,

As per my original post, Tahoe, the cat showed up on the owner’s doorstep in a plastic bag, along with the note. It was at death’s door, and is now gone from this world. You made a good point regarding something I didn’t previously know, which I only found out after making further enquiries – the cat was originally a neighbourhood stray, which the owner then decided to take in. The fact that the perp seemed to know this (referring to the animal as "your resident cat that you have been taking care of" rather than just "your cat") only reinforces the hypothesis that they are someone close. It’s a very intimate detail.

On the subject of intimate details, Smithy, I’ve found out a little more about the household – well, as much as my source is able to reveal, anyway. They are a young professional couple with one small daughter and another child on the way. Recall the perp’s talk of ‘offspring’; again, this only signposts towards an individual familiar with them. Who else could know that they have kids?

Unfortunately, the letter has completely succeeded in intimidating the couple. The man of the house is now driving his wife to and from work every day; his reasoning is that the threat of violence against their ‘offspring’ may include the possibility of an attack on his pregnant wife. The little girl is left in her grandparents’ care whenever the couple are not at home (she is unaware of what happened to the cat, thank goodness). The couple are racking their brains to think of anybody who might have it out for them, but nothing has come to mind so far. They are solid, clean-nosed folks, who up until this point did not have an enemy in the world. The possibility of a family member being the culprit, they say, is preposterous.

If the cat had done anything like root up a neighbour’s flower bed, the issue would have been settled cordially, and with no ill will (no such incident actually took place, by the way). The immediate neighbours are lovely people, who are just as appalled as we are. As G predicted, they have been eager and willing to help; talk of organising a neighbourhood watch is already brewing.

The reason I cited police involvement only as ‘possible’ is because of the sad fact that animal abuse cases, as far as local cops are concerned, are small beer. The couple are presently using the letter’s threat of harm against their kids as grounds for police involvement. They have submitted a report, but it remains to be seen if the cops will hop to it.

Interesting you’d pinpoint the author as being older, Smithy. I’m curious as to why?

Trav, about ‘high rise builds’. You know what? There are two blocks of flats in the area. They have been heavily populated for a long time, though. I’m doubtful if the perp may have committed the crime there due to lack of privacy, but I’ll bring the flats up nevertheless.

Stacy and Entropy bring up a very good analysis regarding the probably singularity of the culprit. The whole "unfortunately, almost no details" crap is weird, yes, and reminds me of Zodiac claiming that he would provide his name in the cipher, only for his claim to be untrue.

I’ll keep you all posted.

Hi guys,

As per my original post, Tahoe, the cat showed up on the owner’s doorstep in a plastic bag, along with the note. It was at death’s door, and is now gone from this world.

Yes, sorry Nacht. I must have been eager to read the letter and missed the part about the veterinarian being able to do anything for it.

I too agree the over-usage of the word "we" just proves the author was just one sicko trying to make it appear as if there was some cat hating cult in the neighborhood.

Note: Edited for clarity and emphasis: 4 Oct 2013

Hi,

I was very impressed to read staceyslaw’s analysis. What I especially like is that every conclusion, conjecture and supposition is indexed to the base information that gave rise to it.

Stacey’s analysis led me to two separate trains of thought: the first has to do with what the author’s style might tell us about the perpetrator’s motivations, and what we can learn from that. The second, near the bottom, is about a clue that suggests to me that the author is not likely of British stock. That is, while he may be very proficient at English, I suspect he may come from a family where another language is spoken.

Observations based on the exaggerratedly high-handed tone of the letter:
Reading that analysis got me thinking more about certain phrases–in particular the following:
1 -“You may not appreciate what we have (was) done"
2 -“Now now, don’t be so hasty to make impulsive decisions in which you may not be able to turn back from."
3 -"Finally, we are reasonable people."

These three help capture overall flavor of the letter as being deliberately high-handed. I say deliberately because the author exaggerates the high-handed overbearing style, as a cruel and domineering teacher might to a helpless student. There is a kind of pseudo-politeness and insincere emphasis on reasonability that underscores an obviously mocking tone.

I think there is something we can learn from this and would like to explore some possible conclusions in the discussion below. The question that interests me is:

What is the driving motivation of the author that leads him (male assumed) to choose to write in this particular style?

I will offer are 3 possible answers, some occasional thoughts on how this may or may not help the investigation, and my conclusions:

First possible motivation: revenge against a perceived oppressor
One possibility is that he is taking revenge for similar (perceived) behavior on the part of the recipient at an earlier time.

In other words, the author once felt himself to have been on the receiving end of similar high-handedness from the cat’s owner and is now taking this opportunity to turn the tables. The exaggerated tone, then, is a form of gloating and mocking aimed at the recipient specifically because the power to cause hurt has shifted and the roles have now been reversed.

This above quoted phrases would seem to me very consistent with this theme. They might then be echoes of discussions that the cat’s owner once had with the author of the letter–words that are now being thrown back in the author’s face.

If this happens to be true, then it might be possible to identify the perpetrator–provided that the cat owner happens to remember some conversation (one or more) that reflects, however distortedly, similar words to these (or possibly other) phrases spoken to some other person, most likely a person in a subordinate station.

The matter of the superior-subordinate. relationship is very important here. Unfortunately, I do not know much about social hierarchies in Singapore. Since it has both British and Chinese influences, along with many others, i assume the variations may be a bit more complex than what we are used to in North America. Consequently, I will not even try to enumerate the possible relationships beyond adult-child, teacher-student, employer-employee, host-guest and perhaps master-servant.
If there was some conversation, or collection of conversations that left the author feeling a need for retaliation, they might have taken place with anybody who fits within any of these relationship types, or any others that might happen to make sense within the Singaporean social context.

Second possible motivation: revenge, but against nobody in particular
A second possibility is similar to the first in that the author has experienced being on the subordinate end of such conversations and didn’t like it–perhaps he was truly treated in a condescending or cruel manner, or possibly he is inclined to be oversensitive to such treatment. In either case, his goal would be to avenge himself, not on the actual person or persons who purportedly caused this pain, but on the world at large–by deflecting his thirst for vengeance on some individual that he feels capable of dominating.

In this second case, there are two possible causes for his selection of victim:
1) either the victim (the human, not the cat) was chosen because they remind him of his perceived oppressors, or
2) because the author perceived the victim as merely being weak and vulnerable enough to dominate.

If it was because the victim reminded the author of a perceived oppressor, then it may be that the victim occupies a similar role to the perceived oppressor–perhaps a similar job, or other responsibilty.

On the other hand, if the victim was chosen because of perceived weakness (or vulnerability) only, it may be as simple as somebody who the cat owner/victim was kind to. Of course, there could be many other reasons. What is important is that the perpetrator likely had some opportunity to assess the victim as being vulnerable emotionally. It is not clear how much observation would be required for the perpetrator to decide that the particular victim chosen was weak or emotionally vulnerable.

The perpetrator may have observed the victim for some time, or they may have made a summary observation as trivial as having noticed that the victim had been kind or generous. It is my understanding that kindness and generosity are often perceived as weakness by some predator-minded types.

In the this case, the author would also have assessed the potential victim as being physically vulnerable-meaning that the physical setting of his property and his routine would make it easy to carry out his attack.

Third possible motivation: not revenge, but the mere desire to cause hurt
A third possibility is that he did not launch this attack as revenge for any real or perceived bad experiences linked to having been a person of lower station. At least, that would not be a significant motivator for this attack, beyond him being overly sensitive to having anybody have authority over him. This case is motivated primarily by the desire to cause hurt.

In this case, the style of language used was an effort to establish dominance, not a reflection of some past relationship.

Also, by the logic of this third case, it seems to me, he might almost pick anybody as his victim. He may have had reason to dislike the person he selected, but, similar to an earlier variation previously mentioned, the dominant driving considerations in his selection of victim would have been his assesment that the person is likely to be both emotionally weak or vulnerable and also vulnerable with regards to the physical setting of their property.

In this latter case, I am not confident that we can say that the victim would have known the author well. The most that I would suggest is that the author had sufficient opportunity to assess the two most important criteria for the attack: emotional vulnerability and physical vulnerability. As mentioned earlier, the assessment of emotional vulnerability may have been a quick summary based on a single observation of something as trivial as kindness, or empathy. As for the assessment of physical vulnerability, if the perpetrator was acting out of the desire to hurt, and not other significant motivation, he might very well have come from another neighborhood altogether, much as burglars tend to choose neighborhoods that represent lower risk.

(Intuitively, I suspect the perpetrator was already familiar with this neighborhood, either because he lived or worked there, or visited often, but that is intuition, not something I can back up with reasons.)

My conclusions: which motivation do I consider most likely, why, and what does this tell us?:
My personal bias is towards option 3. I do feel option 1 is also good contender because the phrases that I quoted above suggest to me the possibilty that they are the distorted echoes of words that were previously used on themselves at some earlier time that are now being thrown back in the former perceived oppressor’s face.

All that said, why do I favor option 3?

From what I have read in the past, it is my understanding that people with psychopathic tendencies (or at least those subtypes that evolve–or devolve–into perpetrators of violence) are reputed to progress through somewhat typical stages of development. (I do not have a citation for this belief, so please correct me if you know otherwise.) One of the earliest of those stages is often manifested in taking pleasure by hurting helpless animals. This usually starts in youth, by my understanding. Then later, as the individual grows older, there is a progression towards violence towards people. And, in many cases, escalation to murder.

Although I am skeptical about such formulaic sounding approaches to psychology, in this case, the author seems to me to me to be a surprisingly good fit for this paradigm (assuming I have the model correct, or nearly so). If that is true, then his motivations should correspond to possibilty number three, as described above.

In that case, the hurting of animals is an important feature of the progression. The revenge explanations do little to account for why an animal would be involved, so I am inclined to believe the prime motive is not revenge, merely the pleasure of inflicting pain, and any revenge motive is incidental. Thus, revenge is not a necessary factor. If it plays any role, it would be best to assume a minor one. The desire to inflict both physical and emotional pain is the predominant motive.

What can we learn from the third motivation?

If the third motivation is what drives the perpetrator, then I think we should assume that this individual will continue to develop according to the paradigm until such time as better information says otherwise. From that standpoint then, I think we should assume that the attack on the cat and the letter–the letter being a conduit for an emotional assault–together represent evidence of the author developing his confidence and level of sophistication in carrying out coordinated physical and emotional attacks. And furthermore, the author is likely progressing towards more serious violence directed towards humans sometime in the future–which will likely be coordinated with an emotional attack.

If this progression model is accurate, then we may also be able to assign a likely age range based on studies that suggest typical age ranges for the stages that these types go through. I believe I have read of such studies in the past. Unfortunately, my quick check on the Internet did not turn one up, but perhaps one of you might be familiar with some.

Anyway, as alluded elsewhere, such motives would almost certainly require him to seek ways to bask in his deeds, and to revel in the pain he causes others, both the original victims and there loved ones in the aftermath. This means witnessing the pain he causes as directly as possible. This is a feature that should be paid attention to as it suggests the question, "How will the perpetrator need to act in order to directly witness the anguish of loved ones?" It may be possible to anticipate future behavior.

New topic: Signs the author may not have not been of British stock:
Finally, I would like to put forth one more observation, again having to do with one of the quotes above, which I will repeat here:

“Now now, don’t be so hasty to make impulsive decisions in which you may not be able to turn back from."

When I read this sentence earlier, it struck me as odd, but I didn’t have time to think about it. When I read the above sentence, it sounds to my ear as though there are two things slightly odd about it:

1) If I were writing something similar, I would have felt compelled to write something like, "…don’t be so hasty AS to make impulsive decisions…"
2) He gets tied up with the clause, "in which you may not be able to turn back from"

The author appears to be experiencing a slight awkwardness with the handling of prepositions. Prepositions usage is one of the toughest aspects of a second language to master and this is an area where even very advanced speakers of a second language will trip up.

Together these two mistakes suggest to me that, although they have a good command of the language, English may be a second language–at least within the family. The first oddity is even more telling than the second, in my opinion.

That said, I would defer to Nachtsider’s sense of language habits in Singapore. In areas where many linguistic groups are mixed together, an outsider’s sensibilities may be quite unreliable.

Anyway, that’s my take.

Thank you

G

Regarding the use of the word "we": while it is not impossible that the author meant to imply that there was more than one person involved, I think it is more likely he had simply intended it as the "royal we" because it matched and helped heighten the overall high-handed and pompous mocking tone of the letter.

Found this webpage discussing this very disturbing case.

Also a transcript of the letter:

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1nd1qf/

It is highly advised you read this letter before opening the little present before you. As you are well aware, your resident cat that you have been taking care of has disappeared. Small surprise though, as cats aren’t fit for domestication after all. We do hope you aren’t emotionally attached to it. You may not appreciate what we have done, albeit it was all in good will. Now, curiosity may get the better of you at this moment and if you are unable to contain it no further please go ahead and open it.

Your Concerned Neighbours

Not really any comments worth reading on there, IMO. Mostly people saying how they feel about it…not good. The only proactive tip is to check the printer paper for identification for serial numbers to track down the printer…watching too much CSI.

Good work digging though, TF.

Interesting you’d pinpoint the author as being older, Smithy. I’m curious as to why?

Hey Nacht, I said "a bit older" – not very precise, huh?

As I wrote earlier – not a young kid IMO, since:
– these "experiments" were leisurely – he had time, privacy and a space in which to do this. And a bathtub.
– the letter betrays some sophistication of language I’d say is teenage at the youngest. (G’s observation about prepositions usage is good.)

The new details about the famliy being targeted are revealing. Yes, the perp lives right there and knows all the "intimate detail", as you say. He has probably offered some sympathy to them, to get close enough to enjoy their discomfort. He also gained access to the cat to capture it, and returned it, unseen, so fits the area and the landscape very well. Since the cat was female, he probably can’t look out of the window at this couple’s house, but he’s not far away. I would be looking for a late-teens or young 20’s cat-owning guy who lives alone, has a cat flap, has been sympathetic and doesn’t naturally make a good suspect. MAYBE a couple, but that would be much less likely. (If it’s a couple, they are childless.) I don’t think the family are in any danger whatever, but I dont think they should replace their cat just yet. If they do, they should get a big male one.

Cats can be cute and adorable at home (I am told ) and a terror away loud 2-3 am mating fights outside your window , urine all over a house exterior ,bird carcus on the lawn , fleas

but this seems to be the worst side effect

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cat-poop- … 4B11194722

That does explain your point of view better, Smithy, thanks. I’m still not sure where all this…

Since the cat was female, he probably can’t look out of the window at this couple’s house, but he’s not far away. I would be looking for a late-teens or young 20’s cat-owning guy who lives alone, has a cat flap, has been sympathetic and doesn’t naturally make a good suspect.

… is coming from, though. Nobody has specified the cat’s sex, and I’m now curious as to why you think the guy may own a cat himself.

The Reddit thread is exactly the opposite of what I want with regards to this case. The thread is full of useless comments. The printer paper thing is the only constructive suggestion, but based on my experience, the likelihood that a Singaporean vendor would keep proper records of serial numbers, customer names and so on is very, very low.

Good theory regarding the use of the ‘royal we’, G. It would be consistent with the tremendous ego that the letter writer displays.

Here’s an update.

No progress has been made where finding this guy is concerned, sadly. The police, as I correctly predicted, aren’t doing too much. As I mentioned, animal abuse cases are regarded by Singaporean cops as ‘small beer’. To their credit, the SPCA did a little more; they got together with a number of residents (including a teacher at the local school) and helped make inquiries based on the stuff we’ve put forward here in this thread. That got nowhere, however. Nobody corresponding to our profiles came up on the radar. Still, the whole neighbourhood now knows what to look for in potential suspects.

The neighbourhood watch scheme got the green light, though. It seems to be working well, in light of the fact that nothing’s happened since – perhaps a little too well, in that it could have scared the guy underground, and in light of an incident that happened the day before. A young man seen hurrying along a street that evening with a puppy in his arms got chased several blocks by a group of neighbourhood watchmen armed with sticks and baseball bats, until they managed to determine that the pup was his own, and that he was bringing it home after it absconded – in fact, he himself was worried that the perp may have abducted his pet, and the only reason he ran from the watchmen was panic/flight-or-fight. The boy’s been checked out, by the way – he’s clean. To his credit, he bears the neighbourhood watch no ill-will, and is actually glad that they’re so on the ball.

The cat owners are less afraid now. Their routines have more or less gone back to normal. The man of the house is on record as saying: "We can’t live in fear forever. We’ve got to move on." He sounded quite bitter when he said that, though. The wounds are evidently going to take some time to heal.

For my part, I’m happy that this guy may have been kept in check. But I still fear that one day, long after the current hoo-hah has died down, a kid is going to show up dead with a similar note pinned to the corpse. Let’s hope that day never comes.

If anything changes, I’ll give you guys a heads-up. Thank you so much for helping out, everyone.

That does explain your point of view better, Smithy, thanks. I’m still not sure where all this…

Since the cat was female, he probably can’t look out of the window at this couple’s house, but he’s not far away. I would be looking for a late-teens or young 20’s cat-owning guy who lives alone, has a cat flap, has been sympathetic and doesn’t naturally make a good suspect.

… is coming from, though. Nobody has specified the cat’s sex, and I’m now curious as to why you think the guy may own a cat himself.

The cat’s sex is mentioned in the letter – which I very cleverly read. Elementary!
If you’d like me to go through the rest with ya, PM me. I know a lot about cats. I’m a pet detective!
I repeat – the guy who did this won’t be murdering any kids soon IMO. He’s not secretive – or sick – enough.

That does explain your point of view better, Smithy, thanks. I’m still not sure where all this…

Since the cat was female, he probably can’t look out of the window at this couple’s house, but he’s not far away. I would be looking for a late-teens or young 20’s cat-owning guy who lives alone, has a cat flap, has been sympathetic and doesn’t naturally make a good suspect.

… is coming from, though. Nobody has specified the cat’s sex, and I’m now curious as to why you think the guy may own a cat himself.

The cat’s sex is mentioned in the letter – which I very cleverly read. Elementary!
If you’d like me to go through the rest with ya, PM me. I know a lot about cats. I’m a pet detective!
I repeat – the guy who did this won’t be murdering any kids soon IMO. He’s not secretive – or sick – enough.

"Since the cat was female, he probably can’t look out of the window at this couple’s house, but he’s not far away."

But if the cat was male, he could? Help me to understand this.

Nope!
Have PM’d you.

Nope!
Have PM’d you.

thx smithy!

I know it’s been a good three years since I approached you guys for help regarding this case.

But I promised you an update if any was forthcoming, and here I am, making good on that promise.

Between November 2013 and May of this year, a heartbreaking 25 cat killings took place within a roughly 5 kilometer radius of the neighbourhood where the first slaying happened.

Interestingly, no more took place in the original neighbourhood itself.

The killings peaked in September 2015, with 4 occurring over a 2 day period, and October 2015, with 7 occurring over a 12 day period.

Six of the killings that took place during the September-October period were geographically clustered within a housing estate to the northwest of the original neighbourhood; the rest were scattered quite widely.

Apart from this spike in activity, the killings were otherwise quite sporadic incidents.

Unlike in the first case, all the subsequent victims were strays.

No taunting letters or notes of any kind accompanied the subsequent killings.

Only three involved prolonged torture like the first killing did, but even then, it was nowhere as extensive (two bled to death after having their limbs amputated, and the third was garrotted after being subjected to facial mutilation).

The others were killed by quick, messy, blunt-force trauma – some from being beaten, but a fair number of them due to being thrown from a great height.

The sole joker in the pack was a case where the animal was poisoned with weed killer.

Most were found in public areas close to blocks of flats (footpaths, open air car parks, storm drains, back alleys, playgrounds), with the exceptions being the poisoned cat and the strangled one, which were found WITHIN blocks of flats (on a lift landing and on a void deck, respectively).

Except for one case where two badly beaten carcasses were found together, all involved lone victims.

Of note was that the six clustered northwest killings, which included the double killing, all involved death by beating.

As with the original case, the SPCA was involved, and local neighbourhood watch groups were mobilised, but the breadth of the area involved initially made coordination difficult, and this effort only hit its stride in November 2015.

Hearteningly, two arrests were made as a result of the citizen patrols – one in December of 2015, and the other in late January of this year.

The first culprit was a boy in his late teens who was discovered admiring his handiwork after throwing the cat over the parapet of the 13th floor of the flat where he lived.

His excuse was that he ‘wondered what it was like to kill something’.

His punishment was two weeks in a juvenile detention centre.

The second culprit was a man in his mid-thirties who was caught dumping the bludgeoned carcass of his victim in a ditch near his home in the wee hours of the morning.

His excuse was that he had killed the animal for ‘making a nightly racket and depriving me of sleep’.

He was slapped with 18 months’ probation and a fine that went well into five figures.

Both culprits were not known to one another, and could only be linked to the dead animals they were caught with.

As noted above, the killings continued after these arrests, before eventually petering out and stopping.

Troublingly, residents of the area where the six clustered northwest killings took place say they strongly suspect a ‘very troubled and violent’ local youth as being responsible for all six, if not more, but have not been able to gather enough evidence against him.

He has no connection to the two arrested culprits.

The owners of the very first cat to be killed are not familiar with any of the three miscreants.