The slaying, by knife, of four University of Idaho students has caused great concern and early messaging didn’t help alleviate those concerns.

Early on, the authorities advised that there was no danger to the public. Some assumed that meant this attack, which at the time we didn’t know involved a knife, was possibly a murder-suicide. This would explain why the public wasn’t in danger.

Later we find out those inside the house were indeed victims of the heinous attack and it wasn’t a murder-suicide. That caused some alarm. We were then told that it was a targeted attack and that we were not in danger. It very well may be a targeted attack, but we have not been informed why it is believed to be a targeted attack.

This takes great trust. Some people who have similar demographics as the victims might feel vulnerable. With what appears to be a changing story from authorities, people question whether they are willing to trust their life with what they’re being told.

I fully understand there must be information that is not made public. This is completely expected. We want the killer to be brought to justice. We want a fair trial. We want the guilty person to be found guilty and sentenced in the court of law. All of that means certain information must be kept secret until it’s time to go to court.

Why is there secrecy in this case and not in other homicides? Most of those cases are not like this one. Many times the killer is known, and when the killer is known, the details are usually apparent.

Because the authorities must be secretive and because the early messaging was what it was, people now have a hard time placing complete trust in their hands. On day one, the authorities didn’t know what they could and couldn’t say. They tried to alleviate the fears of the community while not harming the integrity of the investigation. Unfortunately, that is what led to a trust issue.

Whether or not the story actually changed from the perspective of the authorities, it certainly changed in the public sphere.

We went from no danger to the community to a targeted attack of one or more of the victims to being told to be vigilant. With the lack of any additional details, that seems like a change.

A recently released report stated 25-40% of UI students didn’t return to in-person classes after the Thanksgiving break. If there really is no actual danger to the citizens, then this is a failure on the part of the authorities because of communication.

Only the authorities really know if there is nothing to fear because they haven’t given enough details, for good reason, to the public. Unfortunately, this is causing a lack of trust. This caused at least one-quarter of the university population to stay away from Moscow.

Humans are curious creatures, and in the void of facts we will make our own narrative or search for one from someone who claims to know. That leads to misinformation. While I have been very careful to only listen to information released by the authorities involved, I can’t help but to be curious about things that are unclear.

Why should it matter whether we know the missing information? I could make up all sorts of reasons but mainly, people do not like stories without an ending.

There are people living in the area with legitimate concerns. They are young. They may live alone. They have every right to be concerned.

For those of us who shouldn’t feel vulnerable, we need to lay off the authorities and trust they are doing everything by the book. We will get our answers in due time. We must be patient.

Lastly, we have to trust the authorities know what information can and cannot be released to ensure the ending of this story involves the victims getting justice.

Anderson was the co-host and producer of a conservative talk radio show before hanging up the headphones. He has a degree in philosophy and enjoys photography, woodworking, and sports. When not computer programming, he volunteers in the community.