As investigators continue piecing together the events surrounding the Ohio slayings, a central question has emerged: did Michael McKee come to believe — years after his divorce — that his ex-wife and her husband were responsible for a botched surgery, and did that belief become a justification in his own mind?

Authorities are careful in their language, emphasizing that motive is often complex and rarely formed overnight. Still, investigators say they are examining whether delayed resentment, unresolved blame, and perceived professional failure may have converged long after the marriage ended.

According to those familiar with the case, McKee’s divorce occurred nearly eight years before the killings. During that time, both parties moved on with their lives. However, investigators are exploring whether McKee’s internal narrative evolved in ways that were not visible to those around him.

The question is not whether blame existed at the time of the divorce — but whether it intensified later.

Investigators are reviewing professional setbacks, including a surgery that McKee allegedly viewed as having gone wrong. While details of the procedure remain under review, authorities say they are examining whether McKee came to associate responsibility for that failure with his ex-wife and her husband, despite the passage of time.

Psychological experts note that in some cases, unresolved blame can become displaced, attaching itself to personal relationships rather than professional circumstances.

“When accountability is externalized,” one analyst said, “individuals may construct narratives that justify extreme conclusions.”

Authorities stress that no official determination of motive has been made. However, they say understanding McKee’s mindset is critical to reconstructing the sequence of events.

Investigators are also examining whether any statements, communications, or behaviors suggest that McKee revisited old grievances years after the divorce, reframing them through the lens of later frustrations.

Prosecutors are reviewing whether evidence supports the theory that perceived injustice — real or imagined — played a role in the escalation toward violence.

Legal experts caution that motive theories must be supported by corroborated evidence, not speculation. Digital records, witness statements, and behavioral patterns are all being examined to determine whether this belief system existed and, if so, how it evolved.

The passage of time remains a key factor.

“Eight years is significant,” one investigator noted. “That suggests something was festering, not reacting.”

Authorities continue to emphasize that McKee is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The investigation remains ongoing, with no final conclusions announced.

As the case progresses, investigators say they are focused on separating verifiable facts from inferred psychology — while acknowledging that motive often lies at the intersection of both.

The central question persists: when blame is allowed to harden over years, can it transform into justification? And if so, how late is too late to intervene?