Known Victims: Keith Call and Sandra Hailey

[tosh]

May 7, 2021 13:31:17 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 1, 2021 18:16:53 GMT mustangman said:

The more I look at the Keith/Sandra case, I keep wondering if Keith's brother Chris might have been the killers intended target? Keith's car was always out in front of his parents house where both Keith & Chris lived and the killer might have thought the red Toyota was Chris'?  Maybe the killer saw Keith & Chris in the red Toyota when they went to the store for the beer that night and followed them back to their home?  The night Keith went out with Sandra he was wearing clothes that Chris had given him to wear, maybe the killer thought it was Chris?

I also feel that the placement of Keith's car on the parkway was to taunt Chris, the killer knew Chris would be driving early morning on the Parkway.  It also happens that Keith's dad also drove the Parkway that morning. How would the killer have known this if he wasn't familiar with the Call family?  The placement of the car on the Parkway in an area where Keith's dad & brother would see it is not by chance.   Maybe the killer knew the Call family and the roads that Mr. Call & Chris drove too & from work and placed Keith's car on the Parkway to be found by them!

But wouldn't the killer have known the difference between Chris and Keith, especially if Chris was his target? And even though Chris lent Keith some clothes, wasn't Keith driving his own car, with license plates indicating the car was his? Also, Chris was older than Keith; there's a marked difference in body appearance between even similar-looking siblings of different ages. It doesn't jive that that the killer would have chased around a car with someone else's tags to kill that person's brother. If there was stalking (following on roads, etc as opposed to lurking in nature areas) and if Liberty Security was the link amongst the victims, chances are that Cassandra was more likely to have been the target.

As far as placement of the car on the Parkway, that may just have been convenient for the killer to get away from, because of its isolation. In my opinion, he didn't even have to know when/if the Calls would be on that road. Lots and lots of locals have used that road since it was built; it saves time when driving to Williamsburg and avoiding traffic congestion. That's likely why Chris was on the road driving back from Richmond, and why Mr. Call drove that route to work. Lots of people working at Busch did, and Busch is a huge employer.

Fossilnerd, is there a footpath on the George Coleman Bridge to walk across it? If so, is it one of those where it’s kind of obscured by a fence from the traffic so a pedestrian walking along wouldn’t be seen by a car on the road? I know it doesn’t sound like the most sensible or least risky of options but I wonder if the killer could have walked the few miles away from the vehicle down to the Bridge and walked across it. Maybe the killer lived on the Gloucester side of the river. I think of that due to the lady who picked the hitchhiker up from the Gloucester end of the bridge and was assaulted by him the morning after Cathy and Becky’s murder.

[fossilnerd]

May 7, 2021 18:07:20 GMT tosh said:

May 7, 2021 13:31:17 GMT fossilnerd said:

But wouldn't the killer have known the difference between Chris and Keith, especially if Chris was his target? And even though Chris lent Keith some clothes, wasn't Keith driving his own car, with license plates indicating the car was his? Also, Chris was older than Keith; there's a marked difference in body appearance between even similar-looking siblings of different ages. It doesn't jive that that the killer would have chased around a car with someone else's tags to kill that person's brother. If there was stalking (following on roads, etc as opposed to lurking in nature areas) and if Liberty Security was the link amongst the victims, chances are that Cassandra was more likely to have been the target.

As far as placement of the car on the Parkway, that may just have been convenient for the killer to get away from, because of its isolation. In my opinion, he didn't even have to know when/if the Calls would be on that road. Lots and lots of locals have used that road since it was built; it saves time when driving to Williamsburg and avoiding traffic congestion. That's likely why Chris was on the road driving back from Richmond, and why Mr. Call drove that route to work. Lots of people working at Busch did, and Busch is a huge employer.

Fossilnerd, is there a footpath on the George Coleman Bridge to walk across it? If so, is it one of those where it’s kind of obscured by a fence from the traffic so a pedestrian walking along wouldn’t be seen by a car on the road? I know it doesn’t sound like the most sensible or least risky of options but I wonder if the killer could have walked the few miles away from the vehicle down to the Bridge and walked across it. Maybe the killer lived on the Gloucester side of the river. I think of that due to the lady who picked the hitchhiker up from the Gloucester end of the bridge and was assaulted by him the morning after Cathy and Becky’s murder.

Hi Tosh,
No, the Coleman Bridge doesn't have a pedestrian walkway. That's not to say someone couldn't have walked along it, but if they did they'd be conspicuous. The bridge is a mile across. There's also a "house" at the top for workers; the bridge has to be opened sometimes because of the military ships passing through, and the bridge operators handle that. I'm not sure if pedestrians are prohibited on the bridge or not, but if they are it's likely the operators would have seen and perhaps called police.

[tosh]

May 8, 2021 12:56:26 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 7, 2021 18:07:20 GMT tosh said:

Fossilnerd, is there a footpath on the George Coleman Bridge to walk across it? If so, is it one of those where it’s kind of obscured by a fence from the traffic so a pedestrian walking along wouldn’t be seen by a car on the road? I know it doesn’t sound like the most sensible or least risky of options but I wonder if the killer could have walked the few miles away from the vehicle down to the Bridge and walked across it. Maybe the killer lived on the Gloucester side of the river. I think of that due to the lady who picked the hitchhiker up from the Gloucester end of the bridge and was assaulted by him the morning after Cathy and Becky’s murder.

Hi Tosh,
No, the Coleman Bridge doesn't have a pedestrian walkway. That's not to say someone couldn't have walked along it, but if they did they'd be conspicuous. The bridge is a mile across. There's also a "house" at the top for workers; the bridge has to be opened sometimes because of the military ships passing through, and the bridge operators handle that. I'm not sure if pedestrians are prohibited on the bridge or not, but if they are it's likely the operators would have seen and perhaps called police.

Ah that’s good to know I’ll scratch the pedestrian walking across the bridge theory, unlikely as it was anyway. We went under the bridge on a boat trip but I would love to have seen it open up for the tall ships it looks very cool.

[fossilnerd]

May 8, 2021 13:10:58 GMT tosh said:

May 8, 2021 12:56:26 GMT fossilnerd said:

Hi Tosh,
No, the Coleman Bridge doesn't have a pedestrian walkway. That's not to say someone couldn't have walked along it, but if they did they'd be conspicuous. The bridge is a mile across. There's also a "house" at the top for workers; the bridge has to be opened sometimes because of the military ships passing through, and the bridge operators handle that. I'm not sure if pedestrians are prohibited on the bridge or not, but if they are it's likely the operators would have seen and perhaps called police.

Ah that’s good to know I’ll scratch the pedestrian walking across the bridge theory, unlikely as it was anyway. We went under the bridge on a boat trip but I would love to have seen it open up for the tall ships it looks very cool.

It's a beautiful bridge, for sure. It's cool to see it open and watch the ships (and even some really tall private boats) go through. I guess someone could walk the bridge, but it's certainly not a regular thing. I think that before it was expanded to 4 lanes there used to be a raised area at least on the side with the operator's stairs, but I'm not positive. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's possible that the operator has to walk the bridge to get to work.

[mustangman]

May 7, 2021 13:31:17 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 1, 2021 18:16:53 GMT mustangman said:

The more I look at the Keith/Sandra case, I keep wondering if Keith's brother Chris might have been the killers intended target? Keith's car was always out in front of his parents house where both Keith & Chris lived and the killer might have thought the red Toyota was Chris'?  Maybe the killer saw Keith & Chris in the red Toyota when they went to the store for the beer that night and followed them back to their home?  The night Keith went out with Sandra he was wearing clothes that Chris had given him to wear, maybe the killer thought it was Chris?

I also feel that the placement of Keith's car on the parkway was to taunt Chris, the killer knew Chris would be driving early morning on the Parkway.  It also happens that Keith's dad also drove the Parkway that morning. How would the killer have known this if he wasn't familiar with the Call family?  The placement of the car on the Parkway in an area where Keith's dad & brother would see it is not by chance.   Maybe the killer knew the Call family and the roads that Mr. Call & Chris drove too & from work and placed Keith's car on the Parkway to be found by them!

But wouldn't the killer have known the difference between Chris and Keith, especially if Chris was his target? And even though Chris lent Keith some clothes, wasn't Keith driving his own car, with license plates indicating the car was his? Also, Chris was older than Keith; there's a marked difference in body appearance between even similar-looking siblings of different ages. It doesn't jive that that the killer would have chased around a car with someone else's tags to kill that person's brother. If there was stalking (following on roads, etc as opposed to lurking in nature areas) and if Liberty Security was the link amongst the victims, chances are that Cassandra was more likely to have been the target.

As far as placement of the car on the Parkway, that may just have been convenient for the killer to get away from, because of its isolation. In my opinion, he didn't even have to know when/if the Calls would be on that road. Lots and lots of locals have used that road since it was built; it saves time when driving to Williamsburg and avoiding traffic congestion. That's likely why Chris was on the road driving back from Richmond, and why Mr. Call drove that route to work. Lots of people working at Busch did, and Busch is a huge employer.

You base some of your assumption on the killer was someone in LE who could quickly get all the info on who the car was registered too.  I am not saying it was someone in LE, but maybe it was someone who had an axe to grind against the Call family and this person wouldn't have access to info on who owned which car parked out front of the Call home.  If the killer was someone who worked at Liberty, he may have wanted to target both Keith/Sandra, because if he couldn't have her, no one would.  We really don't see any proof that Sandra was the killers intended target.  In short, we really cant say which victim in any of the CPK murders was the "intended" victim, I am keeping an open mind and trying to throw out a few curve ball theories.

You say that the placement of the car on the Parkway as being "convenient for the killer", well we've discussed that this is clearly not the case, since the Parkway is a dark somewhat remote location and if the killer had a car hidden on the parkway near where he dropped off Cathy & Keith's cars, this would've been risking being caught or seen. or he had no car and parked the victims cars and walked away from the scene also risking being seen or caught.  or he had an accomplice that followed him to the parkway and gave him a ride after dropping off the vehicles?  or as some have said he may have had a boat stashed under a bridge on the parkway as his means of escape, this also risked being seen?  or he was LE and pulled over the victims where their cars were found, except most in LE believe that Cathy/Becky were murdered elsewhere on the parkway and their car with the bodies were moved to Cheatham Annex and an attempt to light the vehicle on fire was made and when that failed the killer or killers pushed the car over the embankment, so in this case it seems unlikely that someone in LE killed Cathy/Becky due to the extended amount of time the killer spent at the Annex with Cathy's car, then he would've risked being seen walking back to his get away vehicle which was perhaps a long distance from the Annex? 

Not many of these scenarios is very "convenient for the killer", with exception to the theories of the killer having an accomplice or he simply walked away from the scenes without a get away vehicle, but these also had their risks of being seen?

Yes a lot of people drove the parkway too & from work, but what makes the placement of Keith's' car on the Parkway so curious is that it was placed out in the open very near the road where no one would miss seeing it, especially his Dad & brother that morning.  IMO this is more than just a longshot coincidence.    

[fossilnerd]

May 8, 2021 15:46:04 GMT mustangman said:

May 7, 2021 13:31:17 GMT fossilnerd said:

But wouldn't the killer have known the difference between Chris and Keith, especially if Chris was his target? And even though Chris lent Keith some clothes, wasn't Keith driving his own car, with license plates indicating the car was his? Also, Chris was older than Keith; there's a marked difference in body appearance between even similar-looking siblings of different ages. It doesn't jive that that the killer would have chased around a car with someone else's tags to kill that person's brother. If there was stalking (following on roads, etc as opposed to lurking in nature areas) and if Liberty Security was the link amongst the victims, chances are that Cassandra was more likely to have been the target.

As far as placement of the car on the Parkway, that may just have been convenient for the killer to get away from, because of its isolation. In my opinion, he didn't even have to know when/if the Calls would be on that road. Lots and lots of locals have used that road since it was built; it saves time when driving to Williamsburg and avoiding traffic congestion. That's likely why Chris was on the road driving back from Richmond, and why Mr. Call drove that route to work. Lots of people working at Busch did, and Busch is a huge employer.

You base some of your assumption on the killer was someone in LE who could quickly get all the info on who the car was registered too.  I am not saying it was someone in LE, but maybe it was someone who had an axe to grind against the Call family and this person wouldn't have access to info on who owned which car parked out front of the Call home.  If the killer was someone who worked at Liberty, he may have wanted to target both Keith/Sandra, because if he couldn't have her, no one would.  We really don't see any proof that Sandra was the killers intended target.  In short, we really cant say which victim in any of the CPK murders was the "intended" victim, I am keeping an open mind and trying to throw out a few curve ball theories.

You say that the placement of the car on the Parkway as being "convenient for the killer", well we've discussed that this is clearly not the case, since the Parkway is a dark somewhat remote location and if the killer had a car hidden on the parkway near where he dropped off Cathy & Keith's cars, this would've been risking being caught or seen. or he had no car and parked the victims cars and walked away from the scene also risking being seen or caught.  or he had an accomplice that followed him to the parkway and gave him a ride after dropping off the vehicles?  or as some have said he may have had a boat stashed under a bridge on the parkway as his means of escape, this also risked being seen?  or he was LE and pulled over the victims where their cars were found, except most in LE believe that Cathy/Becky were murdered elsewhere on the parkway and their car with the bodies were moved to Cheatham Annex and an attempt to light the vehicle on fire was made and when that failed the killer or killers pushed the car over the embankment, so in this case it seems unlikely that someone in LE killed Cathy/Becky due to the extended amount of time the killer spent at the Annex with Cathy's car, then he would've risked being seen walking back to his get away vehicle which was perhaps a long distance from the Annex? 

Not many of these scenarios is very "convenient for the killer", with exception to the theories of the killer having an accomplice or he simply walked away from the scenes without a get away vehicle, but these also had their risks of being seen?

Yes a lot of people drove the parkway too & from work, but what makes the placement of Keith's' car on the Parkway so curious is that it was placed out in the open very near the road where no one would miss seeing it, especially his Dad & brother that morning.  IMO this is more than just a longshot coincidence.    

I reckon anything could be true. After all, at this point, only the killer knows what he did. It's been >30 years and no progress.

We don't know why the car was left on the Parkway. But Cathy's car was also left on the Parkway. Related or not, it's some sort of connection. The Parkway is isolated. If the killer wanted to get away unnoticed after killing people, he wouldn't be likely to have done abduction, killing, etc., on a more populated space.

My point about the killer targeting Chris was that if he was targeting Chris, it's unlikely that he stalked Keith. Also, as indicated in previous discussions, Keith's car had personalized license tags. And it's my understanding that Chris did not live with his parents. I believe the reports indicated that Keith stopped at Chris's, where he borrowed the clothes, and Chris bought Keith some brew.

[tosh]

The following quote is taken from an article in The Daily Press, 15th October 1986. It’s about Ranger Clyde Yee arresting a man who later suffered a heart attack at York County Jail where he had been taken by Yee.(I’ve posted the full article in the Yee thread)

“Yee believed the car's registration and license tags did not match.”

I’m just wondering if Keith’s vanity plates may have given someone in LE or pretending to be LE the opportunity to pull him over that night under the pretence of checking that his registration and vanity plates matched.

[cleopatra]

Throughout my research and as I continue to analyze this particular crime, no matter what, it seems, I always circle right back to this post of trabuco:

Oct 11, 2018 at 7:59pm trabuco said:

If you think about what Hoth said earlier how the killer most likely brought their clothes back and placed them in their car. I think he did this so that nothing could ever be found in his possession that belonged to the victims. Nothing to link him to his victims.

Then you have to think about Keith Call's dad spotting Keith's car that morning on the Colonial Parkway. Dad stopped and looked inside the car but he didn't see any clothes. Their clothes were taken by Park Rangers or other LE personnel and brought back and placed in the car by the Park Rangers and / or other Law Enforcement personnel. If Keith's dad had not stopped that morning and looked inside of Keith's car we would be none the wiser. We would have another case where the victim's clothes were found in their vehicle not knowing how they got there. If the Park Rangers thought the couple had been victimized then wouldn't they consider the vehicle and everything in it to the crime scene? Tow the car in just as found then start your investigation. Don't remove the clothes and only the clothes, which happen to be what victims had to cover their bodies therefore go with the bodies wherever the bodies go.

When the clothes come back and the bodies don't then I don't care what their story is, I'm looking into whoever took those clothes. 

So, who would bring victims clothes back and place them in their vehicle?

[cleopatra]

Sept 11, 2020 1:12:30 GMT fossilnerd said:

Sept 11, 2020 0:13:33 GMT cleopatra said:

I like mustang’s theory that the killer could  have returned to the car after Mr. Call left if he had a strong reason to go there. The killer wouldn’t have risked going in the daylight unless he HAD to.  The killer could have realized he left his gray jacket in the car.  Maybe his keys or wallet were in the pocket.  Maybe the jacket had a work patch or name tag on it.

If this was the case, right after Mr. Call left the CPK could have pulled up.  He scattered the clothes and other personal items throughout the car. He threw Keith’s wallet on the back seat.  He placed the key in the ignition.  He then grabbed his gray jacket and two of the beers and left, leaving the door wide open.  Shortly after, a park ranger pulled up.

 

Well, the ranger SAID he pulled up at 7:15-7:30, but I don't believe him. I think he was at that car way before he admitted to having been.

If the ranger was at the car before Mr. Call. and that was when he took the clothes, why did he leave the door slightly ajar and unlocked?  

It's all so bizarre.  

This same ranger who removed the clothes was then working at Shenandoah in 1996 during those murders.

[cleopatra]

Once again I wonder....

If the ranger/rangers thought the kids went skinny dipping, what did he/they expect them to wear when they got back to their car?

BTW, Chris Call said that no one from the NPS ever called or contacted the FBI about the crime.  A few days after the disappearance, an FBI agent heard about it on the radio.  That agent reported it to his colleagues, afterwhich the FBI contacted the NPS.

[cleopatra]

[cleopatra]

There was an unopened package of condoms laying on the opened door of the glove compartment of David Knobling's truck.  Just like in Keith's car.  

The condomsin Keith's car are RED.  Can't see the brand name.  I wonder what brand of condoms were found in David's truck, and if the package was RED.

[tosh]

Apr 25, 2021 10:53:09 GMT fossilnerd said:

Apr 25, 2021 8:28:55 GMT cleopatra said:

Maybe that's why only one beer was left behind.  The 2 unopened cans were taken.

What does Mr. Call remember seeing...not according to Pardoe, but according to either the Oxygen discussions or the Daily Press? Also does Mr. Call indicate whether they're full or empty?

I eventually found an article focusing on what Keith’s Father saw from a newspaper in Tennessee of all places. No mention of the beers unfortunately. Always useful to see what was reported at the time though. Kingsport Times, Sunday 17th April, 1988.

[fossilnerd]

May 10, 2021 16:59:17 GMT tosh said:

Apr 25, 2021 10:53:09 GMT fossilnerd said:

What does Mr. Call remember seeing...not according to Pardoe, but according to either the Oxygen discussions or the Daily Press? Also does Mr. Call indicate whether they're full or empty?

I eventually found an article focusing on what Keith’s Father saw from an newspaper in Tennessee of all places. No mention of the beers unfortunately. Always useful to see what was reported at the time though. Kingsport Times, Sunday 17th April, 1988.
View Attachment

Ok. Then that means the ranger had possession of their clothes at some point between when they were abducted/killed and 7am, when Mr. Call saw Keith's car.

This is what I think:

1. Keith & Cassandra were abducted between 1:30 am and when Chris saw his brother's car on the Parkway.

---Chris saw the van pull out of Ringfield Picnic area, drive very fast, and make a turn into where Keith's car was parked (was this at 2:30am or 4am? There seem to be different statements on this amongst the posts here).

2. Mr. Call saw no clothes strewn about at 7am, but ranger shows photos of clothing strewn about at 9.

---Because returning to the scene immediately would have been risky for a killer who's trying to not get caught, it seems unlikely he'd have been the one who returned the clothes.... UNLESS he's a ranger.

---If the killer is a ranger, that would explain why he had the clothes, and why the NPS lied about having/not having been to the car that morning and removing the clothes. They lied; that's enough to doubt every bit of information (except photography) from them concerning the matter.

---Mr. Call even had hypnotism done to make sure he was remembering the car's contents correctly, since the NPS said that the ranger stopped at the car right after Mr. Call, and the ranger removed clothes.

If I were investigating the case, I'd have looked at the rangers connected, because given everything, I think that it would have been a ranger (either on or off duty) who killed them.

Here's how I see the timeline (please correct times, if they're incorrect):

1:30 am - Keith and Cassandra leave party in NN

2:30 am - Chris Call sees Keith's car on the Parkway, dome light on

2:30 am - Chris Call sees a van pull out of Ringfield, speed, and turn in to where Keith's car was.

7:00 am - Mr. Call sees Keith's car on Parkway, door ajar, front seat forward, watch on dash, purse, grey jacket folded behind driver's seat, NO other clothes.

7:00 am - Mr. Call calls for Keith, then closes the door.

7:15/7:30 am - Ranger CLAIMS (only several days after the fact, and after lying about it) to have found Keith's car, door ajar, keys in in ignition, clothes and belongings.

7:15/7:30 am - Ranger CLAIMS to have removed clothes/belongings, saying he was thinking they could be "skinny-dipping" (in April). This claim wasn't admitted to until days later.

9:00 am - Ranger reports car, calls families, returns folded clothes and belongings to car.

Thoughts:

If they thought the car's occupants are skinny-dipping, why remove their clothes?

I think that if the ranger is the killer, he had possession of the clothes the whole time, and only pretended to retrieve them at 9am.

If the ranger isn't the killer, he was still likely driving around with Keith's and Cassandra's clothes, and may have done since the van incident at 2:30 am.

Whether the ranger is the killer or not, he was doing weird things, taking clothes from the car, and lying about the 7:15/7:30 thing.

When there's too much information that's "off" it starts to look bad for the ranger. This doesn't mean that he's definitely the killer, but it does mean he's done illogical things, or that his lies indicate illogical behavior.

[cleopatra]

May 10, 2021 18:24:54 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 10, 2021 16:59:17 GMT tosh said:

I eventually found an article focusing on what Keith’s Father saw from an newspaper in Tennessee of all places. No mention of the beers unfortunately. Always useful to see what was reported at the time though. Kingsport Times, Sunday 17th April, 1988.
View Attachment

Ok. Then that means the ranger had possession of their clothes at some point between when they were abducted/killed and 7am, when Mr. Call saw Keith's car.

This is what I think:

1. Keith & Cassandra were abducted between 1:30 am and when Chris saw his brother's car on the Parkway.

---Chris saw the van pull out of Ringfield Picnic area, drive very fast, and make a turn into where Keith's car was parked (was this at 2:30am or 4am? There seem to be different statements on this amongst the posts here).

2. Mr. Call saw no clothes strewn about at 7am, but ranger shows photos of clothing strewn about at 9.

---Because returning to the scene immediately would have been risky for a killer who's trying to not get caught, it seems unlikely he'd have been the one who returned the clothes.... UNLESS he's a ranger.

---If the killer is a ranger, that would explain why he had the clothes, and why the NPS lied about having/not having been to the car that morning and removing the clothes. They lied; that's enough to doubt every bit of information (except photography) from them concerning the matter.

---Mr. Call even had hypnotism done to make sure he was remembering the car's contents correctly, since the NPS said that the ranger stopped at the car right after Mr. Call, and the ranger removed clothes.

If I were investigating the case, I'd have looked at the rangers connected, because given everything, I think that it would have been a ranger (either on or off duty) who killed them.

Here's how I see the timeline (please correct times, if they're incorrect):

1:30 am - Keith and Cassandra leave party in NN

2:30 am - Chris Call sees Keith's car on the Parkway, dome light on

2:30 am - Chris Call sees a van pull out of Ringfield, speed, and turn in to where Keith's car was.

7:00 am - Mr. Call sees Keith's car on Parkway, door ajar, front seat forward, watch on dash, purse, grey jacket folded behind driver's seat, NO other clothes.

7:00 am - Mr. Call calls for Keith, then closes the door.

7:15/7:30 am - Ranger CLAIMS (only several days after the fact, and after lying about it) to have found Keith's car, door ajar, keys in in ignition, clothes and belongings.

7:15/7:30 am - Ranger CLAIMS to have removed clothes/belongings, saying he was thinking they could be "skinny-dipping" (in April). This claim wasn't admitted to until days later.

9:00 am - Ranger reports car, calls families, returns folded clothes and belongings to car.

Thoughts:

If they thought the car's occupants are skinny-dipping, why remove their clothes?

I think that if the ranger is the killer, he had possession of the clothes the whole time, and only pretended to retrieve them at 9am.

If the ranger isn't the killer, he was still likely driving around with Keith's and Cassandra's clothes, and may have done since the van incident at 2:30 am.

Whether the ranger is the killer or not, he was doing weird things, taking clothes from the car, and lying about the 7:15/7:30 thing.

When there's too much information that's "off" it starts to look bad for the ranger. This doesn't mean that he's definitely the killer, but it does mean he's done illogical things, or that his lies indicate illogical behavior.

The only correction know of is:

2:30 am - Chris Call sees Keith's car on the Parkway, dome light on

2:30 am - Chris Call sees a van pull out of Ringfield, speed, and turn in to where Keith's car was.

Chris saw Keith's car at 4 A.M.