Known Victims: Keith Call and Sandra Hailey

[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 other explanation would be:

Before 7 A.M.
Killer was in possession of clothes after he disposed of the bodies.

Before 7 A.M.
Killer realized he forgot something very important/incriminating in the car (for example - his jacket, which may have had a patch or employer's name on it, OR,  his wallet/keys, which were in the pockets of his gray jacket, etc.).
Killer headed back to the car, clothes in hand.

7:00 A.M.
Mr. Call stopped at car.
The driver's seat was leaning forward.
On the floor behind it was a gray jacket and 3 beers on top of the jacket.
He closed the door and left. 

7:00 A.M. - 7:15 A.M.
Killer returned to car. 
Retrieved his gray jacket.
Grabbed two of the three beers. 
Deposited the clothes.
Then left.
 
7:15 A.M. - 7:30 A.M.
Ranger stopped at car. 
Removed clothes. 
Continued on his patrol route.

9:00 A.M. 
Ranger returned to station.
Ranger looked through red purse.
He found a pocket book with personal checks.
He called the phone number on Cassandra's checks.
Mrs. Call answered the phone.
After speaking with Mrs. Call, the ranger realized the passengers were "missing".
Ranger immediately headed back to car, clothes in hand.
Rangers who were present at the station, followed.
When the ranger reached the car, he re-deposited the clothes.

[tosh]

May 10, 2021 15:10:59 GMT cleopatra said:

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

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.

Keith's car had a key chime, could it be anything to do with that? I found this question in a car forum from someone with a 1980s Toyota. "I got a 1989 Toyota Corolla Gts the chime beeps when key is off and doors are shut.. anyone know how to or where the chime is so I can remove it?" When he says "key is off" I take it he means the key is not in the ignition and the doors are shut? I'm no car buff so could have it wrong. 

[fossilnerd]

May 11, 2021 5:49:23 GMT cleopatra said:

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

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 other explanation would be:

Before 7 A.M.
Killer was in possession of clothes after he disposed of the bodies.

Before 7 A.M.
Killer realized he forgot something very important/incriminating in the car (for example - his jacket, which may have had a patch or employer's name on it, OR,  his wallet/keys, which were in the pockets of his gray jacket, etc.).
Killer headed back to the car, clothes in hand.

7:00 A.M.
Mr. Call stopped at car.
The driver's seat was leaning forward.
On the floor behind it was a gray jacket and 3 beers on top of the jacket.
He closed the door and left. 

7:00 A.M. - 7:15 A.M.
Killer returned to car. 
Retrieved his gray jacket.
Grabbed two of the three beers. 
Deposited the clothes.
Then left.

Here's something I think the killer wouldn't have done, because it would have been a riaky move on a scenic road where people are more likely to have cameras ready.  

UNLESS
---the jacket had identifying information in it or on it...like an embroidered or patched name or workplace. 
---Or maybe it had something in the pockets.  

In this case, it could still have been a ranger.

The beers may have been removed simply because his fingerprints could have been on the beers.  

OR

The jacket and beers could have been taken by a stranger to the scene.  Statistically more likely to happen to someone in any location than murder would, for example.  It just seems like a move by the killer that would expose him to possibly being seen. 

--Example: people are driving to work between 7:00 and 7:15/7:30 and see (or photograph) one of 2 scenarios that would cause them to remember the scene and later report it:


Two vehicles at a small overlook 

-----The passersby remember both cars

----A person at a red car, with or without presence of 2nd car.

----The person is carrying beers.

----Someone is walking along the Parkway from any distance, with or without beers.. 

2. Someone is walking the Parkway with bulgy pockets from the beers being in them, or walks up to a red car. 

If it was the killer taking the jacket/beers   

----He could either have wiped off his own fingerprints or hurriedly taken the beer. It would probably have been quicker to take them. 

[fossilnerd]

May 11, 2021 5:49:23 GMT cleopatra said:

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

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 other explanation would be:

Before 7 A.M.
Killer was in possession of clothes after he disposed of the bodies.

Before 7 A.M.
Killer realized he forgot something very important/incriminating in the car (for example - his jacket, which may have had a patch or employer's name on it, OR,  his wallet/keys, which were in the pockets of his gray jacket, etc.).
Killer headed back to the car, clothes in hand.

7:00 A.M.
Mr. Call stopped at car.
The driver's seat was leaning forward.
On the floor behind it was a gray jacket and 3 beers on top of the jacket.
He closed the door and left. 

7:00 A.M. - 7:15 A.M.
Killer returned to car. 
Retrieved his gray jacket.
Grabbed two of the three beers. 
Deposited the clothes.
Then left.
 
7:15 A.M. - 7:30 A.M.
Ranger stopped at car. 
Removed clothes. 
Continued on his patrol route.

9:00 A.M. 
Ranger returned to station.
Ranger looked through red purse.
He found a pocket book with personal checks.
He called the phone number on Cassandra's checks.
Mrs. Call answered the phone.
After speaking with Mrs. Call, the ranger realized the passengers were "missing".
Ranger immediately headed back to car, clothes in hand.
Rangers who were present at the station, followed.
When the ranger reached the car, he re-deposited the clothes.


I find those kinds of choices to be absurd for a ranger who wasn't the killer.  Here's why:

--why remove their clothes from the car? Why not just look for an ID from the purse? Even if they came back to the car while her checkbook was gone, it'd be easier to be without the checkbook than one's clothes. 

--when he called the number and spoke to Mrs. Call, it was only then that he knew he'd better return the clothes to the car. 

--since the call was likely recorded and since family said Keith and Cassandra were missing, he HAD to return the clothing.    

--other rangers followed him to the car; this means that the other rangers found out that he had the clothing, instead of only identifying data.

--the ridiculous speculation that Keith and Cassandra had gone skinny-dipping was, I believe, just something thrown in to confound.  No ranger worthy of the job would think anyone was swimming in the York river in April; the water is still dangerously cold then, and the weather is still chilly.  A ranger would know this.

--Nobody at NPS even brought up that he'd stopped at the car at 7:15/7:30 until several days later.  The 7:15/7:30 time frame for the ranger's visit and removal of the clothes tells me that they hadn't realized that Mr. Call had stopped at the car at 7 and there was no clothing in the car.  

Here's speculation:
The ranger gave the 7:15/7:30 time because he could have last been at the station at 7. He may also not been on duty until 7, and if he admitted to having jad the clothes nefore that, he'd be pegged as the suspect.  I don't think that he returned to the car until 9, when he was accompanied by other rangers and returned the clothes.

This tells me that the ranger was the killer, at least in the Call/Hailey murders.  I  suspect he was involved un the Thomas/Dowski murders, as well. 

[tosh]

Yes, it really does not look good for the ranger does it. I can’t help but wonder how different things might have been had the FBI been involved from the get go on the Sunday morning.

Does anyone have any theories as to why the dome light on Keith’s car was seen switched on at 4am, off at 5am and then turned on at 6.10am? (the 5am and 6.10am witness sightings were mentioned in A Special Kind of Evil) The logistics and whys of that are sending my head in a spin.

[cleopatra]

May 11, 2021 13:54:24 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 11, 2021 5:49:23 GMT cleopatra said:

This tells me that the ranger was the killer, at least in the Call/Hailey murders.  I  suspect he was involved un the Thomas/Dowski murders, as well. 

And maybe even the Shenandoah murders.....

[cleopatra]

The biggest thing here is the fact that the ranger took the clothes at all.  Why?  For what purpose was only 1 ladies shoe and a pair of male shoes taken away?  And the sweaters, blouse, shirt, pants, underwear, belt, bra, etc....  To secure a bra and panty?  

If indeed the ranger was the killer, it must have really thrown him off when he found out Mr. Call had seen and stopped at the car. 

He could have gone from the crime scene to home to shower and change, then straight to work with the clothes in hand, intending on calling the phone number on the checkbook.  Then at some point, was going to place the clothes back in the car.

So, from crime scene to home, from home straight to work, and from the station to the car to place the clothes in it.   And since Mr. Call stopped at the car and did not see  the key in the ignition, clothes, a purse, shoes, a belt, a watch, prescription glasses, etc..... , now the ranger will have to explain why nothing was in the car at 7AM.

[fossilnerd]

May 11, 2021 14:57:25 GMT cleopatra said:

May 11, 2021 13:54:24 GMT fossilnerd said:

And maybe even the Shenandoah murders.....

I agree. 

[fossilnerd]

May 11, 2021 15:11:14 GMT cleopatra said:

The biggest thing here is the fact that the ranger took the clothes at all.  Why?  For what purpose was only 1 ladies shoe and a pair of male shoes taken away?  And the sweaters, blouse, shirt, pants, underwear, belt, bra, etc....  To secure a bra and panty?  

If indeed the ranger was the killer, it must have really thrown him off when he found out Mr. Call had seen and stopped at the car. 

He could have gone from the crime scene to home to shower and change, then straight to work with the clothes in hand, intending on calling the phone number on the checkbook.  Then at some point, was going to place the clothes back in the car.

So, from crime scene to home, from home straight to work, and from the station to the car to place the clothes in it.   And since Mr. Call stopped at the car and did not see  the key in the ignition, clothes, a purse, shoes, a belt, a watch, prescription glasses, etc..... , now the ranger will have to explain why nothing was in the car at 7AM.

I totally agree.  It was ONLY necessary for him to get some sort of way to contact someone.  He could have gotten that from the license plate number, either through NPS' own methods or by calling another agency.  But since the car had only been there since early that morning, there was really no need for him to rifle through the car to begin with.  Absolutely zero need for him to remove any clothing from the car.  

Re the shoes, I bet he either kept one somewhere as a souvenir or in his haste he somehow left it behind.  If any other items weren't there after 9am when he returned the items, he probably kept them.  

The probability that the killer was a ranger sure jives with the likelihood he'd have the ability to lurk wherever he wanted without being questioned.  He'd know who was on duty, and would know whether anyone was patroling at all.  If he was using a company vehicle even when no one was supposed to be on duty and if he was spotted, he they'd think he was a good guy for working unpaid. 

Now for another idea:  I wonder what Seagar's wife must have thought about (or noticed at all) about her husband being out overnight.  Perhaps she was told that he couldn't sleep and decided to work.  He probably wore some kind of coveralls when he went out so he could go home looking normally.  Or maybe she helped him or was out of town.  Just something to think about. 

[daedra]

May 11, 2021 8:12:27 GMT tosh said:

May 10, 2021 15:10:59 GMT cleopatra said:

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.

Keith's car had a key chime, could it be anything to do with that? I found this question in a car forum from someone with a 1980s Toyota. "I got a 1989 Toyota Corolla Gts the chime beeps when key is off and doors are shut.. anyone know how to or where the chime is so I can remove it?" When he says "key is off" I take it he means the key is not in the ignition and the doors are shut? I'm no car buff so could have it wrong. 

I've also wondered why the ranger left the door slightly ajar. I think of the door ajar as part of the killer's "staging" ritual -- like he did with David's truck -- to encourage passersby to rifle through the contents and spoil the crime scene. It's weird that the ranger left the door slightly ajar if he wasn't the person who staged the car. 

The key chime is an interesting detail! 

[daedra]

May 11, 2021 18:22:55 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 11, 2021 15:11:14 GMT cleopatra said:

The biggest thing here is the fact that the ranger took the clothes at all.  Why?  For what purpose was only 1 ladies shoe and a pair of male shoes taken away?  And the sweaters, blouse, shirt, pants, underwear, belt, bra, etc....  To secure a bra and panty?  

If indeed the ranger was the killer, it must have really thrown him off when he found out Mr. Call had seen and stopped at the car. 

He could have gone from the crime scene to home to shower and change, then straight to work with the clothes in hand, intending on calling the phone number on the checkbook.  Then at some point, was going to place the clothes back in the car.

So, from crime scene to home, from home straight to work, and from the station to the car to place the clothes in it.   And since Mr. Call stopped at the car and did not see  the key in the ignition, clothes, a purse, shoes, a belt, a watch, prescription glasses, etc..... , now the ranger will have to explain why nothing was in the car at 7AM.

I totally agree.  It was ONLY necessary for him to get some sort of way to contact someone.  He could have gotten that from the license plate number, either through NPS' own methods or by calling another agency.  But since the car had only been there since early that morning, there was really no need for him to rifle through the car to begin with.  Absolutely zero need for him to remove any clothing from the car.  

Re the shoes, I bet he either kept one somewhere as a souvenir or in his haste he somehow left it behind.  If any other items weren't there after 9am when he returned the items, he probably kept them.  

The probability that the killer was a ranger sure jives with the likelihood he'd have the ability to lurk wherever he wanted without being questioned.  He'd know who was on duty, and would know whether anyone was patroling at all.  If he was using a company vehicle even when no one was supposed to be on duty and if he was spotted, he they'd think he was a good guy for working unpaid. 

Now for another idea:  I wonder what Seagar's wife must have thought about (or noticed at all) about her husband being out overnight.  Perhaps she was told that he couldn't sleep and decided to work.  He probably wore some kind of coveralls when he went out so he could go home looking normally.  Or maybe she helped him or was out of town.  Just something to think about. 

I wonder if that's why most of the killings happened on/around long holiday weekends. Maybe CPK had a wife who made a habit of going out of town for long weekends, so he was free to come and go from home at odd hours without raising her suspicion. There was a guy who killed a college student a few years ago in Champaign who planned the whole thing in advance and waited for his wife to go out of town before he actually enacted his plan. 

[fossilnerd]

May 11, 2021 14:28:20 GMT tosh said:

Yes, it really does not look good for the ranger does it. I can’t help but wonder how different things might have been had the FBI been involved from the get go on the Sunday morning.

Does anyone have any theories as to why the dome light on Keith’s car was seen switched on at 4am, off at 5am and then turned on at 6.10am? (the 5am and 6.10am witness sightings were mentioned in A Special Kind of Evil) The logistics and whys of that are sending my head in a spin.

Some possibilities: 
1. Chris saw the dome light on at 4. Either the light was left on from the inside when the car was moved or the abduction happened, or the door was left open.  
----If the door was left closed but the light was left on, then perhaps the one driving the van that Chris saw at 4 turned it off, so the witness seeing it at 5 saw it not on.  At that point, the one driving the van could have left the door open, either accidentally or intentionally.
----If the door was left open, I'm wondering if it could have been the wind pushing and pulling the door so that the light was turning off and on? 
2. Mr. Call found the door open at 7.  If it was left open at least at 4am when the van that Chris saw sped and then made a turn at the car, then that explains the 6:10 witness having seen the light on.
----This either calls in question the accuracy of the 5:00 witness having seen the light on, or it means that there was either another visit to the car or the wind.

Regarding the idea of the wind, to accurately test the idea, it would probably be necessary to find the wind reports from that day to see if there was a breeze strong enough to push and pull the door, and to see whether dome lights on that model car were tripped without the door being completely closed.

[tosh]

May 12, 2021 10:46:45 GMT fossilnerd said:

May 11, 2021 14:28:20 GMT tosh said:

Yes, it really does not look good for the ranger does it. I can’t help but wonder how different things might have been had the FBI been involved from the get go on the Sunday morning.

Does anyone have any theories as to why the dome light on Keith’s car was seen switched on at 4am, off at 5am and then turned on at 6.10am? (the 5am and 6.10am witness sightings were mentioned in A Special Kind of Evil) The logistics and whys of that are sending my head in a spin.

Some possibilities: 
1. Chris saw the dome light on at 4. Either the light was left on from the inside when the car was moved or the abduction happened, or the door was left open.  
----If the door was left closed but the light was left on, then perhaps the one driving the van that Chris saw at 4 turned it off, so the witness seeing it at 5 saw it not on.  At that point, the one driving the van could have left the door open, either accidentally or intentionally.
----If the door was left open, I'm wondering if it could have been the wind pushing and pulling the door so that the light was turning off and on? 
2. Mr. Call found the door open at 7.  If it was left open at least at 4am when the van that Chris saw sped and then made a turn at the car, then that explains the 6:10 witness having seen the light on.
----This either calls in question the accuracy of the 5:00 witness having seen the light on, or it means that there was either another visit to the car or the wind.

Regarding the idea of the wind, to accurately test the idea, it would probably be necessary to find the wind reports from that day to see if there was a breeze strong enough to push and pull the door, and to see whether dome lights on that model car were tripped without the door being completely closed.

Thank you Fossil, the wind ! I would never have thought about that.
I wonder if a ranger was driving that van that Chris saw at 4am coming out of Ringfield.According to that article I posted about policing on the parkway the NPS had sole jurisdiction over a few places on the parkway - they wouldn’t divulge all of them . I wouldn’t be surprised if Ringfield Picnic area was also one of those places the NPS had sole jurisdiction over.

[daedra]

May 12, 2021 12:17:58 GMT tosh said:

May 12, 2021 10:46:45 GMT fossilnerd said:

Some possibilities: 
1. Chris saw the dome light on at 4. Either the light was left on from the inside when the car was moved or the abduction happened, or the door was left open.  
----If the door was left closed but the light was left on, then perhaps the one driving the van that Chris saw at 4 turned it off, so the witness seeing it at 5 saw it not on.  At that point, the one driving the van could have left the door open, either accidentally or intentionally.
----If the door was left open, I'm wondering if it could have been the wind pushing and pulling the door so that the light was turning off and on? 
2. Mr. Call found the door open at 7.  If it was left open at least at 4am when the van that Chris saw sped and then made a turn at the car, then that explains the 6:10 witness having seen the light on.
----This either calls in question the accuracy of the 5:00 witness having seen the light on, or it means that there was either another visit to the car or the wind.

Regarding the idea of the wind, to accurately test the idea, it would probably be necessary to find the wind reports from that day to see if there was a breeze strong enough to push and pull the door, and to see whether dome lights on that model car were tripped without the door being completely closed.

Thank you Fossil, the wind ! I would never have thought about that.
I wonder if a ranger was driving that van that Chris saw at 4am coming out of Ringfield.According to that article I posted about policing on the parkway the NPS had sole jurisdiction over a few places on the parkway - they wouldn’t divulge all of them . I wouldn’t be surprised if Ringfield Picnic area was also one of those places the NPS had sole jurisdiction over.

Imo that helps bolster the theory that CPK was a Ranger. If they had sole jurisdiction, he would have an excuse to be involved from the get-go and could keep tabs on the investigation. He may have been the on-duty patrol that day, or may have known who was and their whereabouts, so he could sneak in and out without detection. He may have also been the one to "discover" the car or one of the first to arrive on the scene after the call was made.


Even if he wasn't personally a ranger, he would have been familiar enough with them to know their jurisdictions and patrols. I wonder if that's the kind of thing local LE was privy to, or if he would have to personally know an NPS ranger to have access to that intel. Perhaps he was a spouse of a female ranger? 

[daedra]

May 11, 2021 5:49:23 GMT cleopatra said:

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

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 other explanation would be:

Before 7 A.M.
Killer was in possession of clothes after he disposed of the bodies.

Before 7 A.M.
Killer realized he forgot something very important/incriminating in the car (for example - his jacket, which may have had a patch or employer's name on it, OR,  his wallet/keys, which were in the pockets of his gray jacket, etc.).
Killer headed back to the car, clothes in hand.

7:00 A.M.
Mr. Call stopped at car.
The driver's seat was leaning forward.
On the floor behind it was a gray jacket and 3 beers on top of the jacket.
He closed the door and left. 

7:00 A.M. - 7:15 A.M.
Killer returned to car. 
Retrieved his gray jacket.
Grabbed two of the three beers. 
Deposited the clothes.
Then left.
 
7:15 A.M. - 7:30 A.M.
Ranger stopped at car. 
Removed clothes. 
Continued on his patrol route.

9:00 A.M. 
Ranger returned to station.
Ranger looked through red purse.
He found a pocket book with personal checks.
He called the phone number on Cassandra's checks.
Mrs. Call answered the phone.
After speaking with Mrs. Call, the ranger realized the passengers were "missing".
Ranger immediately headed back to car, clothes in hand.
Rangers who were present at the station, followed.
When the ranger reached the car, he re-deposited the clothes.

One note about the jacket - in A Special Kind of Evil, it's mentioned that one of the clothing items Keith borrowed from his brother was a gray sweater. I wonder if this is the gray jacket that Mr.Call saw.