Known Victims: Keith Call and Sandra Hailey

[cleopatra]

Apr 25, 2019 20:57:23 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 25, 2019 20:05:18 GMT englishman said:

Quite a few things could have happened when the Ranger picked up those clothes, they might have expected to find a couple in an intimate act, to something more serious like a person having a mental breakdown, someone using PCP, or committing suicide, those kinds of things can worry people so perhaps the ranger was nervy and accidental took the clothes with them.

In a more jokey or spiteful way perhaps there were previous incidents involving young couples hooking up outside around the Parkway area, and the ranger took the clothes away as a prank, only to horrifically realise that something was wrong hours later when the car is still there, with no angry young couple sat inside with the heaters blasting.

Englishman, I too have posted that maybe the Ranger took the clothes as a joke, but entering someone's car without a warrant is illegal plus taking clothes, a watch, a wallet, a purse, Sandra's checkbook etc... is theft and anyone especially a ranger would know this, and he could've been fired for it.  So why risk your job for a prank?  Why didn't the Ranger go down to check the shoreline for the owner of the clothes, like you said maybe it was a suicide?  If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away?  I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out and now he has to make up that he took them from the car as a way to identify the car owner?  Remember that he took the items before anyone was reported missing & according to Cleo before his shift started at 7am.  We know this because Keith's dad looked in the car @7am and none of those items where in it, so the Ranger couldn't have took the items when he said he did at 7:15-7:30am or any time after 7am.   

If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away? I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out...

Because if any of the items were ever found, they'd have his fingerprints on them. There were too many things to be able to wipe up and know with certainty that he wiped off all his prints from every item.  There were shoes, eye glasses, a watch, a purse, clothes, a bra, Keith's wallet, etc....

That's a good theory, mustangman - that someone could have seen him with the items …..

[mustangman]

Apr 25, 2019 22:23:00 GMT englishman said:

Apr 25, 2019 21:46:57 GMT mustangman said:

I'm not sure what illegal act the Ranger could've suspected if he even did, and if he did suspect a crime why not tell other rangers and the FBI this?  It seems as if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and tried to distance himself from further scrutiny and give himself a alibi for why his finger prints were found on the kids personal items and car.  If no one saw him with the items, why didn't he just throw them out and deny ever seeing the car? 

I too am trying to keep an open mind on the Rangers reasons for what he did.  this also could be a case of Keith's dad getting the time he saw the car wrong and maybe it was just moments after the ranger removed the clothes from the car @7:15am?  But this does not explain why the ranger did what he did when at the time no one was reported missing.  I am of the belief that the killer didn't return to the crime scene and the ranger was the same guy we saw in those Yogi the bear cartoons.  "inept"

Someone stumbling around off their faces on drugs or someone who has been drink driving etc this is only in regard to it being something involving a prank which I doubt happened. I think it's something simplistic the Ranger picked them up, expecting to find someone nearby and then made a mistake by taking the clothes with him, then out of professional embarrassment returned the items, the Ranger might have been on report for sloppy work in the past.

It would look a million times worse if you dumped the personal items two missing people covered with your prints in a dumpster somewhere, I'll admit if discovered in a random bin a few miles away no-one would really think much, but if a witness spots you or someone finds those items you're absolutely fucked, much better to own up and say I messed up I looked through the items in the car to find some ID etc.

I agree, I feel that the clothes being removed then replaced in the car is just the work of a sloppy Ranger and he even tried to hide the fact for 2 days before admitting it to the FBI.  I'm hope the FBI investigated the crap out of this Ranger, in 1988 & recently, just to make sure he wasn't involved in the kids disappearance or any of these conical crimes.

[mustangman]

Apr 26, 2019 10:54:15 GMT cleopatra said:

Apr 25, 2019 20:57:23 GMT mustangman said:

Englishman, I too have posted that maybe the Ranger took the clothes as a joke, but entering someone's car without a warrant is illegal plus taking clothes, a watch, a wallet, a purse, Sandra's checkbook etc... is theft and anyone especially a ranger would know this, and he could've been fired for it.  So why risk your job for a prank?  Why didn't the Ranger go down to check the shoreline for the owner of the clothes, like you said maybe it was a suicide?  If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away?  I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out and now he has to make up that he took them from the car as a way to identify the car owner?  Remember that he took the items before anyone was reported missing & according to Cleo before his shift started at 7am.  We know this because Keith's dad looked in the car @7am and none of those items where in it, so the Ranger couldn't have took the items when he said he did at 7:15-7:30am or any time after 7am.   

If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away? I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out...

Because if any of the items were ever found, they'd have his fingerprints on them. There were too many things to be able to wipe up and know with certainty that he wiped off all his prints from every item.  There were shoes, eye glasses, a watch, a purse, clothes, a bra, Keith's wallet, etc....

That's a good theory, mustangman - that someone could have seen him with the items …..

I guess I should've said why didn't he just burn the items, or bury them or anything else, where the items would never be discovered....  my using the word "dumpster" was a metaphor for "destroy all evidence".  I agree Cleo, that the ranger had the clothes in his possession and one of his co-workers saw him with the items and he had to explain why he had them, he also did return the items to the car and told the FBI what he had done.  So I guess some people could see he was wrong to have the items, but I'm not sure if he was the serial killer and why he would make such a huge mistake and be connected to the crimes in some way.    

[cleopatra]

Apr 26, 2019 12:22:45 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 26, 2019 10:54:15 GMT cleopatra said:

If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away? I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out...

Because if any of the items were ever found, they'd have his fingerprints on them. There were too many things to be able to wipe up and know with certainty that he wiped off all his prints from every item.  There were shoes, eye glasses, a watch, a purse, clothes, a bra, Keith's wallet, etc....

That's a good theory, mustangman - that someone could have seen him with the items …..

I guess I should've said why didn't he just burn the items, or bury them or anything else, where the items would never be discovered....  my using the word "dumpster" was a metaphor for "destroy all evidence".  I agree Cleo, that the ranger had the clothes in his possession and one of his co-workers saw him with the items and he had to explain why he had them, he also did return the items to the car and told the FBI what he had done.  So I guess some people could see he was wrong to have the items, but I'm not sure if he was the serial killer and why he would make such a huge mistake and be connected to the crimes in some way.    

I'm not so sure he's the killer, either.  I think he just did something sloppy.  He may not have been from Virginia and so was not aware of the previous two Parkway crimes.

If it was just sloppy work on his part, the killer had to have gone back to the car right after Mr. Call left.  Mr. Call and the ranger both missed the guy by mere minutes.  So did Chris Call when he passed Keith's car.  The killer had some pretty close calls. 

I was wondering, of course pure speculation with nothing to back up this theory, if the killer knew Mr. Call drove on the Parkway every morning to get to work and left the car there on purpose for Mr. Call to see.  What if the killer was watching - maybe from across the street, as Mr. Call stopped to look inside the car.  It's such a far out there thought, but who knows?  What if the killer wanted Mr. Call to see the car that he gave Keith for his graduation present, knowing Mr. Call was never going to see Keith again?

[cleopatra]

Even if the ranger who took the clothes isn't the CPK, it could have been another ranger,  who then stopped to drop off the clothes while on his way to work at the ranger's station.

[cleopatra]

Apr 26, 2019 12:22:45 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 26, 2019 10:54:15 GMT cleopatra said:

If the Ranger was the CPK why not find a dumpster and throw the items away? I think someone saw him with the items and now it's too late to throw them out...

Because if any of the items were ever found, they'd have his fingerprints on them. There were too many things to be able to wipe up and know with certainty that he wiped off all his prints from every item.  There were shoes, eye glasses, a watch, a purse, clothes, a bra, Keith's wallet, etc....

That's a good theory, mustangman - that someone could have seen him with the items …..

I guess I should've said why didn't he just burn the items, or bury them or anything else, where the items would never be discovered....  my using the word "dumpster" was a metaphor for "destroy all evidence".  I agree Cleo, that the ranger had the clothes in his possession and one of his co-workers saw him with the items and he had to explain why he had them, he also did return the items to the car and told the FBI what he had done.  So I guess some people could see he was wrong to have the items, but I'm not sure if he was the serial killer and why he would make such a huge mistake and be connected to the crimes in some way.    

Blackmon, on the other hand, looks like a strong suspect.  He's a convicted murderer.  He shot two guys eleven times, total.  He's devious and brutal.  He dated Sandra's sister.  His father and brother were/are both in law enforcement.  He grew up around evidence collection tactics.  His father was chief of police for Newport News in the 1970s-1980s.  

[mustangman]

Apr 26, 2019 14:28:02 GMT cleopatra said:

Apr 26, 2019 12:22:45 GMT mustangman said:

I guess I should've said why didn't he just burn the items, or bury them or anything else, where the items would never be discovered....  my using the word "dumpster" was a metaphor for "destroy all evidence".  I agree Cleo, that the ranger had the clothes in his possession and one of his co-workers saw him with the items and he had to explain why he had them, he also did return the items to the car and told the FBI what he had done.  So I guess some people could see he was wrong to have the items, but I'm not sure if he was the serial killer and why he would make such a huge mistake and be connected to the crimes in some way.    

I'm not so sure he's the killer, either.  I think he just did something sloppy.  He may not have been from Virginia and so was not aware of the previous two Parkway crimes.

If it was just sloppy work on his part, the killer had to have gone back to the car right after Mr. Call left.  Mr. Call and the ranger both missed the guy by mere minutes.  So did Chris Call when he passed Keith's car.  The killer had some pretty close calls. 

I was wondering, of course pure speculation with nothing to back up this theory, if the killer knew Mr. Call drove on the Parkway every morning to get to work and left the car there on purpose for Mr. Call to see.  What if the killer was watching - maybe from across the street, as Mr. Call stopped to look inside the car.  It's such a far out there thought, but who knows?  What if the killer wanted Mr. Call to see the car that he gave Keith for his graduation present, knowing Mr. Call was never going to see Keith again?

The killer may not have gone back to the car.  If the Ranger had taken the clothes @7:15 or sooner and Mr. Call was wrong about his time at the car, maybe it was after the time when the ranger removed the clothes. 

[mustangman]

Apr 26, 2019 14:29:59 GMT cleopatra said:

Even if the ranger who took the clothes isn't the CPK, it could have been another ranger,  who then stopped to drop off the clothes while on his way to work at the ranger's station.

I think that it's posted in this board that the same ranger who took the clothes and returned them to the car is also the same ranger who 2 days later told the FBI he did this.  I haven't found any info that supports 2 or more rangers being involved with the removal and returning of the clothes.  It looks like only 1 ranger was in possession of the clothes.

[cleopatra]

Apr 26, 2019 15:34:16 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 26, 2019 14:29:59 GMT cleopatra said:

Even if the ranger who took the clothes isn't the CPK, it could have been another ranger,  who then stopped to drop off the clothes while on his way to work at the ranger's station.

I think that it's posted in this board that the same ranger who took the clothes and returned them to the car is also the same ranger who 2 days later told the FBI he did this.  I haven't found any info that supports 2 or more rangers being involved with the removal and returning of the clothes.  It looks like only 1 ranger was in possession of the clothes.

I meant, another ranger coulf be the CPK and on his way to work he could yave stopped to return the clothes, right after Keith's dad left and right before the other ranger showef up. 

[mustangman]

Apr 26, 2019 22:48:18 GMT cleopatra said:

Apr 26, 2019 15:34:16 GMT mustangman said:

I think that it's posted in this board that the same ranger who took the clothes and returned them to the car is also the same ranger who 2 days later told the FBI he did this.  I haven't found any info that supports 2 or more rangers being involved with the removal and returning of the clothes.  It looks like only 1 ranger was in possession of the clothes.

I meant, another ranger coulf be the CPK and on his way to work he could yave stopped to return the clothes, right after Keith's dad left and right before the other ranger showef up. 

Yikes! that is a possibility. or it could be anyone other than a ranger. but he would've risked being caught or seen since he would've had to return the clothes between 7-7:30 or so. and still even then, why return the clothes?

[Cretaceous Dune]

Apr 25, 2019 20:57:23 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 25, 2019 20:05:18 GMT englishman said:

entering someone's car without a warrant is illegal  

Law enforcement/park rangers/military guards may search a vehicle for any reason. No search warrant required.

[cleopatra]

Apr 27, 2019 11:11:52 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 26, 2019 22:48:18 GMT cleopatra said:

I meant, another ranger coulf be the CPK and on his way to work he could yave stopped to return the clothes, right after Keith's dad left and right before the other ranger showef up. 

Yikes! that is a possibility. or it could be anyone other than a ranger. but he would've risked being caught or seen since he would've had to return the clothes between 7-7:30 or so. and still even then, why return the clothes?

Because it's part of his signature.  Cathy & Becky - EVERYTHING & BOTH VICTIMS were left together in the car.  David & Robin - EVERYTHING except for the victims was left together in the truck, including keys, David's and Robin's shoes, their clothing, Robin's purse, David's wallet.  Daniel & Anamaria - EVERYTHING except for the victims and an electric blanket that was used to cover them was left together in the car; Annamaria's shoes (Annamaria was found wearing Daniel's shoes, their clothes, all their belongings, and then a feathered roach clip was left hanging on the window.  The killer's signature is to leave the car parked somewhere with its keys and all the victims clothes and belongings together inside it.

OR,

OCD - the killer just had to fold the clothes and leave the clothes and other belongings in the car - as part of a set - all needed to stay together.

This all my speculation, of course.

[mustangman]

Apr 27, 2019 20:33:35 GMT Cretaceous Dune said:

Apr 25, 2019 20:57:23 GMT mustangman said:

Law enforcement/park rangers/military guards may search a vehicle for any reason. No search warrant required.

Somehow in the previous post you quoted me as saying this, but I never said it.  It is true now in the 2000's, but back in 1980's you had to have a warrant to search someone's vehicle no matter who you were. The "no warrant searches" are something recently made into law, all LE needs now is suspicion of illegal activity to search a vehicle. this didn't happen in the 1980's.

[cleopatra]

Apr 26, 2019 15:28:06 GMT mustangman said:

Apr 26, 2019 14:28:02 GMT cleopatra said:

I'm not so sure he's the killer, either.  I think he just did something sloppy.  He may not have been from Virginia and so was not aware of the previous two Parkway crimes.

If it was just sloppy work on his part, the killer had to have gone back to the car right after Mr. Call left.  Mr. Call and the ranger both missed the guy by mere minutes.  So did Chris Call when he passed Keith's car.  The killer had some pretty close calls. 

I was wondering, of course pure speculation with nothing to back up this theory, if the killer knew Mr. Call drove on the Parkway every morning to get to work and left the car there on purpose for Mr. Call to see.  What if the killer was watching - maybe from across the street, as Mr. Call stopped to look inside the car.  It's such a far out there thought, but who knows?  What if the killer wanted Mr. Call to see the car that he gave Keith for his graduation present, knowing Mr. Call was never going to see Keith again?

The killer may not have gone back to the car.  If the Ranger had taken the clothes @7:15 or sooner and Mr. Call was wrong about his time at the car, maybe it was after the time when the ranger removed the clothes. 

Mr. Call wasn't wrong about the time he was at the car.  He was on his way to work.

[englishman]

Apr 26, 2019 4:25:14 GMT cleopatra said:

Apr 25, 2019 22:23:00 GMT englishman said:

Someone stumbling around off their faces on drugs or someone who has been drink driving etc this is only in regard to it being something involving a prank which I doubt happened. I think it's something simplistic the Ranger picked them up, expecting to find someone nearby and then made a mistake by taking the clothes with him, then out of professional embarrassment returned the items, the Ranger might have been on report for sloppy work in the past.

It would look a million times worse if you dumped the personal items two missing people covered with your prints in a dumpster somewhere, I'll admit if discovered in a random bin a few miles away no-one would really think much, but if a witness spots you or someone finds those items you're absolutely fucked, much better to own up and say I messed up I looked through the items in the car to find some ID etc.

All those reasons that the ranger POSSIBLY had for removing the clothes, whether it was (1) before Mr. Call stopped at the car or (2) after Mr. Call stopped at the car after which the killer came by between 7AM-7:15am to place the clothes inside the car, are speculation.  They are also speculative as to the ranger's  INTENT for removing the clothing.  No one knows why or the actual time the ranger removed the clothes except for the ranger.  His fellow rangers and the FBI only know why he did it and what time he did it because the ranger told them.  

None of this is to say the ranger is the CPK, or that I believed he is the CPK.   I want to know who the real CPK is, so I'm not bent on pinning one of the CPK's crimes on anyone who is not the CPK.  However, everything and everyone connected to the crimes under suspicious circumstances, IMO,  must be scrutinized closely.

- The 2 joggers; the one who found David's truck and the one who found Cathy's car,

- the ranger who admittedly tampered with evidence,

- the person who suggested "skinny dipping",

- Blackmon, who dated Sandra's sister and whose security company other victim's worked for (Laura, Brian, Robin's mother),

- very trooper and ranger who discovered the vehicles,

- troopers and rangers who had the vehicles towed,

- the female trooper who gave Julie and Lollie a ride,

- the rangers who were in charge of patrolling Skyline Drive during the 7 (SEVEN) days that Julie's car was parked in the Stoney Man parking lot.  Julie's parking and visitor passes were expired for 5 (FIVE) days; why wasn't the vehicle ever tagged during the five days for having invalid passes?

- the witness who saw Keith's car at 5:30 A.M., and the witness who saw David's truck at 5:00 A.M.


Otherwise, if the real CPK is looked at and then dismissed, then he got away right under everyone's noses.

The facts are:  (1) the ranger was at the crime scene at some point. (2) He was alone at the crime scene. (3) It was at that point that the ranger removed the clothing and other personal items.

Those are facts.

By removing the clothes, regardless of why and when he did it, the ranger creates these questions:

1)  Did the ranger remove the clothes BEFORE Mr. Call showed up?  Prior to 7 A.M.?  

2)  Did Mr. Call stop and after he drove away, did the killer show up and place the clothes in the car?  After 7 A.M., but before 7:15 A.M.?

3)  Did the ranger then pull up to the car after the killer left (between 7 A.M. - 7:15 A.M) and remove the clothing?  Between 7:15 A.M. and 7:30 A.M., as the ranger said?

4)  Why did the ranger remove the clothing and personal items in the first place?  It was against protocol.  Why didn't the ranger consider the car stolen?  Why didn't he call in the plate right there and then when he first pulled up to it to find out if the car was reported stolen?  The ranger considered the car "abandoned" when he first saw it.  If that's the case, did he tag it?  Tagging the car would have been protocol. 

5)  Who the hell was it that first suggested the couple went skinny dipping?


All I know is, the ranger was at the crime scene by his own admission; he is placed at the crime scene.  
The ranger removed the clothes, by his own admission; he tampered with evidence.
The ranger returned the clothes, also by his own admission; he strayed from standard protocol in every way after he pulled up to Keith's car. 

Those are facts.  

In opinion a lot of people who made bizarre suggestions such as skinny dipping and the Rangers actions, are signs they are extremely out of depth with matters concerning missing people and crime scenes. I agree people need looking at closely with somethings, but I think the CPK would of been gone before the sunrise, but since the bodies likely went into the water, he might of been nervous and returned to scene.