Post by cleopatra on Oct 12, 2018 19:47:02 GMT
See details about clothing of victims in these threads:
THREADS:
1) Keith Call & Sandra Hailey
2) Annamaria Phelps & Daniel Laurer
3) David Knobling & Robin Edwards
I am theorizing that the CPK possibly:
I am speculating that perhaps the CPK has some weird quirk, compulsion, that is part of his regular routine in his everyday life, or a habit that he couldn't even avoid doing when committing a murder. A habit or training so deeply rooted that he couldn't help not doing.
If the CPK did that with the last three crimes, I am inclined to consider it his "signature". I've read that MO consist of all the things done in order to commit the crime, whereas signature is what is not necessary to commit the crime but instead it is an extra act thrown in to satisfy the criminal for whatever reason.
Returning the clothes, throwing them in the vehicles, could possibly be his signature.
EXCERPTS FROM ANOTHER THREAD:
trabuco Avatar
16 hours ago 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?
This same scenario would fall in line with what I posted earlier in this thread - when the dogs tracked Keith's scent from the bridge over Indian Field Creek back to his car, it was not because Keith circled back there but because the killer did. The killer was either CARRYING KEITH'S CLOTHES or had Keith's scent on him.
KEITH AND SANDRA
I'm hesitant to connect the tracking dog's trail AFTER it reached the bridge over Indian Field Creek. The dogs followed both victim's scents to that point, which was to the bridge over the Indian Field Creek.
From that point, the dogs followed ONLY KEITH'S SCENT, circling back the spot where Keith's car was parked.
There is no way to be 100% certain that the dog's were following a scent coming from Keith himself. The dogs could have been following Keith's scent that was transferred onto killer. The killer could have:
- taken some of Keith's clothes, and the dogs followed the scent on the clothes,
- gotten Keith's scent on his body if he handled Keith's body after killing Keith, if that's what happened, or if the killer fought with Keith,
- had Keith's blood on his clothes or shoes if Keith bled.
The trail from the bridge to the where the car was found may not have been a result of Keith returning to the car, but instead the killer going there.
