CPK's Motive

[trabuco]

Apr 15, 2019 17:55:26 GMT brownstone322 said:

We can infer the most about possible motives from what apparently were not motives: sex or money. In cases of murder committed by a total stranger, sex or money are by far the most-common motives, and they're in fact expected. "Control" may be a major factor too, but in the end it's sex or money (which, on some level, motivates just about all of us). But that didn't happen here. Or did it?

• Robin Edwards had in fact had sex with someone that night, and the crime might simply have been an instance of rape. The state of the crime scene (mostly how the truck was left) could simply be coincidental. As far as we know, murder by handgun didn't fit the other crimes. (HOLE IN THE THEORY: Why were her clothes back on?)

• Daniel Lauer was carrying cash, maybe around $800. (Here it is 30 years later, and I have never carried cash like that.) Rest stops have always been dangerous places late at night, and this could simply have been a robbery, after which the victims had to be silenced. (HOLE IN THE THEORY: It's hard to accept that Annamaria was otherwise ignored, as robbers often will commit rape for good measure when the opportunity presents itself, and the killer certainly would have had means and opportunity.)

• The Hailey/Call murder could have been unrelated to the others. That could have been a rape and abduction down in Newport News, after which the killer dumped Call's car on the Parkway as an intentional ruse. The Thomas/Dowski murders had generated tremendous evidence only 18 months before, and the killer might have made an effort to conflate his crime with that highly publicized case. (HOLES IN THE THEORY: The killer would have assumed tremendous risk by driving Call's car so far, up Route 17, and, in any event, he did an extraordinary job of hiding the bodies, which would have been almost impossible in the Warwick Boulevard area where the victims were last seen; plus, there'd have to have been two of them to drop off a car.)

So then what? Assuming the crimes are in fact related (and there are some good arguments that they are), three plausible motivations:

1. A Moral Punisher: This would describe a hyper-religious/socially conservative psychopath who sought to punish young couples for fornication, especially public fornication. Remember, Hampton Roads was a conservative region in the 1980s, the era of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rise of the religious right as a political movement.

2. A Sexually Frustrated Vengeance Killer: This would describe someone who was himself unable to perform sexually and projected himself onto those who could. (Anyone familiar with Marc Evonitz, who committed the Silva/Lisk murders in Virginia in 1996-97, knows he had an obsession with young girls, yet also suffered from impotence.) This would be an anger motive, and could easily overlap with the morality motive.

3. A Thrill Killer: This would be a Zodiac-type killer, who does it simply because he wants to, in part much to prove he can get away with it, in part to satisfy motivations we otherwise don't understand. (I'm skeptical of this motive for CKP, because it lacks the direct taunts — such as communications to police, the news media or family members — that fit the personality type; but that hardly rules it out.)

These theories have one thing in common — simplicity. Always observe Occam's Razor: "The simplest solution is probably correct." When these crimes are eventually solved, I believe the killer will check all the boxes in a simple, logical pattern, meaning the wheres, the whens, the hows and all the particulars will fall into place very neatly. Consider DeAngelo. Exceptions to simple explanations are exceedingly rare.

To that end, the physical crime scenes tell us some simple things. Thomas and Dowski were probably parking on the Colonial Parkway when they were approached, as were Call and Hailey. (There's much dissent about Call and Hailey, I know, but I grew up in York County, and the parkway as a place for trysts was common knowledge to everyone.) Knobling and Edwards were probably doing the same at Ragged Island, which was closer to them than the parkway. Lauer and Phelps probably were approached at the eastbound rest stop in New Kent, which then was dark and rural. All of these are perfectly logical places to find couples parked, and the killer knew that. If the killer lived at a central location (upper York County or Williamsburg), all of those locations would have been accessible (although Ragged Island less so, because it doesn't connect to I-64).

Simple motives. Simple MO.

Well said.

Thanks for your input here. Your insight and explanation about "simple" have prevented me from starting a new thread titled "Back to basics."

[brownstone322]

Apr 16, 2019 9:28:05 GMT trabuco said:

Great thread. I'm anxiously awaiting reply from Brownstone322.

I'll probably disappoint you. 

I'm trying to keep my comments on topic, which is motive, but to me the motive is inextricably tied to the method of operations. I am hell-bent that simplicity almost always wins out over complexity, and no one has presented any evidence that precludes a simple model, one that (almost) jibes with a single psychopath with simple dark motivations carrying out simple crimes. A complex model is possible, but I'm reluctant to buy into it (and it likewise might complicate the motive). I'll give a quick summery of two models. (Just so you know, management modeling is the type crap I did in grad school; it's all the same to me.)

THE COMPLEX MODEL

1. Thomas/Dowski. The killer accosted the victims at an unknown location, killed them at an unknown location, then transported their bodies inside their own car and left them on the Colonial Parkway, but only after trying to burn the car and then trying to push the car into the river.

Supporting Evidence: The victims in fact were not killed where the car was found, because there was no significant blood.

Weaknesses in the Theory: This is a complex explanation with a poor return on effort. We agree, I think, that the killer was an organized, methodical planner, but what kind of plan was this? It would've been hugely risky to spend so much time in the victims' car with bodies in back. Then, if he intended to dump the bodies, why not take them somewhere and truly hide them? Why not hide the car more effectively? And why go to the Colonial Parkway and carry out these final actions a few feet off the road? (Compare to Lauer/Phelps, whose bodies were well out of sight.) And how did the killer leave the scene himself? (At the least, this suggests that the killer was learning.) If there were two assailants, what's their shared motive?

2. Knobling/Edwards. The killer accosted the victims at an unknown location, killed them at an unknown location, then left the vehicle at Ragged Island in an odd (perhaps staged) state: door open, radio on, wipers on, victims personal belongings inside.

Supporting Evidence: Other than Knobling's truck was, in theory, parked "backward," there's none.

Weaknesses in the Theory: Again, it's a complicated explanation for a straightforward crime scene. If the assailant abducted the victims on the Peninsula, why transport them and their vehicle all the way across the James River Bridge? Once again, the risks of something going wrong would have been enormous. Why would the killer "stage" the arrangement of the victims' vehicle? To what end? And, again, how did the killer leave the scene himself? And yet again, if there were two assailants, what's their shared motive?

3. Call/Hailey. The killer accosted the victims at an unknown location, killed them at an unknown location, disposed of the bodies at an unknown location, then left their car on the Colonial parkway in an odd (perhaps staged) state, not unlike the way Knobling's truck had been left.

Supporting Evidence: Call and Hailey were not an established couple. Both victims had expressed an aversion to using the parkway at night. Hailey was near her curfew and had a good record of honoring it. Their bodies in fact were not present at the scene, were not found after multiple searches, and were never found thereafter.

Weaknesses in the Theory: This theory is stronger, mostly because of the lack of bodies. The rest is incidental and anecdotal and thus not persuasive. Once again, how did the killer leave the scene? Why take their car to the parkway knowing full well that that location -- of all places -- would attract special attention? 

4. Lauer/Phelps. The killer abducted the victims at the eastbound rest stop on I-64 in New Kent County, transported them (probably in their own car) to the next interchange (about a mile to the east), killed them in the woods near the interchange, then returned their car to the westbound rest stop.

Supporting Evidence: The evidence supports all of this. This was a logistically complex crime by definition.

Weaknesses in the Theory: This theory has unanswered questions rather than weaknesses. How does a killer (even with a partner) transport two live victims a mile up the interstate? Did he force them into the trunk? (See Marc Evonitz.) If the killer were acting alone, how did he return to his own car, which, presumably, was still at the eastbound stop? (I am aware that he could have walked, but it is illegal to walk on an interstate highway, it's extremely unusual, and doing so would entail a huge risk of being seen, which would have been reported afterward.) This crime would have been easier with two assailants driving two cars (making it easier to drop off the victims' car), but why drop it right there at the rest stop? Why not take it further north into rural New Kent or perhaps on to the Middle Peninsula? (For that matter, why not drive east to the Colonial Parkway, specifically if you believe he might have done exactly that twice before?)


THE SIMPLE MODEL

1. Thomas/Dowski. The killer approached the victims parked on the Colonial Parkway, killed them there, and left them on the Colonial Parkway, but only after trying to burn the car and then trying to push the car into the river.

Supporting Evidence: The basic crime scene supports this, as does the area's history as a "lover's lane." The killer could have simply driven off afterward in his own car. This scenario supports a simple, single-killer motive.

Weaknesses in the Theory: The victims in fact were not killed where the car was found, because there was no significant blood at the scene. There had to have been some additional complexity (in this case moving the victims' car and their bodies), which suggests, in a broader scope, that the killer was inclined to more complex behaviors that included additional risks.

2. Knobling/Edwards. The killer accosted the victims parked at Ragged Island, took them to the beach, and shot them. 

Supporting Evidence: The basic crime scene supports this, as does the area's history as a place for illicit behavior. The victims' truck would have been left as it was when the killer forced them out of the vehicle. The killer could have simply driven off afterward in his own car. This scenario also supports a simple, single-killer motive.

Weaknesses in the Theory: No obvious weaknesses, as we know the killer used a firearm and could have controlled two victims.

3. Call/Hailey. The killer approached the victims parked on the Colonial Parkway, killed them nearby, and successfully disposed of the bodies.

Supporting Evidence: The basic crime scene supports this, as does, once again, the area's history as a "lover's lane," and, this time, an emerging pattern that the parkway was a comfortable "hunting ground" for the killer. The killer could have simply driven off afterward in his own car (see note below). This scenario also supports a simple, single-killer motive.

NOTE: The Thomas/Dowski scene proved that the killer would transport victims' dead bodies in a car, and the Lauer/Phelps crime scene strongly suggested he transported live bodies to a kill site. It's entirely plausible that, this time, the killer transported the bodies (dead or alive) in his own vehicle and disposed of them elsewhere. Having failed to burn or hide the victims' car the first time, the killer likely decided to leave it as it was, which would be consistent with the Knobling/Edwards crime scene (which implies the killer's realization that vehicles are very difficult to dispose of).

Weaknesses in the Theory: Call and Hailey were not an established couple, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the victims never would have gone to the parkway at night. Hailey was near her curfew and had a good record of honoring it.

4. Lauer/Phelps. The killer abducted the victims at the eastbound rest stop on I-64 in New Kent County, transported them (probably in their own car) to the next interchange (about a mile to the east), killed them in the woods near the interchange, then returned their car to the westbound rest stop. This scenario may support a simple, single-killer motive (see note below).

NOTE: This was a relatively complex crime at face value, and the supporting evidence for and weaknesses in the crime theory are the same as under the complex model. This is the most dissimilar of the four crimes, but that perhaps shows an emerging MO on the part of the killer. Even with this relative complexity, a single killer with a firearm could have carried out this crime, which would explain why he returned the car to the westbound rest stop, which would have been near his own car.

Complex versus Simple. You tell me.

[englishman]

It's always better to strip things back to the more simple theories but with the lack of evidence, a lot of more complex theories have been explored on here.

In my opinion, we're not dealing with a criminal mastermind or one prone to brazen risks, just someone who is cautious, elusive and shy's away from any form of attention, unless he has other victims elsewhere his extremely patient as his waiting years and attacking around national holidays. We don't know what ruse he is using to approach the victims but I suspect he has a defined process about how he goes about it.

[cleopatra]

Apr 16, 2019 2:43:05 GMT brownstone322 said:

"Had this been the work of four different killers (or partners), we might have expected that one or more of the assailants would have been identified over the past 30 years through old-fashioned police work, probably through police following up on tips. Not everyone is good at this kind of crime. Most likely, the killers wouldn't all have been organized and highly skilled. With a pool that large, some killers would have been more adept than others; someone would have made mistakes; someone would have left traceable forensic evidence; someone would have talked afterward; someone would have continued to commit similar crimes and until he was identified or caught in the act.

Instead we've had decades of utter silence, which suggests a simple explanation: It was a single, patient, calculating, organized, detail-oriented predator. One guy with a mission would explain everything."  - brownstone

That is the same reasoning I used when I came to the conclusion that one person killed all four couples.

In addition to the things mentioned, I also felt the odds that there was another killer or more killers out there in the same area taking on two people in a vehicle at the same time, then leaving their cars parked with the keys inside, was pretty slim.  If there was a copycat, he'd have to carry out a pretty bizarre kill routine.
 
Simple versus complex? I'm looking at MIXED MEDIUM.  Ruse and getaway are probably simple, yet unknown to us.  The manner in which the crime was carried out - complex.  

The killer could have murdered these people at anytime, anywhere, and quickly, then have retreated.  He could have shot them and left.  He could have stabbed them and left.   Instead, he took great risks by taking on two people at the same time, then relocating their bodies after killing them, then driving their vehicles, etc.  

[Cretaceous Dune]

Dec 29, 2018 15:36:08 GMT englishman said:

When researching the CPK murders, especially the locations, crime scenes, and timelines, one big part of his mindset jumps out at me he likes being elusive and the parkway allows him to do that, the majority of serial killers want to continue on but quite often their fragile ego's led them to make mistakes, because some of them to brag and goad the authorities. Is CPK careful, shy or does he not need the validation and attention other killers crave? Motivation wise in my opinion there is hatred involved but it's directed at people and society in general, which could stem from him feeling a sense of inadequacy in his life.

The more you look at the locations and routes taken by victims did he pick these areas because he liked the thrill of hunting, stalking and following people? One thing which might seem like a far-fetched thought there were a lot of horror slasher type films in the late 70s and throughout the 80s did he enjoy these kinds of films? The isolated forested roads fulfill the fantasy of being a modern-day bogeyman in an Urban myth, he must have enjoyed the fear this caused the community, college kids not wanting to visit the parkway.

Good point concerning the neatly folded clothes Cleo, it points out to me that his a structured and neat person. The shoes could mean a kind of foot fetish but he would of likely stolen or done something perverse with them, he might have made them take them off so they couldn't escape.

It seems to me that he also likely enjoyed the element of surprise, and used it to catch people unprepared to deal with him. Chances are he was middle aged; even a physically strong middle aged person is no match for a 20-something. He needed to catch them when they were vulnerable. The locations he chose would have suited his wants

[cleopatra]

How?

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

[cleopatra]

Apr 18, 2019 9:01:02 GMT Cretaceous Dune said:

Dec 29, 2018 15:36:08 GMT englishman said:

When researching the CPK murders, especially the locations, crime scenes, and timelines, one big part of his mindset jumps out at me he likes being elusive and the parkway allows him to do that, the majority of serial killers want to continue on but quite often their fragile ego's led them to make mistakes, because some of them to brag and goad the authorities. Is CPK careful, shy or does he not need the validation and attention other killers crave? Motivation wise in my opinion there is hatred involved but it's directed at people and society in general, which could stem from him feeling a sense of inadequacy in his life.

The more you look at the locations and routes taken by victims did he pick these areas because he liked the thrill of hunting, stalking and following people? One thing which might seem like a far-fetched thought there were a lot of horror slasher type films in the late 70s and throughout the 80s did he enjoy these kinds of films? The isolated forested roads fulfill the fantasy of being a modern-day bogeyman in an Urban myth, he must have enjoyed the fear this caused the community, college kids not wanting to visit the parkway.

Good point concerning the neatly folded clothes Cleo, it points out to me that his a structured and neat person. The shoes could mean a kind of foot fetish but he would of likely stolen or done something perverse with them, he might have made them take them off so they couldn't escape.

It seems to me that he also likely enjoyed the element of surprise, and used it to catch people unprepared to deal with him. Chances are he was middle aged; even a physically strong middle aged person is no match for a 20-something. He needed to catch them when they were vulnerable. The locations he chose would have suited his wants

Creta,

I'm with you on this.  I suspect the killer was over 35 years old.  It just seems like he really knrw what he was doing.  His maturity may have even had something to do with the victim's complying - respect for and fear of an older man.

I also believe the killer had experience handling 2 people at the same time.  Taking and killing 2 adults at the same time is very rare, and this guy did it several times.

[fusternino]

Just going to jump in here and say trying to control two victims with a firearm while also driving is very risky. I doubt he drove them while they were still alive.

[brownstone322]

Apr 18, 2019 15:51:55 GMT cleopatra said:

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

How?

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

Probably, because it's the simplest way to have done it -- sneak up on them in the dark -- and it most closely matches the evidence. They didn't need to have been in the middle of anything; simply being parked in a dark place would have been more than adequate, and this jibes with the four locations, which were dark and relatively isolated. It would also explain why the victims' cars were left where and how they were -- it's simply where and how the killer found them (or, in the case of Lauer/Phelps, how the killer left it). It would also explain how the assailant left the scene -- he simply drove away in his own car. (But see note below.)

NOTE: There's a problem here, and it has bugged me for a while. We know, from blood evidence, that Thomas and Dowski were in fact killed somewhere else, and we don't know where. This opens the door to a more complex MO, but we have no persuasive evidence beyond that.

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

Maybe, but I have my doubts, because it's more complicated, it's risky, and I don't think it completely makes sense. If he pulled them over, it might have required the vehicles, post-stop, to have been moved to their final locations, which would add risk and complexity to the process. If you keep doing things this way, something is certain to go wrong eventually.

Also, note that all four vehicles were found at places where cars should in fact have been parked (with one obviously having been pushed down an embankment). Meanwhile, pulling over a car on I-64 would have been especially risky, almost insanely risky -- Virginia State Troopers patrol the interstate constantly, day and night; if you stand in one spot near the interstate, you'll see a state cop come by within 10 minutes. So I think this guy came out of the shadows; I don't think flashing blue lights match his signature. 

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

I absolute do not believe this. Take everything I wrote under No. 2 and multiply by a thousand. 

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

I think the ruse was a .38 revolver.

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

I think the areas were stalked, but the victims were not. Three of the four couple had never even been alone together in a public before (all but Thomas/Dowski). But I think the killer had patrolled the "target areas" dozens of times, over many weeks or months, before he found a situation that was just right to make his move. This guy minimized risk to the extent such a thing were possible.

[brownstone322]

Apr 18, 2019 17:34:15 GMT fusternino said:

Just going to jump in here and say trying to control two victims with a firearm while also driving is very risky. I doubt he drove them while they were still alive.

As a gun owner, I've thought about this. He could have forced them into his trunk at gunpoint (alive) or loaded them there (dead) and taken them elsewhere. I think that's a more plausible explanation for Call/Hailey, than, say, use of a boat. And we know for a fact that other serial killers did exactly that (Bundy being one, who removed the right-front seat from his VW Beetle to allow him to transport victims; of course, he never transported two victims at once, would would have been especially bold).

My conundrum remains Thomas/Dowski, who were, without question, loaded into their own tiny car and transported an unknown distance. This invites near-limitless speculation as to the where and whens, none of which is supported by evidence, but none of which can be dismissed with confidence either.

I'll speculate this much: I'll wager that if Thomas/Dowski were in fact killed somewhere off the Colonial Parkway, then Call/Hailey were killed in the exact same place. Killers work off comfort and familiarity.

[(AQ)]

Apr 18, 2019 18:15:29 GMT brownstone322 said:

Apr 18, 2019 15:51:55 GMT cleopatra said:

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

How?

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

Probably, because it's the simplest way to have done it -- sneak up on them in the dark -- and it most closely matches the evidence. They didn't need to have been in the middle of anything; simply being parked in a dark place would have been more than adequate, and this jibes with the four locations, which were dark and relatively isolated. It would also explain why the victims' cars were left where and how they were -- it's simply where and how the killer found them (or, in the case of Lauer/Phelps, how the killer left it). It would also explain how the assailant left the scene -- he simply drove away in his own car. (But see note below.)

NOTE: There's a problem here, and it has bugged me for a while. We know, from blood evidence, that Thomas and Dowski were in fact killed somewhere else, and we don't know where. This opens the door to a more complex MO, but we have no persuasive evidence beyond that.

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

Maybe, but I have my doubts, because it's more complicated, it's risky, and I don't think it completely makes sense. If he pulled them over, it might have required the vehicles, post-stop, to have been moved to their final locations, which would add risk and complexity to the process. If you keep doing things this way, something is certain to go wrong eventually.

Also, note that all four vehicles were found at places where cars should in fact have been parked (with one obviously having been pushed down an embankment). Meanwhile, pulling over a car on I-64 would have been especially risky, almost insanely risky -- Virginia State Troopers patrol the interstate constantly, day and night; if you stand in one spot near the interstate, you'll see a state cop come by within 10 minutes. So I think this guy came out of the shadows; I don't think flashing blue lights match his signature. 

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

I absolute do not believe this. Take everything I wrote under No. 2 and multiply by a thousand. 

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

I think the ruse was a .38 revolver.

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

I think the areas were stalked, but the victims were not. Three of the four couple had never even been alone together in a public before (all but Thomas/Dowski). But I think the killer had patrolled the "target areas" dozens of times, over many weeks or months, before he found a situation that was just right to make his move. This guy minimized risk to the extent such a thing were possible.

I've been reading your comments & appreciate the new eyes and thoughts about these crimes!   I like having new avenues to consider and think about. 

I however have to disagree with your comments re the patrolling of the Parkway.   
It is easy to forget that we must time travel thru numerous realms when considering these murders.


While today, or even in the recent past, (ie last 20 years or more) CP is/was heavily patrolled, I have read a number of accounts that state just the opposite.  From what I've read, the Parkway was patrolled by 1-2 cars during the day/evening up until 10 or 11 and then there was only 1 car on patrol.   And, even this might be quite sparse. 

Meanwhile, the Park Rangers were afraid of what impression people would get, and how business would be affected if they announced that there were murders on the Parkway, moreso,  a serial killer.   

It took quite a bit for the Rangers to finally announce to 'be careful'.  They were much more focused on 'their park' than the fact that 2-3 and finally 4 pairs of dead bodies (plus the few single attacks/murders- I'm not versed in this aspect at all) found there.

Personally, I feel that yes, someone could have stopped a car under false pretenses. There are even reports of people stating they had cars follow them, pull them over (or try to).    I believe however that his/her time on the parkway itself was limited (ie quick).    I can't help but wonder about a Park Ranger or a tow-truck driver, both have reasons to be there; reasons to be interacting with persons in vehicles and reasons to exert a form of authority. 

Likewise, despite many who discount the theory I don't have any evidence to discount drug deals (even just marijuana) gone wrong or used as a pretense to interact with said couples.

[cleopatra]

Apr 18, 2019 22:07:22 GMT (AQ) said:

Apr 18, 2019 18:15:29 GMT brownstone322 said:

How?

1. Approached them while parked and in the middle of romance?

Probably, because it's the simplest way to have done it -- sneak up on them in the dark -- and it most closely matches the evidence. They didn't need to have been in the middle of anything; simply being parked in a dark place would have been more than adequate, and this jibes with the four locations, which were dark and relatively isolated. It would also explain why the victims' cars were left where and how they were -- it's simply where and how the killer found them (or, in the case of Lauer/Phelps, how the killer left it). It would also explain how the assailant left the scene -- he simply drove away in his own car. (But see note below.)

NOTE: There's a problem here, and it has bugged me for a while. We know, from blood evidence, that Thomas and Dowski were in fact killed somewhere else, and we don't know where. This opens the door to a more complex MO, but we have no persuasive evidence beyond that.

2. Pulled them over - LE or LE impersonator?

Maybe, but I have my doubts, because it's more complicated, it's risky, and I don't think it completely makes sense. If he pulled them over, it might have required the vehicles, post-stop, to have been moved to their final locations, which would add risk and complexity to the process. If you keep doing things this way, something is certain to go wrong eventually.

Also, note that all four vehicles were found at places where cars should in fact have been parked (with one obviously having been pushed down an embankment). Meanwhile, pulling over a car on I-64 would have been especially risky, almost insanely risky -- Virginia State Troopers patrol the interstate constantly, day and night; if you stand in one spot near the interstate, you'll see a state cop come by within 10 minutes. So I think this guy came out of the shadows; I don't think flashing blue lights match his signature. 

3. Abducted them at their car in a parking lot (store, food place, apartment complex, etc.) or other place?

I absolute do not believe this. Take everything I wrote under No. 2 and multiply by a thousand. 

4. Used a ruse to get the victim's to allow him in their vehicle?

I think the ruse was a .38 revolver.

TARGETS

Pre-selected and stalked victims days, weeks, or months in advance?

OR

Random - chose them the night he killed them?

I think the areas were stalked, but the victims were not. Three of the four couple had never even been alone together in a public before (all but Thomas/Dowski). But I think the killer had patrolled the "target areas" dozens of times, over many weeks or months, before he found a situation that was just right to make his move. This guy minimized risk to the extent such a thing were possible.

I've been reading your comments & appreciate the new eyes and thoughts about these crimes!   I like having new avenues to consider and think about. 

I however have to disagree with your comments re the patrolling of the Parkway.   
It is easy to forget that we must time travel thru numerous realms when considering these murders.


While today, or even in the recent past, (ie last 20 years or more) CP is/was heavily patrolled, I have read a number of accounts that state just the opposite.  From what I've read, the Parkway was patrolled by 1-2 cars during the day/evening up until 10 or 11 and then there was only 1 car on patrol.   And, even this might be quite sparse. 

Meanwhile, the Park Rangers were afraid of what impression people would get, and how business would be affected if they announced that there were murders on the Parkway, moreso,  a serial killer.   

It took quite a bit for the Rangers to finally announce to 'be careful'.  They were much more focused on 'their park' than the fact that 2-3 and finally 4 pairs of dead bodies (plus the few single attacks/murders- I'm not versed in this aspect at all) found there.

Personally, I feel that yes, someone could have stopped a car under false pretenses. There are even reports of people stating they had cars follow them, pull them over (or try to).    I believe however that his/her time on the parkway itself was limited (ie quick).    I can't help but wonder about a Park Ranger or a tow-truck driver, both have reasons to be there; reasons to be interacting with persons in vehicles and reasons to exert a form of authority. 

Likewise, despite many who discount the theory I don't have any evidence to discount drug deals (even just marijuana) gone wrong or used as a pretense to interact with said couples.

AQ,

You're right about everything you said.  Brownstone is also right.  However, I give more weight to AQ's explanations because when I first learned of the 4  CP murders I was in the exact same mindset as Brownstone.  Sometimes I go back and forth between whether the first 3 couples were parked on the Parkway when they were approached by the killer or if  they were brought there by the killer.

Parked on the Parkway by the killer has long been the standing theory of LE.  As such, there was no victimology, no going to thre University Square Apartments parking lot to look for Sandra's missing boot, no seeking of potential witnesses at stores or the movie theater where Dragnet was playing or where Sandra and Keith saw a movie, no interviewing of classmates or at job sites, etc... Perhaps that was the killer's plan.  If it was, it worked.  

Someone wanted LE and the families to believe Keith and Sandra were at the Parkway making out and drinking beer, then stripped down naked and went skinny dipping , then got carried away by the tides into the Atlantic Ocean.  That person also wanted people to believe before taking their dip to death, that Keith set down his eye glasses and watch on the dasboard and threw his keys on the seat.

After that crime, the killer struck far away from the Parkway.  It makes me wonder if all the unanticipated attention that crime got, and it having been connected to the first three murders, drove him farther out.

IMO, simple isn't quite working for this group of murders.   However, simple cannot be ruled out.

cleo

[englishman]

Apr 18, 2019 9:01:02 GMT Cretaceous Dune said:

Dec 29, 2018 15:36:08 GMT englishman said:

When researching the CPK murders, especially the locations, crime scenes, and timelines, one big part of his mindset jumps out at me he likes being elusive and the parkway allows him to do that, the majority of serial killers want to continue on but quite often their fragile ego's led them to make mistakes, because some of them to brag and goad the authorities. Is CPK careful, shy or does he not need the validation and attention other killers crave? Motivation wise in my opinion there is hatred involved but it's directed at people and society in general, which could stem from him feeling a sense of inadequacy in his life.

The more you look at the locations and routes taken by victims did he pick these areas because he liked the thrill of hunting, stalking and following people? One thing which might seem like a far-fetched thought there were a lot of horror slasher type films in the late 70s and throughout the 80s did he enjoy these kinds of films? The isolated forested roads fulfill the fantasy of being a modern-day bogeyman in an Urban myth, he must have enjoyed the fear this caused the community, college kids not wanting to visit the parkway.

Good point concerning the neatly folded clothes Cleo, it points out to me that his a structured and neat person. The shoes could mean a kind of foot fetish but he would of likely stolen or done something perverse with them, he might have made them take them off so they couldn't escape.

It seems to me that he also likely enjoyed the element of surprise, and used it to catch people unprepared to deal with him. Chances are he was middle aged; even a physically strong middle aged person is no match for a 20-something. He needed to catch them when they were vulnerable. The locations he chose would have suited his wants

I agree, the element of suprise would be a huge factor for him, also the locations indicate a strong degree of planning. In my opinion he'll be a bit of a perfectionist in his daily life.

[billthom56]

All:

Just wanted to say that I was going through this thread again-- this is a fascinating discussion.

Yes, everything I have been told by law enforcement says that the Colonial Parkway was very (!) lightly patrolled in the 1980s, while Interstate 64 and Route 17 and the James River Bridge were more regularly patrolled.

Having been to all four crime scenes on more than one occasion, it does feel like the cars were stopped when the encounter with the killer (s) began.

Thanks.



Bill Thomas

[hoth]

My .02, Occam’s razor from evidence of the wallets being out and glove compartments being opened plus how do you most easily get people to roll down their windows at night, and/or stop their cars when driving and control multiple people = someone either pretending to be LE or actual LE.