CPK Profile by FBI

[mustangman]

May 19, 2021 14:46:26 GMT tosh said:

May 19, 2021 14:13:09 GMT mustangman said:

After an extensive study of the four crime scenes, McCann compiled a psychological profile of the killer. McCann declines to discuss the specifics of the profile.

``There is some behavior that tells us something about this man that we just don't want to release,'' he said.


Two years ago, McCann said there was a second person who had an ``intimate knowledge'' of the crimes. He implied that the second person might be in danger.

McCann said last week that his statements two years ago were intended to warn the second person.

``I was trying to let this person know, `Hey, you're next on his list,''' McCann said. ``It's a pretty good possibility that that second person is dead.''

From his study of the crime scenes, McCann concludes the second person may have been a helper to the killer.

``I don't think one person could have controlled the victims,'' he said. ``I think there needed to be two. These were not easy targets. These were young, healthy, strong individuals. It would have been too much for one person to handle.''


McCann's theory that the second person is now dead would help explain why the killings appear to have stopped.

``The situation has changed dramatically. Without the second person, the killer would be in danger of losing control of the situation. And I think it would be difficult to recruit another follower,'' McCann said.

McCann was trained by FBI specialists to draw up profiles of serial criminals.




What "behavior" of the killer would be held back by McCann??

McCann a trained expert in Serial killer behavior, who had access to all details of each of the CPK crime scenes, sure did believe that 2 people were working together in these murders.

This has always intrigued me too Mustangman. I wonder what it was that convinced him so much.

Larry McCann first came public about an accomplice in 1990 and that the second person may be in danger. In 1992 he said he believed the second person may be dead. Interestingly, Ron Little had already been deported in 1989 and Steve Blackmon was in jail by 1992.  

Then again, profilers don’t always get it right as seen in the Unabomber case where the FBI had been working under a profile for years until Jim Fitzgerald drew up a radically different one which proved to be right. 

``There is some behavior that tells us something about this man that we just don't want to release,''

McCann states this as a fact known to LE/investigators of something the killer does that LE hasn't told the public.  This appears to be some sort of "similar" clues or evidence left by the killer at several of the crime scenes?  It's something specific the killer is doing at the crimes scenes the public doesn't know, What could this be?

[tosh]

Mustangman, I was thinking the killer must be doing something at each of the scenes that involves a second person and that is where that theory has come from. I have absolutely no idea what it could be, I initially thought the second person may have been involved in driving the killer away from the scene but that would hardly be described as “very specific”.

[mustangman]

May 20, 2021 15:25:26 GMT tosh said:

Mustangman, I was thinking the killer must be doing something at each of the scenes that involves a second person and that is where that theory has come from. I have absolutely no idea what it could be, I initially thought the second person may have been involved in driving the killer away from the scene but that would hardly be described as “very specific”.

Exactly.  McCann calls the killer a "man" and there is something about just this man's "behavior" that "tells us something about this man".  I don't believe McCann is talking about the killer having an accomplice, because that is something the public can deduce on their own.  Maybe McCann has changed his belief on this over the years, but I wonder what "behavior" he initially saw in this killer that wasn't released to the public?  This is a very strange statement because it implies that the killer exhibited a similar behavior at more than one of the CPK crime scenes and by McCann saying this he appears to link the murders where the killer repeated this same behavior?  

I'd like to know which murders McCann saw the same "behavior" which was never released to the public?

[billthom56]

Lots of interesting observations, thanks!

My brother Jack and I have both had a gun pulled on us in separate robbery incidents-- me in Boston, Jack in New York City. You really do just focus on getting this person what they want and getting them out of your life as soon as possible.


Bill Thomas, Brother of Cathy Thomas, Colonial Parkway Murders

[tosh]

May 20, 2021 15:39:15 GMT mustangman said:

May 20, 2021 15:25:26 GMT tosh said:

Mustangman, I was thinking the killer must be doing something at each of the scenes that involves a second person and that is where that theory has come from. I have absolutely no idea what it could be, I initially thought the second person may have been involved in driving the killer away from the scene but that would hardly be described as “very specific”.

Exactly.  McCann calls the killer a "man" and there is something about just this man's "behavior" that "tells us something about this man".  I don't believe McCann is talking about the killer having an accomplice, because that is something the public can deduce on their own.  Maybe McCann has changed his belief on this over the years, but I wonder what "behavior" he initially saw in this killer that wasn't released to the public?  This is a very strange statement because it implies that the killer exhibited a similar behavior at more than one of the CPK crime scenes and by McCann saying this he appears to link the murders where the killer repeated this same behavior?  

I'd like to know which murders McCann saw the same "behavior" which was never released to the public?

The following is from The Waterloo Courier, 31st July, 1990.

A possibility exits that someone may be out there Impersonating a police officer. But we don't know that for sure." Irvin B. Wells special agent. Norfolk. Va., FBI office
Investigators are relying heavily on psychological guesswork to figure out the killer. They say that there is a chance he masquerades as a policeman. And they have appealed to a mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.

[njen]

Maybe the mysterious comrade is actually a woman - a girlfriend or wife who was in an abusive relationship with CPK. Helped in some capacity but did not want to.

[mustangman]

May 20, 2021 15:55:34 GMT tosh said:

May 20, 2021 15:39:15 GMT mustangman said:

Exactly.  McCann calls the killer a "man" and there is something about just this man's "behavior" that "tells us something about this man".  I don't believe McCann is talking about the killer having an accomplice, because that is something the public can deduce on their own.  Maybe McCann has changed his belief on this over the years, but I wonder what "behavior" he initially saw in this killer that wasn't released to the public?  This is a very strange statement because it implies that the killer exhibited a similar behavior at more than one of the CPK crime scenes and by McCann saying this he appears to link the murders where the killer repeated this same behavior?  

I'd like to know which murders McCann saw the same "behavior" which was never released to the public?

The following is from The Waterloo Courier, 31st July, 1990.

A possibility exits that someone may be out there Impersonating a police officer. But we don't know that for sure." Irvin B. Wells special agent. Norfolk. Va., FBI office
Investigators are relying heavily on psychological guesswork to figure out the killer. They say that there is a chance he masquerades as a policeman. And they have appealed to a mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.

right, so if we look at the earliest reports and theories by LE/Investigators we see that the "2 people working together" was very possible.

[daedra]

May 20, 2021 19:21:45 GMT mustangman said:

May 20, 2021 15:55:34 GMT tosh said:

The following is from The Waterloo Courier, 31st July, 1990.

A possibility exits that someone may be out there Impersonating a police officer. But we don't know that for sure." Irvin B. Wells special agent. Norfolk. Va., FBI office
Investigators are relying heavily on psychological guesswork to figure out the killer. They say that there is a chance he masquerades as a policeman. And they have appealed to a mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.

right, so if we look at the earliest reports and theories by LE/Investigators we see that the "2 people working together" was very possible.

the phrase "coerced to witness the crime" is interesting. It implies: 1) the accomplice wasn't willing, and 2) they did not necessarily partake in the crime, simply watched it 

[daedra]

May 20, 2021 19:18:27 GMT njen said:

Maybe the mysterious comrade is actually a woman - a girlfriend or wife who was in an abusive relationship with CPK. Helped in some capacity but did not want to.

Or possibly a teenage son 

[tosh]

May 20, 2021 19:18:27 GMT njen said:

Maybe the mysterious comrade is actually a woman - a girlfriend or wife who was in an abusive relationship with CPK. Helped in some capacity but did not want to.

That’s a really good thought, he could have used a female to gain the victims’ initial trust and confidence.
The quote about the person being coerced to witness the crimes. Has anyone ever come across that before? I had never heard or read it mentioned and it’s odd that it turned up in a newspaper in Iowa, I don’t remember reading it in any of the other reports from that time.

[tosh]

May 20, 2021 20:20:25 GMT daedra said:

May 20, 2021 19:21:45 GMT mustangman said:

right, so if we look at the earliest reports and theories by LE/Investigators we see that the "2 people working together" was very possible.

the phrase "coerced to witness the crime" is interesting. It implies: 1) the accomplice wasn't willing, and 2) they did not necessarily partake in the crime, simply watched it 

I keep thinking back to that phrase 
“mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.” How did they reach that belief - purely through profiling or evidence left behind? What possible evidence could suggest that someone was coerced to witness the crimes. 
I may be reading too much into this but I wonder if the word “comrade” came from the FBI and if it was used intentionally. I always think of it as being a very military term - did the FBI think the murderer was ex-military and the mysterious comrade was someone he had served with ?

[daedra]

Jun 5, 2021 21:17:29 GMT tosh said:

May 20, 2021 20:20:25 GMT daedra said:

the phrase "coerced to witness the crime" is interesting. It implies: 1) the accomplice wasn't willing, and 2) they did not necessarily partake in the crime, simply watched it 

I keep thinking back to that phrase 
“mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.” How did they reach that belief - purely through profiling or evidence left behind? What possible evidence could suggest that someone was coerced to witness the crimes. 
I may be reading too much into this but I wonder if the word “comrade” came from the FBI and if it was used intentionally. I always think of it as being a very military term - did the FBI think the murderer was ex-military and the mysterious comrade was someone he had served with ?

I keep circling back to this too...if there's evidence pointing to two people, that's huge. But it's hard to tell from the source if it's based on evidence or profiling. While profiling can be helpful, it can also be wrong, so I don't want to commit myself to thinking two people worked in a team if that's not what the evidence is pointing to. I either case, the phrasing is interesting, and you're right that there could be a military angle! 

[cleopatra]

In the Akron Ohio case, right after the couple went missing, someone called in a tip saying the couple was killed and left next to the Cuyahoga River, which is exactly where the couple's remains were found six years later.  

I read that the tipster overheard a conversation where those details were mentioned.  This means there was more than one perp in that crime. 

[billthom56]

Jun 9, 2021 3:24:29 GMT daedra said:

Jun 5, 2021 21:17:29 GMT tosh said:

I keep thinking back to that phrase 
“mysterious comrade whom they believe may have been coerced to witness the crimes.” How did they reach that belief - purely through profiling or evidence left behind? What possible evidence could suggest that someone was coerced to witness the crimes. 
I may be reading too much into this but I wonder if the word “comrade” came from the FBI and if it was used intentionally. I always think of it as being a very military term - did the FBI think the murderer was ex-military and the mysterious comrade was someone he had served with ?

I keep circling back to this too...if there's evidence pointing to two people, that's huge. But it's hard to tell from the source if it's based on evidence or profiling. While profiling can be helpful, it can also be wrong, so I don't want to commit myself to thinking two people worked in a team if that's not what the evidence is pointing to. I either case, the phrasing is interesting, and you're right that there could be a military angle! 

Tosh:

As I understand it from talking with Larry McCann and other retired FBI agents and SACs, they were trying to flush out the possible accomplice in 1990 or so with the talk of him (her?) being in danger.

Obviously, it didn't work as far as we know.

Thanks.

Bill Thomas

[cleopatra]

Jul 4, 2021 17:20:46 GMT billthom56 said:

Jun 9, 2021 3:24:29 GMT daedra said:

I keep circling back to this too...if there's evidence pointing to two people, that's huge. But it's hard to tell from the source if it's based on evidence or profiling. While profiling can be helpful, it can also be wrong, so I don't want to commit myself to thinking two people worked in a team if that's not what the evidence is pointing to. I either case, the phrasing is interesting, and you're right that there could be a military angle! 

Tosh:

As I understand it from talking with Larry McCann and other retired FBI agents and SACs, they were trying to flush out the possible accomplice in 1990 or so with the talk of him (her?) being in danger.

Obviously, it didn't work as far as we know.

Thanks.

Bill Thomas

Unless the CPK got to him