Well, perhaps not. It looks like your interpretation was correct the first time around. I went back to read the article and the profiler describes the unsub as someone who targets and stalks older women. (
link )
“(The killer) has knowledge that an elderly female lives there by herself,” said Mark Safarik, a retired FBI profiler with expertise in violent crime against the elderly.
Safarik said those who kill the elderly “are not opportunistic offenders. They are not breaking into a place and stumbling upon the victim. He knows she’s there, know she’s by herself, and he goes there with intent to sexually assault and murder her. This is different than prior research suggesting women were opportunistic victims of non-violent offenders who become violent at the scene.”
These are angry young men with pent-up rage toward women and likely live with a female authority figure, he said. They are socially incompetent men who perceive little control in their lives, are typically undereducated, have substance abuse problems and are unemployed or in a menial job.
“For these guys, there is not a lot of planning, and they don’t stay at the scene long. They leave evidence, don’t clean up. They don’t think that far ahead.”
They use far more violence than necessary to kill. Overkill is indicative of their anger. This had been the case on Indian Trail.
They attack elderly women because they are easy targets — a child does not present as ready a victim because he is seen as having guardianship, whereas an elderly woman on her own has none. These killers also tend to live relatively close to their victim.
“But a homeless guy in his 40s or 50s?” Safarik asked rhetorically when considering the Gleave case. “Hmm … My advice is look young and look close.”
I was thinking more along the lines of a secret paramour or someone with an axe to grind. Therefore, my own bias colored my interpretation.