Neighbor and girlfriend being evicted owe $685 in rent and $970 in damages.
Criminologist talks about crime and murders of sisters. The case involves control, greed and power. She said the culprit likely has a criminal history of robberies or burglaries. He thought they had money or something he could take.
Using bleach he knows his DNA is in database and he is trying to evade. So he's organized.
He attempted to evade video ..
“It's still an attempt to control the circumstances,” Pettler said. “He's still controlling what's going on. He's saying, ‘You can't see me.' … He knows he's at a high risk for detection, so he's taking precautions.”
Read more:
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5638310-74/police-criminologist-pettler#ixzz2u49xSMlu
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
I agree with most of that, and that control was a strong motivator, and he did go through the house looking for stuff, presumably to steal. He was under pressure to pay the rent. Maybe Susan and Sarah were trying to help him out by giving him odd jobs. He might have just killed her because she could identify him as the perp to police. He might have killed Sarah as she entered the home and found him there, and he killed her too because she recognized him. And yes, thugs kill for less than 2 cell phones.
But, in my view, this criminal profile ignores the overkill, which went beyond what was necessary to control what sounds like a gentle, compliant woman. That is a significant detail. He went over and above what was necessary to control them - he beat Susan viciously, then stripped her body post-mortem. When profit is the motive, moderate force is used, and the killer gets the heck out of there as soon as he accomplishes his task. I can't see how an organized ransacking of a residence for valuable objects would take anyone two whole hours. We don't know how much time elapsed before Susan's death, and Sarah's. He might have forced Susan through the house, searching for valuable items (lights on all floors of the house), then killed her.
Profit motivated criminals don't hang out for two hours, and strip the victim naked, and if you will allow me to beat that poor dead horse again - they don't have the victim's sweatpants "on them" when they are stopped by police for questioning on the street heading homeward, 10 days after the murder? Why hadn't he disposed of this evidence, if not being detected was his motive? Did he remove all of her clothes from the crime scene, and was putting a sock in one trash can, a bra in another, a shirt down a sewer, etc? I wouldn't think it would take 10 days to do so. He might have hidden her clothes in trash cans by his residence, and removed as many as he could carry comfortably on his walks. Did he hide them in his residence, but that might raise suspicions of his girlfriend. (BTW - where was she that night? Maybe working night shift, and he knew he could evade her attention for a period of time.)
He might have waited for Sarah to steal her car. It would have been handy to carry away Susan's bloody clothes, if in fact they were removed from the scene. Did he dump them all at the Sunoco? The car was ditched easy walking distance from 703 Chislett, and as we know, this guy is a prodigious walker in the area. It was cold, but he was used to walking.
Why strip her naked if all you wanted was her dang cell phone, or some money, or jewelry? Why douse her with bleach? In my view, some other significant physical contact took place, such as sexual assault (this has not been mentioned by police and is pure speculation on my part, but based on other crime scenes where crude cleansing occured).
Was his own blood on her, making him strip her to remove evidence of his blood? Personally, I can't see sweet Susan fighting back, scratching or biting him, or hitting him with an improvised object. I think Susan would have submitted quickly and easily, and told him to help himself to anything, if he didn't hurt her. Controlling her would be easy to accomplish - not require a vicious beating.
He brought no ligaments with him. Why take her down into the basement? That may be an organized act to suppress sounds of gunfire. Taking a victim from one place to another, to me, seems to be another signature in this crime, a more secret place to control and manipulate the body.
Is this guy smart enough to think about destroying little things like fiber evidence or his hair? I can see him being smart enough to want to bleach away seminal fluid and saliva or (his) blood, but why else douse her with bleach?
He's also a con man who pretended to befriend them. Part of his plan was to insinuate himself into their lives. Is this consistent behavior prior to a robbery, vicious beating, and an execution style murder with a gun?
The criminologist quoted in the article certainly has way more credibility than I do. You have to give me points for imagination (ha ha).
But they don't always get it right. One said the Gainesville Ripper was a physician or medical student, because the killings showed detailed knowledge of anatomy. That wasn't even close - Danny Rolling was an uneducated dirt bag.
