Victim - Melissa Barthelemy

[Peter Brendt]

um .. you started out making a case that the killer would be the SAME ethnicity as the victims.

Uhm ... you missed like 100 posts before. I started out to make clear, this guy (LISK) isn't your usual pychopath101/sadist101, but something different. I argued based on differences in the victimology and in posts before behavior. <modsnip>:

- his victimology doesn't fit the typical psychopath101 victimology of a white sexual predator (who would also most likely have white victims, but they would have more in common in their appearance).

- his attitude towards the dropped bodies indicates, he is a drive by revisitor, which would place him in categories of control and even more dominance, but without direct emotional bind to his victims as other SKs, for example Bundy, showed. But he is also no spreader, his victims are grouped. Means, he isn't a type like Ridgway either. So to this one, the stretch on the beach was more like doctor titles on a wall. Their meaning was important, not the actual document.

So, those are the reasons, why I think, he isn't just the usual white loner psychopath from the FBI seminar "Profiling for bloody Beginners". <modsnip>. Thanks!

 

[Just K]

This is all assuming that there is only one killer for GB4, JDs, JohnDs and Manorville, correct?

If there are indeed two or three different killers then none of these profiles would be accurate, yes?

 

[Peter Brendt]

This is all assuming that there is only one killer for GB4, JDs, JohnDs and Manorville, correct?

If there are indeed two or three different killers then none of these profiles would be accurate, yes?

Nope, the profile shows, there is more than one (Manorville, AC, LISK). So at least my profiles are accurate for three different SKs and NOT based on the assumption there is only one.

 

[rodent69]

you missed like 100 posts before.

An exaggeration, but essentially correct.

they would have more in common in their appearance

So your are saying that even though they appear to be of similar ethnicity and gender, they don't look enough alike for there to be a common appearance factor like Ted Bundy's victims.

It's a sample size of 4. Exclude MW and you have a much more similar victim set. In fact you can probably come to many different conclusion, depending on how you arrange a limited set.

If we can correlate behavior x to attribute y 60% of the time, we still have to look at the other 40% probability.

 

[Peter Brendt]

An exaggeration, but essentially correct.

So your are saying that even though they appear to be of similar ethnicity and gender, they don't look enough alike for there to be a common appearance factor like Ted Bundy's victims.

It's a sample size of 4. Exclude MW and you have a much more similar victim set. In fact you can probably come to many different conclusion, depending on how you arrange a limited set.

If we can correlate behavior x to attribute y 60% of the time, we still have to look at the other 40% probability.

Ouch, that gives you four Tylenol on my open ended headache scale!
First thing, we don't talk here about just probabilities for a simple reason: SKs chose their victims, so the determining factor is the SKs taste, which excludes the random element out of your statistical swamping. To put it in your model, you don't have a 60/40 with one special serial killer simply because he chooses 100% of the time.
Second thing, if you put MW out of the sample (which is hard to reason why in the first place), then you still have Maureen Brainard-Barnes with dark brown hair, blue eyes and relative high forehead and Melissa Barthelmy with red hair, dark eyes (I don't even know what to call that color), a rounded face shape and Amber Lynn Costello, on the pic I have with middle brown hair and streaks, a bigger nose and a lot longer face. So no, even if you put Megan Waterman out, you don't get a closer similarity beyond gender and ethnicity. Which btw, is true for any one of them, if you put one out, you still get no similair optical victimology, I checked that before I made my profile up.
Lets come to the sample size. 4 isn't a big number, isn't it? But if 4 is 100% of all victims of an SK, it is significant because it allows a valid conclusion on a number up till 20. The size of a valid statistical sample is to be estimated from the size of the base set. 4 out of 20 (which is higher than what the average SK gets over his career) is 20%. Congratulations, because if that isn't valid, then any poll, any population statistics working with samples of 0.00001% of the base set has to be even more invalid. Basic math.
And a last point: Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy's victim had in different phases of his career different traits. So technically, the chances to be picked as his victim was:

appearance + behavior + opportunity

in which opportunity is a simple ko criteria while appearance is in itself dependent on several factors like hair color, hair length, hair cut, size, curves ...
Only in his last phase in the spiraling down after the Sigma Chi murders. those criteria blurred (if you look at Kimberly Leach, she fulfilled not much of the earlier criterias). You can't simplify such things beyond the realm of recognition and hope, you get anything out of it which allows you to work with.

 

[rodent69]

4 isn't a big number, isn't it? But if 4 is 100% of all victims of an SK, it is significant because it allows a valid conclusion on a number up till 20. The size of a valid statistical sample is to be estimated from the size of the base set. 4 out of 20 (which is higher than what the average SK gets over his career) is 20%. Congratulations, because if that isn't valid, then any poll, any population statistics working with samples of 0.00001% of the base set has to be even more invalid. Basic math.

Sure for any 1 given trait. If I want to find the likelihood of sharing 2 traits, I need to increase the sample size to maintain the same accuracy.

 

[Aleph]

Now, if all the victims would be African-American, nobody would have a problem profiling, the killer is Caucasian. But the victims are all Caucasian, which makes the killer with that victimology and no evidence of sadistic torture what exactly?

RSBM.

If the victims were all African-American, people would think that the killer was probably also black. The Grim Sleeper, for instance, was a black man who only killed black women. It's relatively rare for racial hatred to be a motivation for serial killers; it's usually more about sexual attraction and availability.

The Gilgo 4 did resemble one another, just not in their faces. There is more to sexual attraction than what someone's face looks like -- that's a secondary or tertiary concern for many people. The GB4 were all small in stature and looked underage. If I worked serving alcohol, I'd card every single one of them. Megan Waterman was the largest of them, but she had a baby face. She looked like she was in high school. Jessica Taylor looked like a middle schooler. That's what I think the victims had in common, especially since the killer was so interested in young girls that he harassed Melissa Barthelemy's 12-year-old sister.

 

[rodent69]

To put it in your model, you don't have a 60/40 with one special serial killer simply because he chooses 100% of the time.

My point being that these models don't help to find a serial killer, but may be dangerously allow people to overlook pontential suspects.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Sure for any 1 given trait. If I want to find the likelihood of sharing 2 traits, I need to increase the sample size to maintain the same accuracy.

How you come to that idea? I know, since my math lectures at the university, some time has passed, but I didn't know, mathematical rules have made a 180 degree turn ...

Since the fulfillment of multiple criteria is the rarer case because all criterias of n different statements are connected with and, the case of fulfillment of all of said criteria increases the stability of the conclusion on any sample of any size. Simpl because the and-connection eliminates all cases in which only 1 ... n-1 wrongfully set criteria would be included in the conclusion.
In other words, if you demand a higher number of fulfilled criteria anyway, you conclusion becomes more stable bacause one wrongfully estimated criteria doesn't have impact on the result ... we have left the realm of basic math and are now in stuff of second semester in an engineers study ... yeah ...

 

[Peter Brendt]

My point being that these models don't help to find a serial killer, but may be dangerously allow people to overlook pontential suspects.

Well, that was the point of a lot of people, when Bob Keppel tried to profile Bundy and later Ridgway. History tells us, if they would have listened, instead of making "their point", some dozen lives could have been saved. However, in Atlanta people tried to make the very same point against Agent Douglas, but luckily, nobody listened, so they caught Wayne Willimas because not so many people got a chance to make the exactly same point as you try to make here and thus standing in the way of solving the case. Well, and when Robert Hanson was on the lose, nobody tried to make that point anymore. So one week after Hazelwood wrote the profile, the cops were after Hanson.
The history of serial killers is a long sad story of people making the same point over and over again wasting lives and time in the process. Which we can btw also prove mathematically:

The moment, you draw any conclusions from a crime scene or any of the victims, you profile. Very simple. And if you don't draw any conclusions from what you have there, you don't know zilch about the killer. If you take that as statements A and B in the boolean algebra, you can see

A and not B has to be fullfilled to make the whole statement true. Since true is the case where you get your chance to catch the killer, mathematics tells us, you can't go for
A and B because you can't conclude and not conclude at the same time
and we can't go for
not A and B because this is the expression for knowing nothing.

So, being serious for a moment again, I've heard your point dozens of times, maybe hundreds of times. I still wait for the first time, it works.

 

[rodent69]

I know, since my math lectures at the university, some time has passed, but I didn't know, mathematical rules have made a 180 degree turn ...

Since the fulfillment of multiple criteria is the rarer case because all criterias of n different statements are connected with and, the case of fulfillment of all of said criteria increases the stability of the conclusion on any sample of any size. Simpl because the and-connection eliminates all cases in which only 1 ... n-1 wrongfully set criteria would be included in the conclusion.
In other words, if you demand a higher number of fulfilled criteria anyway, you conclusion becomes more stable bacause one wrongfully estimated criteria doesn't have impact on the result ... we have left the realm of basic math and are now in stuff of second semester in an engineers study ... yeah ...

Been a long time for me as well. If I want to take a sample and decide the odds of any random person sharing multiple characteristics I need to take a larger sample size to maintain the same level of prediction accuracy that I would have when predicting 1 trait.

But you are correct, that isn't valid a way of looking at this. The question here is how significant are multiple shared traits in a limited set ... and yes it is more significant.

 

[Peter Brendt]

RSBM.

If the victims were all African-American, people would think that the killer was probably also black. The Grim Sleeper, for instance, was a black man who only killed black women. It's relatively rare for racial hatred to be a motivation for serial killers; it's usually more about sexual attraction and availability.

The Gilgo 4 did resemble one another, just not in their faces. There is more to sexual attraction than what someone's face looks like -- that's a secondary or tertiary concern for many people. The GB4 were all small in stature and looked underage. If I worked serving alcohol, I'd card every single one of them. Megan Waterman was the largest of them, but she had a baby face. She looked like she was in high school. Jessica Taylor looked like a middle schooler. That's what I think the victims had in common, especially since the killer was so interested in young girls that he harassed Melissa Barthelemy's 12-year-old sister.

Okay, I see, we're all up for a long day.

1.) You say, racial hatred for serial crimes (and I include here explicitly also serial rapists) is relatively rare.
Omar Thornton, Carlton Gary, Bernard Jackson would disagree with you. You also may remember the Zebra murders, also Mathew Macon comes to mind, or Lemual Smith ... and those are only the first few coming to my mind. On the white side, we have some lesser known cases, mostly in connection with the KKK. Charles Sanders comes to mind, or James Seale. So I bet, if I really start to search, I can deliver some more, especially, because it's relevant for this case, African-American ones. You statement is simply wrong.

2.) The Grim Sleeper, Lonnie Franklin, was a garden variety psychopath. Well technically he still is. Low level of organization, killing out of impulse, not very elaborate torture. As I pointed out in my posts to Rodent69, this is the kind, who goes for the sexual attraction which leads them often, not always, to stay in their own ethnicity. However, it is wrong to assume, all SKs are of this one singular type.

3.) I brought up the faces of the GB4 as examples. You can add different sizes, different builds, different bra-sizes, different ages. So where, please tell me, are they similar?

4.) The choice of victims is usually by sexual attraction and availability. Well, non-availability is certainly a KO criteria. However, sexual attraction can play a different role for different SKs depending on their main motivation. Because the selection scheme mentioned in your post obviously can be only valid if sex is the primary motive. All others (hedonistc, mission-driven, OCD-types, narcissistic psychopaths, house cleaners, angels of death, black widows, hedonistic, greed-oriented) types follow other stars. So "usual" is only usual for a small part of all psycho-pathologies creating SKs.

5.) No sense in harassing someone, you never saw. This can't fulfill sexual urges. Coveting starts with seeing. So the reason to call her on the phone was different, and since all of the little hints, we got about those calls, points to domination behavior, we can conclude, it's about domination. Not sexual attraction.

So well, this is my opinion. And some prove for it.

 

[Aleph]

Okay, I see, we're all up for a long day.

1.) You say, racial hatred for serial crimes (and I include here explicitly also serial rapists) is relatively rare.
Omar Thornton, Carlton Gary, Bernard Jackson would disagree with you. You also may remember the Zebra murders, also Mathew Macon comes to mind, or Lemual Smith ... and those are only the first few coming to my mind. On the white side, we have some lesser known cases, mostly in connection with the KKK. Charles Sanders comes to mind, or James Seale. So I bet, if I really start to search, I can deliver some more, especially, because it's relevant for this case, African-American ones. You statement is simply wrong.

I don't know much about serial rapists. (Your knowledge on this topic is astounding, by the way!) I have no problem believing that the KKK has done all kinds of horrible things, but neither Charles Sanders or James Seale fits the definition of a serial killer. Seale killed two men in a single incident and, from what I can tell, Sanders was never even charged with a crime.

I would be interested to hear about any other examples of racially-motivated serial killers, whether white or black.

2.) The Grim Sleeper, Lonnie Franklin, was a garden variety psychopath. Well technically he still is. Low level of organization, killing out of impulse, not very elaborate torture. As I pointed out in my posts to Rodent69, this is the kind, who goes for the sexual attraction which leads them often, not always, to stay in their own ethnicity. However, it is wrong to assume, all SKs are of this one singular type.

Yes.

3.) I brought up the faces of the GB4 as examples. You can add different sizes, different builds, different bra-sizes, different ages. So where, please tell me, are they similar?

As I said before, I think the connection is that they're all young-looking. Granted, most escorts are under a certain age, and the youthful look is popular. But combined with their generally unusually small stature and the killer's focus on telephoning an underaged girl, I think he's playing out a fantasy about being with an inappropriately young woman.

Too much can be made of serial killers' victims needing to resemble one another. The only example you cite is Ted Bundy, and that theory has been mostly debunked from what I understand.

4.) The choice of victims is usually by sexual attraction and availability. Well, non-availability is certainly a KO criteria. However, sexual attraction can play a different role for different SKs depending on their main motivation. Because the selection scheme mentioned in your post obviously can be only valid if sex is the primary motive. All others (hedonistc, mission-driven, OCD-types, narcissistic psychopaths, house cleaners, angels of death, black widows, hedonistic, greed-oriented) types follow other stars. So "usual" is only usual for a small part of all psycho-pathologies creating SKs.

I think you are seeing things as binary that are non-binary in nature, such as availability. It's more of a spectrum of availability. Yes, some people can probably be marked down as totally unavailable to a serial killer (maybe the Princess of Wales for instance) but for every other potential victim, the killer has to negotiate between availability, his preferences, and his own internal "need" to kill.

Motives are also non-binary. That's not to say that there are no distinctions between them, but sex and domination are inter-related. People don't go to BDSM clubs to whip people they're not attracted to. These categories are only useful until they're not anymore. Eventually it can be like arguing whether it's a white cow with brown spots or a brown cow with white spots.

5.) No sense in harassing someone, you never saw. This can't fulfill sexual urges. Coveting starts with seeing. So the reason to call her on the phone was different, and since all of the little hints, we got about those calls, points to domination behavior, we can conclude, it's about domination. Not sexual attraction.

He had Melissa's phone. Melissa probably had photos of her sister on her phone. That's how he is most likely to have known that Melissa's sister was biracial and (if we believe the boyfriend) that her boyfriend had tattoos.

So well, this is my opinion. And some prove for it.

Thank you.

 

[Aleph]

But combined with their generally unusually small stature and the killer's focus on telephoning an underaged girl, I think he's playing out a fantasy about being with an inappropriately young woman.

Sorry to quote my own post, but I wanted to add that the fantasy of being with a much younger woman is also about power, domination, and control.

 

[Peter Brendt]

I don't know much about serial rapists. (Your knowledge on this topic is astounding, by the way!) I have no problem believing that the KKK has done all kinds of horrible things, but neither Charles Sanders or James Seale fits the definition of a serial killer. Seale killed two men in a single incident and, from what I can tell, Sanders was never even charged with a crime.

Seale was also suspected in being involved in killing seven more in at least four more incidents.
Charles Sanders was never charged because at the time, LE did what they always do after catching an SK - booking all unsolved cases on him. In this case Wayne Williams. Adn when the investigation was re-opened, they found enough probable cause, but Sanders was already dead.

I would be interested to hear about any other examples of racially-motivated serial killers, whether white or black.

Carlton Gary, Lemual Smith ... the only serial rapist in the list in my last post was Bernard Jackson, the Waldo Rapist. I like to include him, because is a very clear example for that kind of victimology.

As I said before, I think the connection is that they're all young-looking. Granted, most escorts are under a certain age, and the youthful look is popular. But combined with their generally unusually small stature and the killer's focus on telephoning an underaged girl, I think he's playing out a fantasy about being with an inappropriately young woman.

So I can agree, they have in common, that they were all younger then menopause age. And the fantast of being with a lot younger aged women would mean either a pedophile (which doesn't hold water here because they were all out of that age, or much much younger as in twenty years younger. Which, considering the age range, LISK is probably in, would place his victims again in the nubiles bracket. So no way, the fantasy of much younger women would take hold in this case in my opinion.

Too much can be made of serial killers' victims needing to resemble one another. The only example you cite is Ted Bundy, and that theory has been mostly debunked from what I understand.

How about you go to my website and look up Alcala? And the thing with similarities is not that simple. Nope, also Bundy's victims didn't look all alike, but all (at least until his spiral down began) had traits in their appearance attracting him. Which btw never was a secret, Bundy admitted to that part himself. Rader reacted to a certain type and at least on a statistical level, I could argue Ridgeay did. The really weird part starts of course with the Hillside Stranglers. Take a closer look and you will find, all their victims are of two different types of appearance except for the first one (who was killed by them for another reason). But all others were either Bianchi's or Buono's taste. Eckert, another case, this time in Germany (I include him, you can read him up on my website too) had this thing with long hair going on. So the idea, that psychopathic sexual predators have no type and therefore their victimologies show no similarities is wrong. However, there is a rare variant, who kills victims all over the spectrum. Albright for example. Sexual predators with a taste for the change. Only they are rare and cross inevitable also ethnicity borders. Which LISK didn't.

I think you are seeing things as binary that are non-binary in nature, such as availability. It's more of a spectrum of availability. Yes, some people can probably be marked down as totally unavailable to a serial killer (maybe the Princess of Wales for instance) but for every other potential victim, the killer has to negotiate between availability, his preferences, and his own internal "need" to kill.

Well, if availability is no issue, then the element of choice would be only stronger, wouldn't it? Which means, you have even harder problems to argue, that availability would be a reason why he didn't kill victims exactly fitting his taste. And btw, you still have to supply the details, in which you think, the GN4 are similar except for being women, Caucasian and under 80 years of age ...

Motives are also non-binary. That's not to say that there are no distinctions between them, but sex and domination are inter-related. People don't go to BDSM clubs to whip people they're not attracted to. These categories are only useful until they're not anymore. Eventually it can be like arguing whether it's a white cow with brown spots or a brown cow with white spots.

People who want to have BDSM go there to have BDSM style sex, right? And they like to whip people they find attractive. So why no torture marks on the GB4?
Of course', people don't go to BDSM clubs, if they want to buy a new car. Different motivation. They may use the car to go to an entirely different place.

He had Melissa's phone. Melissa probably had photos of her sister on her phone. That's how he is most likely to have known that Melissa's sister was biracial and (if we believe the boyfriend) that her boyfriend had tattoos.

I don't know about you, but I don't carry naked pictures of my wife on my cell phone, nor of my brothers ... You know, some of those tattoos would be only visible without clothes, otherwise they would be useless as prove that he had Melissa in the first place?

I don't write an extra response to your other post, since it only repeats the idea of "being with younger women"

 

[*Indigo*]

Hi Peter, Just to add in here that just because there has been no mention of torture in the information that LE has released in regards to the GB4 that does not mean that they were not tortured.
And in fact, the phone calls made to Melissa's sister detailed violent acts that he had done to her. Indicative that the GB4 were tortured.
I think also that there are physical characteristics that link the victims - Height and size being the first that comes to mind. These women were statistically small women.
Also I do see facial likeness between them. Maybe they had similar ways of carrying themselves and or similar personalities? That is something we cannot discern from photographs.

 

[nugzter]

Hi Peter, Just to add in here that just because there has been no mention of torture in the information that LE has released in regards to the GB4 that does not mean that they were not tortured.
And in fact, the phone calls made to Melissa's sister detailed violent acts that he had done to her. Indicative that the GB4 were tortured.
I think also that there are physical characteristics that link the victims - Height and size being the first that comes to mind. These women were statistically small women.
Also I do see facial likeness between them. Maybe they had similar ways of carrying themselves and or similar personalities? That is something we cannot discern from photographs.

I assume you are making this statement based on the killer stalking his victims either virtually or in real life?
Because your last sentence, "That is something we cannot discern from photographs.", would also be correct for the killer.


There is a web site that was popular with the kids a few years ago called something like "who is hot and who is not" or whatever. And people would judge pictures of other members if they found them attractive. I watched my nephew who was 15 at the time spend hours on there and it is really crazy.
So imagine our SK guy out there trolling thru Craigslist. Most of these girls do not show their faces. The ones that do are "fakes" from what I have read on the John boards. So If he is not stalking them in real life we can forget about the looks from a facial stand point. Let&#8217;s look at other physical attributes. I really see none if you take into consideration the fact that most escorts are not of the "robust" build, thus most are what one might consider "petite" or "skinny". I believe his choices in escorts are random. In his eyes they must be generally "attractive", not "cracked out" looking. For sure he has an age range from 18 -30. But I think he prefers the younger types. They must also be "real", not "fakes". Which means he has most likely had other dates, and the escort was not as advertised. So he either declined the date or was ripped off by a pimp, ect. Or, possible Asian Male scenario. Either way had some altercation. I believe these "fake dates" were perceived to him as a waste of his time and effort which made him even more mad and spiteful towards escorts. I will guess to say from the frequency of the GB4 killings, of4-5 dates he made, only one went the way he had planned. I don't think this guy is a sloppy lunatic like Ridgeway. He is careful and in control. If any slightest thing goes awry, he just breaks it off. He has ALOT of time on his hands so he can troll. He has it all planned out, the only hitch in his plans are the escorts and if they fit his needs. I bet all the GB4 killings followed the same pattern from the time he picked them up to the time he dumped the bodies. He must have a safe house with a garage. It is possible that he keeps them up to days at a time.
This is all my opinion, and pure speculation based on what I have read so far.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Hi Peter, Just to add in here that just because there has been no mention of torture in the information that LE has released in regards to the GB4 that does not mean that they were not tortured.
And in fact, the phone calls made to Melissa's sister detailed violent acts that he had done to her. Indicative that the GB4 were tortured.
I think also that there are physical characteristics that link the victims - Height and size being the first that comes to mind. These women were statistically small women.
Also I do see facial likeness between them. Maybe they had similar ways of carrying themselves and or similar personalities? That is something we cannot discern from photographs.

As a matter of fact, obviously anybody here has the right to see or not to see whatever he/she/it likes. So after we have now for 1 1/2 days constructed the same things over and over again, I'm not willing to go a thrid time in the loop. I made that mistake in another apsect in this case when it was about is SG connected, I went in Spring of 2011 through the loop FIVE times, everybody telling me, she had to be connected and had to be a victim of the one and only SK of Long Island ... yea, in the meantime FBI and Suffolk PD made the swing to two SKs and SG was found pretty much exactly on the line, I said in Spring 2011, they should look (aka the line from where Coletti saw her the last time, direction to the water through the weeds and thicket there. So well, I went five times through the loop, a lot of people had nicely constructed theories why I was wrong and yada yada yada and we know how that part worked out. So ... lets just wait how the second part of the story works out, won't we?

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Something that kind of jumped out at me this morning regarding the phone calls to Melissa's sister: they went on for quite some time. LISK initially talked about all the things he did to Melissa, but never mentioned killing her until the very last call. So, did he hold her somewhere? If so, do the forensics bear this out? If he didn't hold her, then she was at the dumpsite (along with Maureen) the entire 6 months he was calling Melissa's sister and tormenting her. What prompted him to end the calls by telling the sister Melissa was dead? My guess is because the game got old to him. Move on to a new game. Court another victim. That next victim would have been Megan. So if Melissa disappeared July 10, 2009... and if the calls went on for 6 months, that puts us some time in January of 2010. Megan disappeared June 6, 2010. That's 5 months time LISK had to court her, assuming he devoted himself strictly to her (which he may not have).

So my question is this: what do we know about Megan's activities from Jan.-June 2010 ? Anything?

 

[*Indigo*]

Hi Peter,

I'm sorry if I have offended you - I didn't mean to be rude in my post I just wanted to clarify some facts.
I agree that there is no point in going around in circles rehashing the same argument, I think it's a good thing that we all have different ideas - it means that everyone is bringing their own unique skills and knowledge bases to help solve this case. :rocker:
I also wanted to say I took you up on your post where you asked anyone to google your name and find your website and read your profile on the LISK - you have some really interesting ideas. Totally different take on the profiles discussed on websleuths. But definitely plausible. Especially the stalker aspect IMHO. I just wanted to ask you if you could explain what are the reasons you feel it's a racially motivated anger type of perpetrator? You mentioned in your profile that it had simularities to the Waldo rapist? Im not familiar with that case. Are there other cases that seem similar to you? or reasons??
Thanks in advance