Part 29 (2/2)

The bulk of the evidence suggests this was a spontaneous murder. The killer apparently had come completely unequipped for the crime, and committed the murder on an impulse. His means of entry was unsophisticated, and his failure to replace the window screen after gaining entrance reflected both his lack of planning and, probably, low-average level of intelligence.

He'd neglected even to wear shoes, meaning the killer quite literally had arrived on foot. He probably lived nearby, a conclusion b.u.t.tressed by the fact he did not pause to wash up after the a.s.sault, but simply left as he came.

He used a weapon of opportunity (the kitchen knife) and made only a cursory effort to conceal it under a chair cus.h.i.+on as he left.

The UNSUB had trouble gaining control of his victim. To judge from her multiple defensive wounds, Donna Vetter put up a determined fight, as her father indicated she would.

This intruder was disorganized.

The second question was motive. Did the killer enter Vetter's apartment that night intent only on robbery or burglary? Was his primary motive murder? Or had this UNSUB originally come to rape?

Again, you may wish to cover the italicized text below as you consider the evidence.

Theft was not on his mind. After killing Vetter and raping her, he left without taking anything from the apartment.

Had the UNSUB come with the intent to kill Vetter, rather than to rape her, he likely would have brought a weapon. Also, unplugging her telephone was inconsistent with a homicide motive. If he intended to kill her, whether the telephone worked or not would have been immaterial.

Finally, his behavior indicates he had no experience with killing.

So, if he was a rapist who murdered, and not a murderer who raped, which of Roy's four major cla.s.sifications of stranger rapists did he fit?

Clearly he was not a power rea.s.surance rapist, nor an anger excitation rapist. Both are highly ritualistic offenders, an element entirely missing from this crime.

Ripping Donna Vetter's clothing from her body was typical of a power a.s.sertive rapist. However, his impulsivity and use of excessive force suggested an anger retaliatory rapist. Also, Donna Vetter's facial battering attested to the blitz approach, commonly seen among anger retaliatory rapists.

He was an anger retaliatory rapist.

Now here's a list of questions that readers at this stage may begin to consider. Hazelwood and Wright's responses immediately follow the list.

What is his approximate age?

Is he single or married?

Has he ever served in the military?

How bright is he?

What is his level of education?

Does he work? If so, at what?

Does he have a criminal history, and what would it include?

Does he have a sense of humor?

What is his self-image?

How does he typically dress?

Is he athletic?

What is his att.i.tude toward women?

Did he know Donna Vetter?

Does he own a car?

Is he a substance abuser?

Judging from his low level of sophistication, the type of rapist he apparently was, and his victim's age, Jim Wright believed the killer was twenty-two; Roy said twenty-six.

Both thought he was single, and probably lived with an older female relative.

Neither considered it likely the UNSUB had served in the military. He was too wild and violent, too quick to anger, too volatile to have survived boot camp. He would not do well around authority figures.

Both believed him of average intelligence at best. This was a high-risk crime for the perpetrator, and the means of entry reflected a lack of sophistication.

Both agents also thought it unlikely the UNSUB had made it through high school, and thought him a poor candidate to hold down any sort of job for long. Once again, he was too volatile, and would not take direction well.

He very likely had a criminal history, they agreed. He was apt to have an arrest record for rape, attempted rape, a.s.sault and battery, and also breaking and entering.

He would have no sense of humor, certainly not when a joke was made at his expense. This UNSUB had a macho self-image, an att.i.tude reflected in his clothing, his choice of alcoholic beverage, and his att.i.tude toward women, which would be derisive, hostile, and abusive. He probably used abusive language in their presence, as well.

He did not know Donna Vetter; otherwise he would not have entered her apartment through the window. But he was familiar enough with the apartment complex to be comfortable taking the risks that he did. He very likely had peeped Donna Vetter in the past, or otherwise had noticed her at home alone-her windows open.

He did not own a car. If he did, he'd drive farther away from home to commit his crimes.

And he did use alcohol and drugs, but did not abuse them. If he had an expensive drug habit, he probably would have stolen something of value to help support it.

Finally, it is possible to attempt a re-creation of the crime itself, a reconstruction that takes into account all the known facts and physical evidence, while also consistent with the profile.

Hazelwood and Wright believed that when the intruder came through the window, Donna Vetter was in the bathroom. She heard him, and, consistent with what her father told police, she rose and rushed immediately to confront him, not concerned in this emergency with either wiping herself or flus.h.i.+ng.

Victim and predator confronted one another where the hallway intersected the living room. There he struck her with several quick punches to the face. Her gum flew forward into the living room. Her gla.s.ses sailed next to the dining-room table.

As she collapsed to the floor, bleeding, the UNSUB returned to the window, pulled the drapes, and stopped to disconnect the telephone from the wall, leaving a partial palm print on the telephone table as he did. So far, he was being deliberate, if careless, preparing to commit his intended crime, s.e.xual a.s.sault.

Donna Vetter had a different script in mind.

In whatever few moments he spent in the living room, she jumped up and ran into the kitchen. Vetter knew her big knife lay on the counter, next to the lettuce and salad dressing for her Friday lunch.

She'd be ready for him.

The killer in all likelihood was not prepared to find his intended victim armed and ready to defend herself. Primarily motivated by anger toward women in the first place, he'd respond in rage to this challenge.

He took the knife from her and attacked. There was a ferocious, though probably brief, struggle.

<script>