Did the killer want the victims to die within the particular city limits for a reason, or was it a mere matter of convenience?

Federal law enforcement was pulled in too late to stop the murder of the sixth victim, a cop. And because the killer disappeared for three years, the case had grown cold, each individual jurisdiction trying to follow leads that dried up quickly. The FBI had kept the case active longer, had ultimately connected the first victim Anne Banks with the others because of the slash marks on her chest—but still, more dead ends. As new cases piled high, this case went to the bottom of the stack.

Until now.

She stared at the information in front of her. The names of the victims. Their photos. Their jobs. It bothered her that the third victim and the sixth victim were both off-duty cops. That had to mean something. In Catherine’s work, coincidences were rare.

So did the killer choose his victims based on their profession? Was that his pattern? Possible, but then the first victim, Anne Banks, was an outlier. She wasn’t a nurse; she was a stay-at-home mother. The only one of the seven who didn’t have outside employment. And the only one with young children. Was this first victim personal? Did the killer know her? Did she have any connection to medicine or education in her background? Nothing indicated this in her file. If she had a connection to law enforcement, that would have come out during the investigation. Still, Catherine made a note to confirm.

Three years ago, Catherine’s focus had been on putting together the profile, but it was incomplete, and she blamed herself—as well as local law enforcement that hadn’t wanted federal involvement and hadn’t provided her with all the information she needed to better understand this killer and his methodology. Yet, she couldn’t blame others. Her workload had been heavy, there was little forensic evidence, and not everyone involved in the investigation believed that the Portland murders were connected to the Missoula murders.

Matt was right once again—being on the ground working a case was far more effective than sitting behind a desk.

Yet, they had been focused then on connecting the victims, and they’d gone back five years to try and figure out if one or more of the victims had known each other. They hadn’t found a connection.

She sent Matt a quick email.

Matt,

We need more background on Anne Banks, the first victim. What did she do before she had kids, before her marriage? Where is she from originally? Could she have been a former teacher? Nurse? Cop? She’s the outlier. We need to find out why.

Catherine

The first crime scene and the first victim’s background always yielded more clues over time—things that might have been overlooked the first time through, things noticed with the benefit of hindsight, that might connect that victim to the subsequent victims.

The only other obvious pattern besides the method of death was the killer’s obsession with the number three. While three was important, Catherine believed that it was the date—March 3—that had personal significance for the killer.