BTW! Exclusive . . . Profiler Pat Brown provides an interesting glimpse into the life of a Gatineau predator! Is there a possible link with the Leblanc murder?
Incredible tips (7 in total) from criminal profiler Pat Brown on the possible profile identity of the Gatineau abductor . . . including the proximity of the abduction attempts to the Rose Blue Massage Parlour . . . remember to tune in to the on-demand broadcast from last evening’s BTW! segment “Profiling the Abductor . . . Is It Just A Matter of Time Before a Gatineau Woman Falls Prey to a Predator?”
Here are the 7 likely profile characteristics of the Gatineau predator who, on at least three separate occasions, has attempted to abduct area women . . . do you know this man?
Profile Tip No. 1 – Look for a man with an easy to get job re security guard, mail room etc.
Profile Tip No. 2 – Possible acute triggers such as a recent job loss or a failed romantic relationship.
Profile Tip No. 3 – Is likely into super heroes or a very rich fantasy life that doesn’t align with his real life.
Profile Tip No. 4 – Based on his poor attempts to abduct, the suspect is likely in the early stages of a possible cycle.
Profile Tip No. 5 – The suspect likely lives or at least works in or near the area of the abductions.
Profile Tip No. 6 – The Rose Blue Massage Parlour was in the vicinity of the attempted abductions indicating that he might be known by either the workers or the patrons of the establishment . . . maybe even a frustrated patron himself.
Profile Tip No. 7 – Make no mistake, he is a psychopath . . .
While the description of the male suspect in the August 23rd murder of student Valerie Leblanc varies somewhat to the description of the suspect being sought in relation to the June abduction attempts (in the Leblanc case the man is described as being white, in his 20s, 6-feet tall and about 200 lbs. with a chubby face, pointy nose and pointed chin, as well as having short, black hair and olive skin), there are similar characteristics that would not discount the same individual being involved in both cases.
In fact, and according to research, eyewitness testimony while heavily relied on at trial is notoriously inaccurate such as with Huff (1987) who in studying 500 wrongful convictions found that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60% of the cases.
More recently, a 1998 study by Wells examined 40 cases where a person was wrongly convicted based on witness testimony, and was subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence. In those instances, an incredible 90% of eye witness identifications turned out to be inaccurate.
What this means is that there is as previously stated, enough similarities in eyewitness descriptions of the suspect linking the same man to both cases, so as not to be summarily dismissed.
I will keep you posted.
NOTE: Follow this BTW! exclusive story on the Buckingham Portal Blog . . . subscribe today!