TEN YEAR REPORT

Presented here, for the first time, is the closest description of the Unknown Male what he looks like, what he does, how he behaves, where he lives. Obviously, because his identity remains unknown, these are theories, not facts, but if recent history is any indication, when he is finally caught, he will be remarkably close to much of the description provided by FBI experts. One crucial aspect of the revised “profile” relates to the ubiquitous poster of the suspect. Remember the undistinguished drawing of the slightly built man, unremarkable in appearance? Forget it. At least for now, set it aside. It could be that the Poster Man is not an accurate portrayal of the Unknown Male. The description provided by witnesses was based on fleeting glimpses of a man seen approaching Amy, but not in actual contact with her. There was no reason to scrutinize him and nothing extraordinary about his actions or appearance. Wrenn emphasizes that “people should not hesitate to contact us if they have some information, but the man doesn’t look like the drawing I can’t say that strongly enough.”The rest is a behavioral composite based on 10 years of available information. The offender is a white male. At the time of the crime, he was in his mid- to late 30s, older than average for a first-time child aggressor. He is not remarkable in appearance, within average ranges of height, weight and build. He may look presentable, but not accomplished or professional. “He is socially marginalized, ” according to Etter. “Not in the mainstream, not a run-of-the-mill citizen.”“He won’t fit in with his peers very well, especially women,” adds Lord, “and the people who know him will describe him as ‘odd’ or ‘difficult.’ It’s likely that he was living alone, with a single roommate, or maybe still at his parents’ house.” It is most unlikely he was in a successful marriage, with a normal home and family life.One of the most intriguing aspects of the report is that the killer was most likely to have undergone some sort of dramatic change in his behavior, personality or appearance in the weeks preceding the crime. He developed a sudden compulsive or obsessive disorder, experienced a personal catastrophe or an emotional setback. “He may have started drinking heavily, or stopped drinking suddenly,” says Wrenn. “He could have started into hard drugs or quit a drug habit.” There was a drastic change in his life, maybe a sudden fascination with a cult or radical religious group. Something happened to this man in the fall of 1989, something that would have been noticeable to close friends or relatives.” There was a pre-event stressor,” says Lord, “something that took him from fantasy to action.”The stress in his life may have been reflected in a dramatic change in his physical appearance. He let his hair grow long or cut it very short. His health suffered. His weight fluctuated. There were changes in his appearance or lifestyle.In addition, one important logistical aspect should be noted. This man was not passing through. Contrary to the family’s trusting conviction that no one known to any of them was involved, authorities are confident that the Unknown Male has “… reason to know this area,” according to Etter; “A resident, a contract worker or delivery person familiar with Bay Square.” Lord cites the need for such a predator to select a “hunting ground where he can … move comfortably through the tall grass.”Lord explains that the Ashland County location is just as important. “This was not random,” he says. “When you are disposing of something thatc ould ruin your entire life, you’re going to be careful.” The Unknown Male knew County Road 1181. He had been on that lonely stretch of asphalt before. He knew he could quickly place Amy’s body just over a shallow ridge a few yards from the pavement and expect it would go undiscovered for weeks or months. Wrenn confirms the conclusion: “Yes, we think he was familiar with Bay Village and familiar with the area in Ashland.”The experts go another step. “We believe he had knowledge of the family,” says Etter, “personal knowledge in considerable detail.”The most disturbing part of the report concerns his behavior since the crime. Because there has not been a similar crime reported at least nothing like the complicated telephone plot to lure Amy to a deadly rendezvous the general perception is that, to the best of the investigators’ knowledge, the Unknown Male has never claimed another victim.“We don’t know that he hasn’t done this again,” says Etter. “He may have left the area and done something far away, orhe may have changed his M.O.” Etter goes on to explain the difference between an M.O. and the signature of a criminal. “An M.O. is just what works,and it can vary,” he notes. “The signature aspects of a crime do not vary they are fundamental.” Because of the single known crime and limited evidence, there is no known signature in Amy’s case. The unique M.O. the phone-call setup may have evolved to a different tactic.The best hope experts cite for new information is from past victims, and they believe there may have been some who have never spoken up. “If you look at the statistics,” says Etter, “it is likely this person had criminal sexual contact with other female children and some of those acts may not yet have been reported.”