Unless it was intentional shoot-to-wound in those two cases. Perhaps to show the shooter(s) has/have Godlike powers to select who lives and who dies.
Jack
Perhaps, but then if the sniper's desire was to communicate that, I would have expected a more clear and obvious category delineation between the fatal victims and the wounded victims.
Also I don't think it is clear from the start who lives and dies when one is targeting center of mass. For example, a hemophiliac will die from a glancing flesh wound and a robust young healthy person might survive a shot that would kill the average person. I think it's important to retain the perspective that while this sniper may claim to be God, he almost certainly doesn't have Godlike powers. (The silver lining is apparently he has an ego and enjoys bragging enough to risk leaving evidence that might lead police to narrow down the search or even catch him.)
Plus as I mentioned earlier, I would expect the majority of people operating at the skill level demonstrated (ie gifted amateur if not pro) to aspire to the 100% clean, one bullet one kill credo. In this scenario, the sniper is probably dragging his or her tail a bit about the two victims that he/she/they were unable to dispatch cleanly. (Sheesh, even a typical hunter does that.)
That's why he shot over the head of the cop yesterday. Took out the victim, that was 50 yards from the cop. Showing the cop that the sniper 'chooses' who lives and who dies. Sniper let the cop live. This time.