[Redcloak]

...I am having trouble wondering why the killer wouldn't pull off a "double header" if he had a "mutli shot" weapon. Last night would have been a real chance for such hit. The victim's husband would have made for a very easy and quick second shot if he was using a semi.

I was wondering the same thing. Someone speculated that the mild recoil of the .223 would allow the guy to watch the rounds hit through the scope. If that's the case, then the husband was likely in the field of view right after them woman was hit. The poor guy was probably stunned, staring in disbelief at his wife, not moving, and would have been an easy shot. Also, firing a second shot at a second victim would have gotten witnesses to duck out of sight. They wouldn't have spotted him leaving.

The only thing I can think of is that this is a classic serial killer. The victims are props on a set he's dressing. The set requires only a single victim. Thus shooting a second victim would spoil the scene. Perhaps he wants to see people rushing towards the victim; something that won't happen if he pops off a second round.

[LRS]

We're thinking along the same lines here. The husband would have probably acted in a normal manner upon seeing his spouse fall, and gone to her aid. Using a semi automatic weapon, the killer could have taken him out in a heartbeat as well, and it might have even been to his advantage to do so. But then, I'm mildly crazy, and not insane ;-)

While I will not rule out trained terrorists, or some sort of killing duo, I strongly lean towards the "traditional" serial killer scenario, with the guy using a single shot, or bolt action weapon. What is interesting, is your "trophy" thinking, with a 2nd victim spoiling the scene. I'll give that one some thought!

[VOA]

Perhaps he wants to see people rushing towards the victim; something that won't
happen if he pops off a second round.

My naive, amateur thought is that there is an unspoken bargain between the shooter(s)
and the people at the scene of each hit (where more than one person is in the vicinity).

People now know this killer is a "one shot, one kill" sniper.
S/He/They kill one person and leave.

While that is useful in making a rapid getaway...it also leaves the surrounding citizens
with the (subconscious) knowledge that if they see some person 10 feet away from them
go down...if they keep their heads down and don't make trouble...they will survive this encounter.

I'm sure some professor of psychology or "game theory" has an angle/speculation on this...
but I've never heard a term for this scenario.

I guess that what I'm driving at is that IF the shooter had been killing two, three, or more
folks at one scene...some potential victim might decide "I'm gonna' rush the guy...
he's gonna' try to kill me anyway."

But this sniper has made the "civility" of only claiming one vicitm per incident
a calling card...perhaps in hopes it has subconscioulsy earned him inaction from the crowd.

I'll cut to the chase...
it's almost as if the killer has said by his actions to the public:
"Here's the deal. All I ask is one victim per incident. And I'll not harm anyone else.
Are we clear?"