|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 17, 2012 22:26:45 GMT -5
Hi everyone. Not sure if this topic has been covered in depth on this board. Thought I would throw out my two cents and five years worth of studying geo profiling. Perhaps this topic will interest people and provide some value…than again, maybe not. First, my background. In a previous life, I was a U.S. Navy officer and am currently a law school student. I served on a submarine a while back and was the geo plotter. I have always been a bit interested in human psychology, plotting dots, studying maps, solving games, and reading about true crime, so geo profiling was a natural interest of mine and came naturally to me.
First, my Geo methods have been developed after plotting over 15 crimes from serial killers including Hillside Strangler, Son of Sam, BTK, Green River, etc., but my methods differ from some of the methods of experts such as Dr. Kim Rossmo, who use software programs like RIGEL to produce solutions. I want to make this clear up front. It’s my personal method, and although I have read books on Geo and my method appears to provide good results, I have no formal schooling in geo profiling nor have I published anything on this topic (except on other message boards). Thus, take it for what it is.
I would assume that some people look at Geo like some look at psychics - with skepticism. But I assure you that Geo is rooted in some fundamental disciplines; it is a mixture of psychology and geography. Like with any taxonomy, two or more disciplines often overlap. Where psychology and geography overlap, you find Geo. All criminals, indeed all humans, have a certain psychological makeup. That psychological makeup manifests itself in many ways, including ways that show up in geography. For example, when you buy a house, your psychology plays a role in deciding the location and particular geographical characteristics and type of terrain that the house sits on.
While my method works pretty well for serial killers, I started wondering if it could apply in a notorious case such as the Lindbergh kidnapping case. I’m no psychologist, but I believe that some of the same psychological factors are at play in the Lindbergh case that you would find in some of the country’s most notorious serial killings: desire for fame; need to control; a sense of omnipotence; abuse and criminal activity in youth, etc. The obvious difference between serial killings and the Lindbergh case involves the lack of a sexual element.
Finally, although Geo will not give you the exact address of the perpetrator, it will give you the general area. For example, even before gold certificates started popping up, I would have expected the kidnapper in the Lindbergh case to live in either Queens, the Bronx, or upper Manhattan. However, this assumes that one man was responsible for the kidnapping at Highfields and the mailing of the ransom notes. Others may disagree that BRH did the kidnapping and mailed the letters, but in order to use Geo, you must assume that one individual is responsible (or if more than one, they are working/living in very close proximity to each other). If investigators had known about Geo then, they could have focused on these three areas/ boroughs more, and perhaps with better surveillance of the Gold certificates being turned in at the banks, they could have caught the kidnapper(s) sooner. This is an example of the value that Geo provides; it allows the criminologist to prioritize and focus their efforts on certain areas. This could produce efficiency when resources are scarce.
So, here’s a quick primer on my method, which as I mentioned previously, seems to produce good results but is not an exact science.
Rule #1 – For EVERY event that the perpetrator is responsible for, plot it on a map. For serial killers, it includes every location in which he/she has either picked up his victim, trolled for victims, killed the victim, and dumped the victim. For the Lindbergh case, this would include the location of Highfields, the location where the baby was found, all the mail-boxes where ransom notes were mailed, etc. If an event has occurred at a location that you believe the perpetrator is responsible for, plot it. If you feel that the perp scouted Next Day Hill, plot it.
Rule #2 – Their “comfort zone” is initially far from home. Criminals fear getting caught most, so they tend to start their criminal activity far from home. Like serial killers who tend to troll and study their victims before attacking, I believe that the Lindbergh kidnapper(s) also conducted surveillance in order to better understand the Lindbergh family and help in planning the kidnapping. Although criminals like this generally have above average intelligence and a lot of courage (or audacity if you prefer), they are still fearful of getting caught. This is on their mind constantly, at least initially. Thus, their initial criminal activity will occur fairly far from home. Have you ever wondered why the #1 suspect in the Lindbergh case lived in the Bronx, over 70 miles away from Highfields? Now you know. Generally speaking, serial killers in metro areas like New York City, Los Angeles, etc start killing between 15 and 50 miles away from their home. There is a reason BRH probably chose to do the kidnapping at Highfields. By committing the criminal act far from his home, he felt more anonymous; more insulated from detection and getting caught. In my opinion, this was a BIG reason that Lindbergh became a target. By moving to a remote area, he believed he was doing the right thing for his family. But that remoteness (and lack of security at the estate) gave the perp(s) tremendous comfort.
Rule #3, as more events occur in chronological order, the perpetrator will “point” to where he / she lives. The #1 suspect BRH followed this rule. As more and more ransom notes were mailed, more and more were mailed from points closer to the Bronx. Then as gold certificates showed up, they began to concentrate in the Bronx. It’s the classic pattern. The perp ultimately tells you the general area in which he /she lives. The reason this rule applies is that as more and more time passes after the initial event, the perpetrator gains confidence that he / she will not get caught. He / she feels that they are smarter than the authorities. As a result, they let their guard down more and more, and the result is that their “comfort zone” begins to move closer and closer to where they live.
Rule #4 and other rules – I will save for later….
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 18, 2012 11:08:32 GMT -5
Hi SJ, Found your post quite interesting. Thanx. Would you be willing to give us your impressions of Shonfeld's profiling? It struck me as rather a "one size fits all", but I must say I am not knowledgeable on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 11:08:48 GMT -5
Rule #4 - The pattern that forms after all events have been plotted will conform to a pattern that is generally elongated so that you should begin to see the dots form around an axis. Once all the events have been plotted on the map, look for any patterns that indicate systematic factors are at play. In general, Geo is concerned with tracking the perps movements in order to understand what systematic factors area at play. When combined with some basic psychology, you can begin to see a picture forming that helps you understand the perps concerns as well as get a good idea where he / she lives (within a 10 square mile area). Probably the biggest systematic factor at play is transportation. This will be covered in Rule #5. Another systematic factor is efficiency. When people commit crimes of the sort we are talking about, they tend to be rational maximizers of resources. For example, when choosing a target, the perps will most likely choose a "soft" target rather than a "hard" target. The resources needed to attack a hard target that has more security are greater, so unless there is the prospect of a much greater return on investment from the crime, the perp will choose the target that requires the least amount of his / her resources.
In statistics, regression is used to make sense of data /events and for predicting future events. Geo uses the same concept. Thus, after the events have been plotted, try to find the "best fit" axis that explains the dots. For example, when you drive to work each day, the first event that can be plotted is the location of your home. Next, you might stop off for coffee or to get a quick bite to eat. Next, you stop for gas. Finally, you arrive at work. If you plot those events on a map, the general pattern will be elongated and form an axis. There is a beginning point and an end point and points in between, but all these points will not vary too much from the axis that connects these events. Rule # 5 will discuss the axis itself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2012 11:38:08 GMT -5
Hi SonofJack I believe in Geo profiling and I know John Douglas has incorporated some of it. Good luck with it in this case, though.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 12:47:20 GMT -5
Hi SJ, Found your post quite interesting. Thanx. Would you be willing to give us your impressions of Shonfeld's profiling? It struck me as rather a "one size fits all", but I must say I am not knowledgeable on the subject. Hi M, well, I don't know a whole lot about Schonfeld, but in general, I have a lot of respect for criminal profiliers...of course one needs to always consider the source. I studied the Zodiac murders in San Francisco bay area for several years, and although that is still unsolved, some psychologists have contributed some interesting stuff that makes a lot of sense to me. I am a big fan of logic, so if the information these experts provide makes sense from a logic standpoint, then I tend to trust it more. I do know that criminal profiling works because there have been studies that have shown that psychological profilers perform better on cases than law enforcement. One study presented a set of facts from various cases that had already been solved, and the psychological profilers easily outperformed LE in making predictions about the perp's identity. In fact, college students who had a background in math or science also outperformed LE in the same study. So back to your question on Schonfeld. Since my expertise is in Geo, which is only a subset of criminal profiling, I don't feel comfortable commenting too much on Schonfeld's work except to say that my Geo work so far supports more of a lone wolf scenario or a small group of two or three people working in close concert together. That does not rule out the likelihood that BRH gained knowledge from other people who may have known the layout of Highfields and when the family would be there. However, these informants were probably not active members of the gang, and I believe they innocently provided information w/o knowing what is was going to be used for. Like any criminal worth his salt, BRH did his homework, and some of it involved information from innocent individuals who knew nothing of the kidnapping plan.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 13:08:09 GMT -5
Hi SonofJack I believe in Geo profiling and I know John Douglas has incorporated some of it. Good luck with it in this case, though. Thanks. The problem with Geo is that Geo works best as a method to develop a solution to determining the perp's identity as opposed to confirming a suspect as the perp after one has been named and or convicted. In other words, Geo cannot be used to prove BRH was the kidnapper, but it can be used to rule out suspects. BRH fits the solution developed through my Geo research which basically says the following: 1. Kidnapper lived a long distance away from Highfields - at least 15 miles and probably around 50 miles away. 2. Kidnapper probably lived in either Queens, Upper Manhattan, or the Bronx, with Queens being the least probable of the three. 3. Kidnapper was either a lone wolf or was working with one or two others he knew very well and was in synch with in terms of how to conduct the crime. Others were used for information but were not party to the kidnapping. 4. Kidnapper used highway 1 in NJ and the Lexington Ave subway in Manhattan. 5. Kidnapper's was thoroughly familiar with the Bronx and NYC and probably had an occupation that allowed him to move around a lot. By the way, I was a resident of NYC for six years, so I have some personal insight into how the kidnapper may have operated within the confines on NYC's geographical constraints. This may not have been the case in 1932, but many people in NYC move around within the city in terms of where they live and work. The population is highly mobile. I lived in three different locations within NYC during those six years I was there. This explains why BRH was very familiar with the city. Plus, cars not generally used except when you have to leave the city.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 13:17:48 GMT -5
The fact that the kidnapper mailed the first ransom note from near Borough Hall in Brooklyn is a dead giveaway for me that he was trying to disguise where he lived. Then as more ransom notes were sent, it was clear that he lived near the Bronx. BRH may have been good at the kidnapping due to his burglar skills, but he was very careless when it came to negotiating for the ransom money and spending the money. Some of it was probably because he though he was smarter than LE. Once they lose their edge and become too confident and careless, these guys get caught.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2012 13:18:36 GMT -5
SOJ, one area of this case that I have always wondered about is the ethnic German community of Yorkville or Hauptmann's neighborhood. Has this figured in any way to your Geo profiling?
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 13:48:08 GMT -5
SOJ, one area of this case that I have always wondered about is the ethnic German community of Yorkville. Has this figured in any way to your Geo profiling? The answer is yes...and no. Yes, because Geo uses systematic factors as well as plotting the events. It has been shown that Germans and other immigrants tended to live in clusters close together. Many Germans lived in lower Manhattan after arriving in NYC in the mid and late 1800s, and then expanded to upper Manhattan in late 1800s and the Bronx in 1900s as those areas became more accessible and less rural. However, when I developed my solution, I did not use the fact that BRH was of German descent simply because that information would not have been known prior to his arrest. Thus, the fact that Yorkville, site of one of my favorite bars in Manhattan, was once a German enclave did not figure into the my solution. HOWEVER, ethnicity and demographics help you refine your solution. For example, once you zero in on the Bronx or upper Manhattan as the perp's likely residence, you use demographics to help refine the solution. If a large percentage of residents are from one ethnicity, that will increase the probability that the perp has that ethnicity. Simply put, you use systematic factors and probabilities to refine your solution. I would develop several solutions based on probabilities and be open to any one of my top three being the actual solution.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 13:58:59 GMT -5
When you look at the DC Snipers' criminal activity, the elongated pattern becomes apparent. Rule #5 explains why the dots tend to form around an axis of criminal activity. It's a very simple concept that works.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 14:31:59 GMT -5
Here's a thought: By far, the most prevalent foreign ethnicities in NYC in 1910 were Russian, Italian, German, and Irish... in that order. Those four dominated all other ethnicities by at least 10 to 1. Thus, if Cemetery John had a foreign accent, chances are that he had one of those four ethnicities (assuming his accent was real and the ratios stayed fairly constant between 1910 and 1932). Now, if we zero in on Upper Manhattan and the Bronx as the locations of the perp's residence, we can refine our solution even more. I used to have a map of ethnicities in NYC from 1920 that showed the demographics. Need to find it. However, I believe the Russians were more common in lower Manhattan and less in the north. The Irish and Italians were common in the Bronx. Not sure about the Germans outside of Yorkville and other parts of Manhattan. Still, Jafsie should have been able to tell us what ethnicity Cemetery John belonged to based on the accent. Did he ever say it was German? The next step is to narrow it to a certain part of Germany if that is possible.
If Jafsie could confirm a German ethnicity, then we target Yorkville in Manhattan and the German areas of the Bronx. Gotta find that map that showed ethicities. I'm sure this is what LE was doing in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 15:15:02 GMT -5
Here's a link to ethnicity maps I was speaking about. They are from 1919. Upper Manhattan is mostly Russian Jews and Italians, with a small group of Germans in Yorkville. Unfortunately, the map only shows the lower Bronx. Again, Russian Jews dominate, and it appears the Italians, Germans and Irish are almost equally represented. Gotta remember that the Bronx in 1920 and even 1930 was not densely populated and was relatively rural. The Bronx near where BRH lived was basically farms and looked like Highfields. Not a lot of trees. cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/police-demographics-unit-casts-shadows-from-past/?ref=nyregion
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 15:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 16:08:30 GMT -5
Hi SJ, Found your post quite interesting. Thanx. Would you be willing to give us your impressions of Shonfeld's profiling? It struck me as rather a "one size fits all", but I must say I am not knowledgeable on the subject. M, I believe here is a good link to Schonfeld's solution for the perp. disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=46270;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum# 8 corresponds to BRH's actual residence. His solution is very accurate, but w/o the rationale to back up each point, it's hard to evaluate the veracity of Dr Schonfeld's method / solution.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 18, 2012 16:19:11 GMT -5
Sonof jack—
Thanks for the fascinating and unique input. A couple of thoughts that may be at variance with it. You mention that perps like to initially commit crimes far from home. That seems very likely, it is an interesting element to crime patterns, and you’ve tallied this with BRH living over 70 miles from Hopewell.
However, if the target was the Lindbergh baby, I don’t see how distance is much of a factor. If your goal is to get Lindbergh’s son, it wouldn’t seem to make a difference whether you lived close or far.
Granted, this might explain going after the boy in Hopewell instead of at Next Day Hill, but I think that one fits under your “soft target” thesis rather than a distance criterion.
One other thing—you have mentioned that the profiling suggests a “Lone Wolf” or perhaps a close team of 2-3. Regarding the “Lone Wolf” thesis, the trend of thought on this board, while not unanimous, has been that there was more than one perp. This is based on a number of factors: more than one set of footprints detected on the muddy ground after the kidnapping; the VERY extreme difficulty of executing all steps of this crime alone; the fact that the perp(s) knew the Lindberghs would be at Highfields on a Tuesday (which a Bronx “lone wolf” could only know by keeping the house under surveillance, freezing his keester off, watching the house on the off-chance that the Lindberghs might stay beyond the weekend), the spotting of apparent lookouts at both cemetery meets, etc.
So I think this profiling is valuable, but, as I’m sure you’d agree, it must be weighed against other known variables within the context of the specific crime. By the way, does your geo profiling tell you where the rest of the loot is buried? I mean, does it tell you the (ahem) exact spot? Of course, I only wish to know this purely out of an academic interest in criminology. I mean, I wouldn’t actually GO THERE and start DIGGING or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2012 16:31:45 GMT -5
Just wanted to add my "thanks" for bringing your angle here to share with us.
The first thing that jumps out at me would be to ask what the Stamford, Conn. mailing means considering not only when it occurred but why it seems to be so different?
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 18:23:06 GMT -5
Just wanted to add my "thanks" for bringing your angle here to share with us. The first thing that jumps out at me would be to ask what the Stamford, Conn. mailing means considering not only when it occurred but why it seems to be so different? Michael, First, I'd like to thank you for all the great insight you have provided concerning this case. Your knowledge is incredible, and it has really helped me get up to speed on this case during the short time I have been studying it. Yes, the STAmford, Ct mailing is a little perplexing..at least on first glance. However, the answer appears in what I have already written above. I have seen perps act this way in other cases I have studied, so it's not really unusual. By the way, all of my methods have come by spending years studying cases that HAVE BEEN SOLVED, and since there is a solution available, unlike the present case, all I really do is reverse engineer. The assumption I am going on with this case is that the psychological makeup of the kidnapper is not really all that different from that of the serial killers I have studied. By dropping Charlie off on the roadside near Hopewell and not giving him a proper burial, the kidnapper allowed animals to carry away pieces of him and for maggots to render his face indistinguishable. IMHO, that shows a lack of respect for human life; the same type of conduct that serial killers engage in. But I digress from the main point. STAmford is located over 20 miles away from our #1 suspect's residence. It is in the opposite direction from where previous mailings have come from. Thus, it begs the question. Why did the perp deviate so much from his previous pattern / MO? Well, like I said, the answer has already been discussed...in rule #2. Distance is mainly dependent on the perp's comfort zone. Any event greater than 15 miles represents fear; there is concern that they might be discovered. In the cases I have seen the perp do this before, they were having a momentarily loss of nerve. In virtually all the cases I have studied, the perp goes through typical stages...just like when a person is grieving the loss of a loved one. It starts with a rush immediately after they pull of the crime w/o being discovered. Their confidence grows after each successful event. Then they go through other stages. However, one of the stages they invariably go through is fear. At some point, they begin to feel some pressure that LE is closing in on them a little. The pressure of not getting caught and keeping the crime a secret starts to consume them. The start to loose their nerve little. Yes, serial killers and our perp here do not always have ice running through their veins. Based on the other crime I have studied, I believe that our perp here lost his nerve and reverted back to his concern for not getting caught that he exhibited in the earlier stages. Thus, his comfort zone extended out. This is not unusual. When LE improves their surveillance and the word starts getting out about the crime and what to look for, the perp loses his/her ability to operate freely. their options decrease, so that have to start getting creative in terms of where they will do their criminal acts. The other thing that makes a lot of sense from a Geo perspective is that STAmford is on a major highway. It would have been very easy for our perp to hop into his car and drive there. In summary, STAmford represents a time when our perp is under a lot of pressure and has a little bit of a meltdown. Essentially, he is pi$$ing in his pants. He is afraid of getting caught. Something has changed that has caused him to become fearful. People around him would have definitely noticed that he is acting differently, and he may be doubting his ability to pull off the crime. He starts to second guess himself. Hence, he must extend his comfort zone until the pressure decreases.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 19:07:23 GMT -5
Sonof jack— Thanks for the fascinating and unique input. A couple of thoughts that may be at variance with it. You mention that perps like to initially commit crimes far from home. That seems very likely, it is an interesting element to crime patterns, and you’ve tallied this with BRH living over 70 miles from Hopewell. However, if the target was the Lindbergh baby, I don’t see how distance is much of a factor. If your goal is to get Lindbergh’s son, it wouldn’t seem to make a difference whether you lived close or far. This is a good question. Essentially the issue you have raised is whether or not my methods gleamed from serial killer cases are applicable to kidnappings like the Lindy case. It's a valid question. The rule that applies to your question is rule #2. This is similar to my post above concerning the STAmford mailing. Essentially, perps don't like doing their business in their own backyard...at least at first. For example, Son of Sam killed the majority of his victims in Queens even though he lived in the Bronx. However, he eventually did kill in the Bronx too. This rule #2 applies in EVERY serial killing case that I have studied. I believe it applies due to the tremendous audacity that is required to commit their first kill. That first one is unlike all the others and the killer spends the rest of his time trying to regain the same feelings he/she experienced during that first one...but never really does. This fuels more and more kills. So imagine the fear they have on that first kill. We can't truly know what it is like, but can we imagine? It is well documented that their #1 concern is getting caught. For me, that means they need as much anonymity as possible. For example, if I am driving around in my car with a ladder inside, I have to know that someone will notice that. Then, if a crime is committed that required a ladder, I have to think that someone will recall seeing me with a ladder. If all this takes place 70 miles from my home, what are the chances that the person who sees me with the ladder will know me? Very, very low. But if I do it ten miles from home or five, doesn't that probability go up? And even if it does not, the killer will feel more comfortable regardless. In the Lindy case, the perp was surely concerned with getting caught. He demonstrated that in numerous ways. He strikes at night while Lindy is supposed to be away. His target is a soft target with zero security. It appears he was wearing socks at some point to dampen the noise. He leaves no fingerprints either on the ladder or in the nursery. Rule #2 is a conditional rule. IF ---> THEN. If the sufficient condition sare present then the necessary ones are. If the perp exhibits a fear of getting caught as evidenced by his level of planning and the precautions he takes, then he will chose a target far from home. IMHO, rule #2 applies whether the target intends to kill his prey as a serial killer does or whether he intends to kidnap. Imagine the guts it took to kidnap the son of one of America's most famous figures. The pucker factor had to have been astronomical no matter how much ice ran through the kidnapper's veins.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 18, 2012 19:27:22 GMT -5
Sonof jack— One other thing—you have mentioned that the profiling suggests a “Lone Wolf” or perhaps a close team of 2-3. Regarding the “Lone Wolf” thesis, the trend of thought on this board, while not unanimous, has been that there was more than one perp. This is based on a number of factors: more than one set of footprints detected on the muddy ground after the kidnapping; the VERY extreme difficulty of executing all steps of this crime alone; the fact that the perp(s) knew the Lindberghs would be at Highfields on a Tuesday (which a Bronx “lone wolf” could only know by keeping the house under surveillance, freezing his keester off, watching the house on the off-chance that the Lindberghs might stay beyond the weekend), the spotting of apparent lookouts at both cemetery meets, etc. I am as objective as the data allows me to be. My Geo analysis indicates that it was either a lone wolf or a highly concerted effort by a small (1-3) group. The data is very tight and barely deviates from the axis formed between Highfields and STAmford. I believe these are the two end points. Draw a line between these two points and you have an axis. Since all mailings / ransom spending occurs at points almost exactly on this axis, it indicates a highly concerted effort. However, if a mailing or an event had occurred somewhere perpendicular to this axis, say in East Hampton, I would be thinking a large uncoordinated gang had done the kidnapping. Later, I will discuss how the axis plays a role in Geo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 11:53:02 GMT -5
SOJ, I have read with great interest your geographical profiling method. I can see how this would be quite useful with serial killer cases. I am looking forward to you posting additional rules used in your method.
In applying this to the Lindbergh case, I was wondering if Rule#2 - Comfort zone - could be applied to why Dr. Condon was chosen as go-between. The first few ransom notes were post marked outside of the Bronx. The, rest except the Connecticut one, were done in the Bronx where Dr. Condon lived. Do you think this is because the kidnapper(s) also lived in the Bronx?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jul 19, 2012 14:19:38 GMT -5
Hello all, SOJ-this is a great topic. I find it fascinating that after so many years, people come up with new angles to look at this crime.
Just a thought; seems like most of the true crime profiling things I've read state that criminals, especially at first, operate mostly in an area they are comfortable with i.e. "the comfort zone" or neighborhoods they are familiar with? the thought being that they can control those environments more easily during the time when they are novices of crime. I thought this especially applied to the dumping of bodies. maybe this points to two perps more than ever before; a "local" who can keep tabs on the house & movements of the inhabitants, and another mostly for the ransom letters sending & picking up.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 19, 2012 17:08:38 GMT -5
SOJ, I have read with great interest your geographical profiling method. I can see how this would be quite useful with serial killer cases. I am looking forward to you posting additional rules used in your method. In applying this to the Lindbergh case, I was wondering if Rule#2 - Comfort zone - could be applied to why Dr. Condon was chosen as go-between. The first few ransom notes were post marked outside of the Bronx. The, rest except the Connecticut one, were done in the Bronx where Dr. Condon lived. Do you think this is because the kidnapper(s) also lived in the Bronx? Hi Amy. Did you ever wonder why when Cemetery John and Condon exchanged the money for the note, Cemetery John told him that he cannot open it for something like 6 hours, and then once Lindy did open it back in the car, it said the boy was being held on a boat over 200 miles away in Mass? Well, Geo provides the answers. First, a person schooled in Geo methods would have raised the BS flag as soon as they discovered the supposed location of the Boy. If LE had been involved, they probably would have raised the BS flag too. Our perp was smart. He knew that the likely reaction would have questioned the veracity of the note's contents, so our perp wanted to be long gone when the note was actually opened and read. He needed that long lead time in order to make a clean get away. Next, why would our perp pick the Elizabeth Islands in Mass near Martha's Vineyard? It goes back to rule #2. I believe he even recommended that Lindy fly to that spot, and in doing so, our perp knew it would take Lindy many hours to do so, and many hours to find out the truth. By then, our perp would be long gone. So Elizabeth was chosen due to Rule #2. Our perp wanted the heat off of him, and focused far away. Now, as to your question about whether Condon was chosen because he lived in the Bronx. This is partly a criminal psychology question that I don't feel qualified to answer, but I can speak with my Geo hat on. The answer is that our perp felt comfortable dealing with a person from the Bronx, but may have also been comfortable with others in the NYC area as long as they were not LE or affiliated with Lindy or his pals. To explain this, I have to discuss rule #4 a little. As a general rule, when the dots are arranged around an axis that is elongated, it points to a perp acting alone as a lone wolf or a small group acting closely together. Serial killers act this way. If there are more than one guy involved in the serial killings, they are working closely together (e.g., Hillside Strangler). In other words, they plan every detail together like you would see in a military exercise. This is what I see going on here in this case. If you draw a line from Highfields to STAmford, you get an axis. Imagine that it is a spine that holds everything together. Like in a human body, the spine is the frame from which all things eminate. All of our organs are arranged around the spine. In EVERY CASE that I have researched, the perp lived somewhere along the spine or a short distance (3 miles or so) left or right of the spine. The main question is where along the spine does the perp live? That question is answered with rule #3. The perp will tell you where on the spine he lives because as more and more events occur, assuming it is one perp or a small group acting in concert, more of the events will occur near where he lives. Here, more and more mailings (and gold certificate events) occurred closer and closer to the Bronx. Essentially, the perp's comfort zone is getting closer and closer to where he lives and he is unwittingly revealing his location. Since Condon lived in the Bronx, he fell within both the spine and the comfort zone, so he was an ideal candidate. Bear with me here. I am almost done. I have previously discussed the axis, or spine. Now, there are other elements too including the arms and the heart. Imagine that you have a large map of the NYC metro area that is laying on the ground beside you. You lay down on the map with your feet near Highfields and your head at STAmford. Where will your heart be? Now extend your arms out from your body in a straight line so that your arms are perpendicular to your body. What areas do your arms pass through? I would argue that your heart is near the Bronx or possibly Upper Manhattan, one arm is extended over Queens, and the other over Englewood. This may be a silly and rudimentary discussion of anatomy, but for explanation purposes, it works. My research shows that perps most often live near the heart and often near the arms, and their events occur anywhere on the body that I have just outlined. Thus, any person who lived within the bounds of the anatomy I have just described could have been a candidate. However, any event that occurs away from this body, such as the supposed location of Charlie on a boat near Martha's Vineyard, should be questioned because it is probably a hoax or an event not attributable to the perp.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2012 19:46:06 GMT -5
My first thoughts about Geo that flashed into my head were of Lt. Finn plotting out the ransom money with stick pins on a giant map. Then, before I let my mind get carried away, I contacted my Brother to see what his opinion of Geo Profiling was. Before I post what he told me I think its important to explain why I value his opinion so highly..... First, despite being younger then me, he was the one who introduced me to books written by John Douglas and Robert Ressler. He took his interest in this line and ran with it: B.A. Psychology, M.A. Forensic Psychology, 1998 National Honor Society in Psychology, 18 year veteran police officer, and J.D. from Temple University's Beasley School of Law. (He's also written a book for those considering a career as a Police Officer: www.looseleaflaw.com/catalog/bookdetail.html?sku=1-932777-25-3) Needless to say, I went straight to him for his thoughts and here is what he said: Its a useful tool just as psychological profiling is a useful tool. People are animals and act in a predictable pattern even when they think they are being random. Again it is a tool not a magic bullet. So SOJ you have my full attention concerning what you have to say. As a result, I am very interested in your comments concerning the Stamford mailing.... If whoever mailing this was pi$$ing in their pants, as you suggest, I am wondering exactly "why." Do you have any thoughts on this? I consider CJ is meeting Condon at Woodlawn (in the Bronx), correct me if I am wrong, so he's feeling comfortable there (or "they" are and CJ is just the Emissary acting by their direction). So something had to have happened to cause this fear - am I right? Then, eventually, we're back in the Bronx again at St. Raymond's so it appears these fears are quelled, at least back to where they were before the Stamford mailing.... Bear with me here, and if you can, help me along in terms of how Geo would better explain this. Additionally do you think Condon would have something to do any of those fear/comfort levels?
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 19, 2012 20:11:35 GMT -5
Hello all, SOJ-this is a great topic. I find it fascinating that after so many years, people come up with new angles to look at this crime. Just a thought; seems like most of the true crime profiling things I've read state that criminals, especially at first, operate mostly in an area they are comfortable with i.e. "the comfort zone" or neighborhoods they are familiar with? the thought being that they can control those environments more easily during the time when they are novices of crime. I thought this especially applied to the dumping of bodies. X, You have brought up a contentious point in Geo...at least it is for me. Most books on Geo describe the comfort zone exactly as you describe it. Dr Rossmo also believes that this is the correct way to interpret the "comfort zone" theory. Thus, in the famous Zodiac mystery from the SF bay area from the late 1960s and early 1970s, he believes the Zodiac lived close to the Zodiac's initial killings - In Vallejo, Ca. I, on the other hand, interpret the comfort zone differently. I placed the Zodiac's home in San Francisco. Who is right? We will probably never know. The basic idea is that a perp will do things in areas he is most familiar with, and that is usually places CLOSER to where he lives. However, I have two major problems with this interpretation: 1) it is based on research involving burglars (and possibly rapists), so it should not be used for serial killers; and 2) my hands on research is in conflict with this interpretation. As for #1, I read the studies and it immediately occurred to me that burglars are not in the same category as serial killers; their psychology is much different. Yes, your average, garden variety burglar prefers a surrounding that he is familiar with. For example, if he is inside a house and the owners unexpectedly arrive home, he needs to know that he can escape out the back door (no deadbolt lock), can quickly run across the yard (no dog in backyard to bite him), and jump the fence into another yard (fence not electrified or too high to climb over). Then, he needs to have an escape route that wisks him quickly away from danger, and perhaps a good hiding spot or two. Hence, burglars typically commit crimes in the neighborhoods they are most familar with in order to elude detection. I know this because some of my friends in youth were petty burglars (I have since disowned them). Most burglaries are committed by perps who live a few miles away from their target. Serial Killers, on the other hand, don't operate that way. They troll for easy victims, driving endlessly up and down streets, and then either snatch their prey by using some sort of ruse (rapists do this too), pick them off the street by posing as a "john", or some other similar method. Thus, their concern is not the ability to elude LE but to remain anonymous form LE. One strategy calls for a close comfort zone and the other calls for a comfort zone that is farther away from their residence. As for #2, I painstakingly plotted the events of over 15 serial killers who had been captured, and the patterns I saw contradicted what some of the criminal profiling books said about comfort zone. As a rule, serial killers initially kill anywhere from 15 miles to 5o miles from where they live. This was apparent in EVERY case I researched form serial killers who operated across the country. Thus, I believe there is a unique "comfort zone" for each time of criminal. One size does not fit all. Since you brought up the dumping of bodies, I will address that too. It is well known that serial killers troll in one location and dump in another location, and often, the two are several miles apart. It's like a forrest animal or bear who grabs some flesh off a dead carcass and then drags it away in order to devour it. I do believe that the dumpings generally do occur closer to home that the snatching does, but even then it is miles away (i.e., not in their neighborhood) and the killer's main concern is still anonymity. When they dump the body, the main concern is being noticed by others who will remember them later. So in that sense, they are still operating from fear of being detected rather than from a need to elude like burglars do.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 19, 2012 22:33:25 GMT -5
So SOJ you have my full attention concerning what you have to say. As a result, I am very interested in your comments concerning the Stamford mailing.... If whoever mailing this was pi$$ing in their pants, as you suggest, I am wondering exactly "why." Do you have any thoughts on this? I consider CJ is meeting Condon at Woodlawn (in the Bronx), correct me if I am wrong, so he's feeling comfortable there (or "they" are and CJ is just the Emissary acting by their direction). So something had to have happened to cause this fear - am I right? Then, eventually, we're back in the Bronx again at St. Raymond's so it appears these fears are quelled, at least back to where they were before the Stamford mailing.... Bear with me here, and if you can, help me along in terms of how Geo would better explain this. Michael, as I discussed in my post earlier on this topic, I have seen this type of behavior / pattern a lot. It's fairly typical. In Hillside Strangler, the two perps Bianchi and Buono once had to dump a body deep into the Angeles National Forrest, and the dead girl was placed in the trunk of her car. In the past, they had simply dumped the nude body on a hillside in full view of nearby houses. People woke up, dressed for work, and then were shocked when they looked outside their kitchen window and saw a mangled, nude body in full view. Later, the stranglers said they were feeling serious pressure from LE and the public at large and needed to re-establish anonymity. It is clear they were worried about getting caught, so they changed their MO. They put the body in the back of the trunk, and left the car deep into the forrest, which was in the OPPOSITE direction of their normal dumping areas. The stranglers had other instances in which they had to change their MO, and they explained it later as a need to branch out into other areas because their regular trolling areas (Hollywood) was under too much surveillance by cops (some female cops were posing as prostitutes). Thus, they went into my neighborhood and snatched a young girl who attended the same church as I. Going into my neighborhood required them to extend their normal trolling area by about 15 miles to the north. Since I experienced the strangler case first hand, that's how I became interested in serial killings. In the Zodiac case, a case that I am starting to think has many similarities to the Lindy case, the perp also found a need to troll farther away from his previous hunting grounds, probably becasue he had almost been caught by the police in his most recent killing. So he ventured 40 miles in the OPPOSITE direction from his previous hunting areas. He had a good ruse. He was on a highway at night and drove next to a young lady. He rolled his window down and told her that her rear wheel was wobbling and might fall off. She pulled over to inspect, and when she did he stopped too. By the way, she had a baby in the car seat next to her. He jumped out and offered to tighten the lug nuts, and she agreed. Talk about being gullible. But she was talked into it by his clean shaven and neat appearance and apparent sincerity. You can guess what happened next. She got back on the road and had only driven a few feet when the entire wheel fell off. He had removed all the lug nuts. The perp again approached her, but this time forced her and the baby into his car. This event was a major shift in the perp's MO. It was in the OPPOSITE direction from normal hunting grounds, and he was using a ruse now when in the past he had simply pulled up with a gun. However, the lady said the perp acted very nervous due to the baby's presence. He clearly lost his nerve on that occasion. He had gone from being a wolf to being a sheep. He said he was going to kill her, but he let her go a few miles down the road, and she flagged down a motorist. IMO, he caved in to guilt of seeing the baby with the woman. This change in MO where the perp extends his comfort zone is associated with a fear of getting caught. However, since Geo is concerned with the patterns of criminal activity, it can only explain the general cause for the change but cannot explain the actual reason. You may want to look at why criminals change their MO in order to get more insight into what our perp here may have been going through. If I take my Geo hat off, I would say that he had recently experienced an event where he was either almost caught by LE or for some reason believe that he was going to get caught. One clue may be the note he wrote to Jafsie after his first meeting with him at Woodlawn. Jafsie got a good look at him, and our perp later said in his next note something to the effect that he will not allow Jafsie to get close again. It was too dangerous. IMHO, our perp had serious regrets about how he handled that first encounter. I think Jafsie deserves some kuddos for being able to get so close and for being brave..almost too brave. The perp also slipped up and during his conversation with Jafsie, asked Jafsie if he would burn because the baby is dead. This is another clue that he was nervous. Those were some pretty amazing admissions. Thus, I believe that he felt the need to extend his comfort zone a little. Good investigative work may uncover other clues as to why he was getting nervous. He may have also lost some nerve because he knew the baby was dead. Plus, he was getting close to getting the money. It was the 9th inning, 2 outs, and bases were loaded. Additionally do you think Condon would have something to do any of those fear/comfort levels? As a law student familiar with mediation, my opinion is that our perp allowed Condon to be the go between (i.e., help mediate the negotiations) because he felt that he could manipulate Condon and that Condon could positively influence the negotiations in a way that would favor the perp. The perp wanted as much control as possible. Thus, Condon did improve our perp's comfort level..at least until that meeting at Woodlawn. As I said earlier, Jafsie deserves some kuddos for getting so close to the guy, and getting some information that we would not get otherwise. On the other hand, he could have done some things better too.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 0:02:10 GMT -5
Hello all, maybe this points to two perps more than ever before; a "local" who can keep tabs on the house & movements of the inhabitants, and another mostly for the ransom letters sending & picking up. X, I have been thinking about this comment for a while now. It really is a central issue in the case. Was the whole kidnapping separated into two parts, suggesting that more than one party was involved, or was the kidnapping and subsequent ransom negotiations accomplished by one Lone Wolf? First, I believe that the psychology involved in each piece was vastly different. In other words, the kidnapping required a certain type of person (as well as skill set) and the negotiations required a different psychology and skill set. However, I am not entirely sure that the two events are mutually exclusive such that one person could not have accomplished both the kidnapping and the negotiations. I believe it is possible. I have studied the Zodiac case extensively, and that case has many similarities to this case. In that case, it is believed by most that one perp did both the killing and negotiations. It really is interesting how many similarities there are between the Zodiac case and the Lindy case. Here they are: 1) Both perps sent letters with a very distinctive "signature" at the bottom of each letter. In Z, the mark was cross hairs and a circle. In Lindy, the signature was two interlocking circles and three holes. 2) the perp made his first attack in a very remote area, but later events occurred in a major city. IN Z it was near Vallejo and events moved to San Francisco and in Lindy it was near hopewell and moved to NYC. 3) the perp's letters exhibited above average intelligence and cunning. 4) Both cases involved a major metropolitan area on the coast with lots of water that was surrounded by farmland. 5) In both cases, the perp got careless and was either caught by police or nearly caught. 6) in both cases, the perp's criminal activity covered great distances. 7) FBI in both cases could offer little help. 8) the perp in both cases utilized a high degree of ingenuity. In Z, he used a costume. In Lindy, a homemade ladder was used. 9) the perps in each case were hunters. 10) neither case involved sex. 11) in both cases, the perp admonished the letter recipient for not following his directions in the letter. 12) both perps used a car to help commit his crimes and had to drive great distances. 13) In both cases, there was scant evidence that an accomplice was involved, although there has been speculation in both cases that the perp had help. 14) in both cases, the #1 suspect was average height, somewhat stalky, light complexion, and light colored hair. 15) in both cases, the perp relied on a high degree of stealth to commit his crimes, and struck at night. 16) in both cases, the perps mailed letters from post offices in a major U.S. city. 17) in both cases, a major newspaper was used to communicate. 18) in both cases, murder was committed. 19) both perps were terrible spellers in their letters and authorities have speculated that the perps may have "dumbed down" their abilities. 20) both perps in their 30s. 21) both cases involved witnesses who got close enough to the perp to make a composite drawing. 22) both perps took pieces of clothing from their victims and offered it as proof of their identity and involvement (and both sent it in the mail). 23) both perps either had or it was believed they had some military experience / training. 24) both perps had a foreign connection. It was believed by some that Z was British and we know that BRH was German. I really could go on and on if it was not my bed time. Hmmm, perhaps the Zodiac was a student of the Lindbergh case and learned how not to get caught? Or maybe they had similar personalities? For me, it comes down to whether BRH was able to kill. Did he have it in his personality to kill another human being like Z had? He must have killed people during the war. Also, did BRH have sufficient intelligence to write the ransom letters, which despite being a bit crude with misspellings, still exhibited some cunning and good amount of intelligence? For those who don't believe one man could have done the kidnapping and the negotiations by himself, check out the Zodiac case. In some respects, Zodiac needed even more cunning, bravery, skill, and luck, and people still believe he did it all. In fact, it's rarely questioned that he acted alone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2012 5:29:30 GMT -5
Absolutely a new perspective concerning Jafsie! I appreciate this new spin on things. I am going to think about this one.....
(BTW: I am glad you are looking at Zodiac. Have you ever looked into 3X)
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 8:40:14 GMT -5
Have you ever looked into 3X It's been a long time since I heard that...3X from the 1940s in Queens I believe? Reminds me of the son of sam. Similar MO. Same type of killing method (men shot to death in their cars), and I believe had some kind of weird agenda like SOS. Same general area too. I believe it was never solved. I'll take a closer look.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2012 10:29:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 11:17:31 GMT -5
Thanks. I'll do the Geo Profile on 3X.
|
|