|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 11:55:32 GMT -5
More on 3X...the Red Diamond is probably a Red Herring. IMO, this guy was a crackpot like Z. I'll do the formal Geo Profile on 3X soon. I believe this guy lived in New Jersey or Possibly Philly area, but there are not many "events" to plot, so just like in stats, sample size is an issue. Still, he was not from Queens. Rule #2 ALWAYS applies. He lived at least 15 miles away from Queens in the direction of New Jersey. Mystery for me is why he stopped killing? Z did the same thing. The general consensus is that these guys either died, were killed while trying to commit another crime, or moved to another area. LE seems to always make the mistake of thinking the guy lived locally because of the need for familiarity with the neighborhood, but I have addressed that issue above. www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6306&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=078bc7b3b18d3197dd76931f792fd26e
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jul 20, 2012 13:48:52 GMT -5
SOJ- thanks for all the insight and info you've provided, we are learning a ton!
i was thinking though; granted the Geo data you've collected is a result of studying serial killers, do you think the fact that this is a kidnapping alters the Geo probabilities? or, if this is the work of "serial kidnappers" &/or professionals (which most LE and others seem to doubt?) do Geo patterns still apply? do you think the original intent of the kidnapping was to collect the ransom and kill the baby anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2012 15:18:46 GMT -5
I agree xjd!
If there is anything I might have on 3X which you might need let me know. I do have some stuff, not a lot, but maybe something to help. Just post it or PM me.
We should probably move any questions about Condon off of this thread but let me ask this: Do you actually believe Condon? I mean is some stuff you think was true and other stuff you don't? Was CJ trying to control Condon, and if so, was his crying about his Mother an act in your opinion? BTW: You aren't alone in your favorable impression of Jafsie. I know that Joe has been supportive of him as well - and there might be more who do as well.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 20:59:49 GMT -5
SOJ, Thanks for your detailed answer! It has created some additonal questions for me. I understand your point about why CJ gave Condon a note to the baby's location with the stipulation that he must wait 8 hours before reading it. You say that this was so he could be long gone by the time the note was read and the distance they would need to go to retrieve Charlie would take the heat off of him. Would you include this false information when creating the axis for Rule#4?
Why then do you think that BRH moved to Rule#3 so quickly? He was focusing all the LE attention on his own neighborhood. Wouldn't he be concerned with getting caught? Do you think he wasn't worried about that because he trusted Condon and Lindbergh to keep the authorities at arm's length throughout the negotiating process?
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 21:09:57 GMT -5
SOJ- thanks for all the insight and info you've provided, we are learning a ton! i was thinking though; granted the Geo data you've collected is a result of studying serial killers, do you think the fact that this is a kidnapping alters the Geo probabilities? or, if this is the work of "serial kidnappers" &/or professionals (which most LE and others seem to doubt?) do Geo patterns still apply? do you think the original intent of the kidnapping was to collect the ransom and kill the baby anyway? X, I will do my best to answer your question. This issue truly deserves more attention because believe it or not, there is a wealth of information out there already on serial killers. If we know how they tick and can apply methods used with serial killers to other types of criminals, we can expand our knowledge of criminals across the board. Part of the reason that I plan to be a criminal defense attorney (I know, wrong side right) is my interest in criminal behavior. I have spent the past two months in a criminal law firm developing strategies to defend our clients, and I believe that my knowledge of Geo and criminals in general has given me an edge. We all need to understand the psychology of criminals if we hope to solve some of these unsolved crimes like the Lindy case. Thus, this issue hits deeper than whether my Geo methods apply to the Lindy case. In order to understand the "hows" in crime like the Lindy case, we first need to understand the "whys". To answer your question, I believe we need to imagine a spectrum of criminal activity. On the spectrum, serial killings would be on the far left and common burglary and robbery on far right. To determine where a particular criminal act falls on the spectrum, we need to ask whether the criminal act was guided by an underlying logic that is based on the perp's particular psychological needs. When there is an underlying logic to what the perp does, their will be a pattern present in his actions. A serial killer behaves in predictable ways...a predictable pattern. In short, there is a method to his madness. It has been shown that these guys are smart and make rational decisions while they are planning and executing their crimes. They pick their prey with much thought. They troll endlessly to find the right victim. They plan out the details of how they will snatch them, where they will rape, kill, and possibly torture, and where they will dump the body. Thus, there is a tremendous amount of decision making and psychology that will manifest itself over a relatively large geographical area and a complicated process. Locations will be chosen based on an underlying psychology. It can be argued that Common burglars or robbers, on the other hand, commit crimes of opportunity. They see a house or store that appears to be an easy target. They may case the place to see where the strengths and weaknesses are. They may even plan how they will execute the crime. However, once the burglary or robbery has been committed, they move on to other easy targets. However, the locations for their crimes will not exhibit the same type of geographic patterns as serial killers because their criminal act is not spread over a geographic area and the process is less complicated and less dependent on location. Simply put, it's harder to be a good serial killer than a good burglar and location and geography usually plays a greater role especially over time as the perp commits his crime. So if the spectrum measures the degree that the crime is dependent on geography, serial killer crimes rate high and common burglary is relatively low. I will let you decide where on the spectrum the Lindy Kidnapping case falls. It is obviously lower than a serial killing but greater than a common burglary and robbery (and by common, I mean no high tech bank heists). Thus, I believe that my research is relevant and can help us understand the Lindy case but we have to be careful because the correlation may not be as strong as if we were tracking a serial killer. My advice is to examine the methods used in Geo and decide if the underlying logic of Geo is sound and appears relevant. In some aspects of the Lindy case, Geo may be more relevant and have a higher correlation than for other aspects. I have been careful to heed this in my answers on this thread. In a nutshell, every event, fact, or theory of the Lindy case should be examined to determine if geography may have played a role in the perp's decision making process. If you can make a reasonable argument using some of Geo's tools and my rules, then Geo may be helpful towards explaining some of the mysteries of this case. I believe that when examining certain aspects of the Lindy case, the underlying logic and psychology will be the same for a kidnapper and a serial killer. My explanation to Michael on the STAmford mailing is an example.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 20, 2012 23:15:54 GMT -5
SOJ, Thanks for your detailed answer! It has created some additonal questions for me. I understand your point about why CJ gave Condon a note to the baby's location with the stipulation that he must wait 8 hours before reading it. You say that this was so he could be long gone by the time the note was read and the distance they would need to go to retrieve Charlie would take the heat off of him. Would you include this false information when creating the axis for Rule#4? Amy, you have touched on an important and very technical aspect of Geo. That's why Geo works. It is highly technical. The answer is yes. You would consider it in rule #4. However, there is an error in your statement, "Would you include this false information when creating the axis for Rule#4?". In rule #4, you are not actually determining the axis. Rule #4 says, "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." Thus, rule #4 only directs you to examine all the dots created in accordance with rule #1, and then examine for any patterns in the dots and start looking for the axis. The crux of the rule is that the elongated pattern should form. However, to determine the actual axis or spine as I have also called, you will need to know rule #5. I have touched on rule #5 in the past, but have not expressed it nor fully explained it (that also goes for the other rules you will need), so you don't yet have all the tools needed to do Geo. Also, as a side note, the supposed location of the "boad nelly" should be plotted on the map in accordance with rule #1. Rule #1 says, "If an event has occurred at a location that you believe the perpetrator is responsible for, plot it." By all accounts, Lindy did go to that location, so an event did actually occur there, and he would not have done so if not for the perp's direction, so we plot it. However, we also know that it was a hoax, so we have to take that into consideration. It was done in accordance with rule #2 to give the perp some breathing room and some measure of anonymity. Once you get all this Geo stuff down and know how to properly apply all the rules, then you will be able to put the "boad Nelly" location into perspective and understand why it should have been treated as a hoax as soon as Lindy opened the letter and read it. why then do you think that BRH moved to Rule#3 so quickly? He was focusing all the LE attention on his own neighborhood. Wouldn't he be concerned with getting caught? Do you think he wasn't worried about that because he trusted Condon and Lindbergh to keep the authorities at arm's length throughout the negotiating process? Rule #3 says that Serial Killers will point to where they live. I always imagine a hunting dog when I think about this rule. The hunting dogs that help you hunt birds are called pointers. They stand stiff legged in a stance, their whole body and eyes focused in one particular direction. The reason this rule works is that their need for anonymity is highest on the initial kills (and they are also most careful during the initial stages) but due to lazyness, carelessness, overconfidence, and a desire to use resources efficiently, they begin to commit their crimes closer to home. The result is that they unwittingly reveal the general location in which they live. They "point" to the direction that they live. This is all that Geo tells us. I have seen this "pattern" in every serial Killer case, and if not for Geo and plotting the dots of the events, this information may not have been so obvious. To explain why he started abided by Rule #3 when he did, we must consider the facts and consider some systematic factors and logical guesses. Geo will not give us the answer to that, so your analysis may be as good as mine. However, I will tell you that although our perp was smart, he was not aware that his actions could form a pattern that could implicate him. Michael's brother said it best when he said, " People are animals and act in a predictable pattern even when they think they are being random." Some of the factors to consider have already been mentioned above: lazyness, carelessness, overconfidence, and a desire to use resources efficiently. Here is my opinion. The perp or perps felt that Highfields was tailor made for them. Being from NYC, he (or them) would not be recognized so far away in Princeton. After completing the relatively easy kidnapping, it was back home to NYC. The next step was another random note. Now, I have lived in Manhattan, so if I had wanted to mail another ransom note, I would have done one of three things: Got in my car and drove to NJ; jumped on the subway and taken it to Queens or Brooklyn; or got on one of the commuter trains out of Grand Central or Penn Station. Of the three, the simplest and cheapest is to get on the subway. In fact, I believe he used the Lexington 4,5,6 subway line for many of his mailings. He mailed his first NYC ransom note from near Borough Hall in Brooklyn, and that should have tipped people off that he could have lived on either the Upper West Side, the Bronx, or the Upper East Side near Yorkville, because so many people who go through Borough hall originate in those areas. You can also get there by using the 1,2,3 train (2 and 3 are express trains), so again, my first thought after living there for over five years was how accessible it would have been for him to use the subway to get to Brooklyn. Also rule #1 still applies. He was still trying to remain anonymous. Thus, he most likely did not live in Brooklyn. We can also use those ethnicity charts I posted earlier to start to focusing on particular areas within NYC. Now, we need good investigative work at this point to uncover more clues as to where he lived. If we think he is German based on that first ransom note left at Highfields and we rule out Brooklyn per my discussion above, we need to focus on Yorkville or the Bronx. I think the #1 reason he was not worried about revealing where he lived was overconfidence. He had just stolen the son of America's greatest celebrity and hero, right from under his nose. He had shown Lindy that he was smart too. Now, don't you think that if BRH was only responsible for the ransom part and did not participate in the actual kidnapping, he would have been more cautious? The reason you split a job into different parts is for specialization purposes. Well, if BRH's only job was to handle the ransom notes, he gets a F. Hence, i believe he did participate in the actual kidnapping. See how Geo helps us come to that conclusion. EDIT: He gets an F for the following reasons: 1. The mailings for his notes all "point" to the Bronx. Thus, he is telling LE where to focus and which banks to look for gold certs. 2. He conducts face to face negotiations in the Bronx and his face is seen by Jafsie. Jafise also knows his height and weight and what his voice sounds like. 3. The notes show cunning ability, but reveal that he may be German. 4. Much of the Ransom money was found in one house in the Bronx. Should have been laundered in locations farther away, and left none of the gold certs in the house. 5. Perp was spending gold certs when he knew they had been recalled, so he was taking a chance. It could be argued that he should have realized that the serial #s were being tracked. Perhaps a professional would have though of that. 6. The perp revealed to Jafsie his concern that he would burn if the baby was dead. Wow! Should have set off a hugh warning sign and bells. 7. He told Jafsie he need 6 hours before opening the final note and then once the note was opened, it should have been a big flag that the baby was located too far away. 8. He spends a lot of gold certs in upper manhattan and the Bronx. Again, these are events that we must plot IAW rule #1, and they help show that he lived in the Bronx. So my conclusion is that although BRH was above average intelligence, he made too many critical mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 21, 2012 0:35:10 GMT -5
Another good unsolved serial killing was Rochester, New York's "alphabet murders" aka "Double Initial Murders" in the early 1970s in which three girls were killed, each with matching initials. Carmen Colon, 10, disappeared November 16, 1971. Wanda Walkowicz, 11, disappeared April 2, 1973. Michelle Maenza, 11, disappeared November 26, 1973.
I did my Geo plot analysis on this case, and zeroed in on East Rochester as the perp's likely residence. I recently discovered that the #1 suspect is Joseph Naso from East Rochester!!! He "pointed" like the dog he is.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 21, 2012 0:49:42 GMT -5
By the way, I served three years on a U.S. Navy nuclear submarine. I can't reveal too much more than that except to say that the experience I got "tracking and hunting enemy subs" was invaluable. Then, I spent five years plotting over 15 serial killers and developing the methods you see here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 9:35:39 GMT -5
So BRH became overconfident rather quickly and this led to him feeling it was safe to operate the rest of the ransom negotiations in his comfort zone. If this was a mistake, it is amazing that he wasn't apprehended before the money exchanged hands.
So Rule#1 is when you create the axis. Do you do this while the crime is in progress or is your system primarily used after the crime is concluded? Sorry for all the questions. Just trying to understand.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 22, 2012 1:37:55 GMT -5
Amy, No sweat. Ask as many questions as you like. So BRH became overconfident rather quickly and this led to him feeling it was safe to operate the rest of the ransom negotiations in his comfort zone. If this was a mistake, it is amazing that he wasn't apprehended before the money exchanged hands. The fact that he was not arrested sooner probably due to lack of coordination between various police departments, lack of LE involvement because Lindy wanted to keep them at arm's length, inadequate police procedures, and other various factors. However, he went a long time before being arrested, and it was only because of an alert gas station attendant, he might have never been discovered. This is another reason that I believe he either acted alone or in a tight group. IF it had been a larger group of amateurs, one of them would have slipped up at some point and blown the whole thing open. IMO, he was overconfident for much of the time, but at certain times, he began to get nervous. STAmford is a good example. Then he just got very careless, and it led to his capture. Rule#1 is when you create the axis. Do you do this while the crime is in progress or is your system primarily used after the crime is concluded? Sorry for all the questions. Just trying to understand. No. We will determine the axis in rule #5. Also, once we do, we have to keep in mind that the axis is not static. It can change as we get more "events" that we have to plot. Geo analysis should be started when LE believes they have a serial killer at work. You plot the dots based on the rules, determine the axis using regression analysis in accordance with rule #5, which I have not covered yet, and then continue to refine and update the axis as you get more dots. Usually, you need at least three "kills" in order to feel that the solution you get from Geo is valid. Any less than that, and you run the risk that sample size is too small. This will be covered in rule 8 later.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2012 13:46:08 GMT -5
Michael, you're relying on people who said the Unibomber would be caught in a three piece suit. All of the above is simply basic police work which hasn't had a name until SOJ came along. No offence meant SOJ, great typing and plenty of it. The problem with Lindbergh is that there has to be a lot of information which is not known - and probably never will be. For example, it's known by fact that BRH had something to do with it (call Kevkon) but to what extent? The whats? bring up a lot of what ifs?, and some investigators totally disregard them, but how else are you going to come to an unknowable answer? What if BRH was CAL's spurned homosexual lover? If that information was known by the police it would never see the light of day. What if the Nazis wanted CAL as a spokesperson in USA to keep America out of a potential war (see Mein Kampf) and killed his son, and said your mom is next then your wife then you? Lindbergh must have known that his son was dead because he was in no hurry to get him back. Organized crime wouldn't touch that crime, but current, 1932, bank robbers would. Baby Faced Nelson was extremely nuts and would unqualmly kill anything that was trouble for him. That scenario would have been revealed of course, but perhaps it was never known. In reality crime should be looked at as who wins. In Lindbergh Hauptmann won some, but it really looks like he couldn't have done it alone, and if someone else was involved they would have been looking for much more money. Hamm and Bremer were kidnapped shortly after CAL III for lots more ransom. So who won? As much as the administrators here hate to admit it, the Nazis won.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 22, 2012 15:47:25 GMT -5
Jack, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but let me see. Michael, you're relying on people who said the Unibomber would be caught in a three piece suit. If that comment was directed to me and my Geo methods, I believe that Geo can provide LE with some great tools including a prediction as to what general area the Perp lives. I think that can be very helpful, in contrast to your example of a three piece suit which is not helpful at all. However, Geo will not provide an address..it says nothing about the perp and what kind of suit he wears...but I will go with a brown, three piece if we are taking bets...thus, it cannot provide specific details. However, it can provide helpful information that along with other clues and other new techniques that are yet to be formulated, could allow us to make a break in this case..For example, when the weatherperson tells you what the weather will look like over the weekend, it should be understood that his /her prediction is based on some facts and known patterns that can be analyzed using techniques, but it is not foolproof. It is a tool you can use to plan your weekend. That's all. Geo works the same way. But my advice is to listen to the wx man /woman because if he /she says it's going to rain, it probably will. ) All of the above is simply basic police work which hasn't had a name until SOJ came along. No offence meant SOJ, great typing and plenty of it. Really? I would not imagine that police use regression analysis to make predictions. But I'm not LE, so I would not know. In this day in age, perhaps they do. Also, I have heard of LE using some of these techniques, but IMO, they use some of it the wrong way. For example, they tend to interpret the "comfort zone" as being CLOSE to where the perps commits his initial crimes, but I have shown it's just the opposite. This critical technique / rule would not have been known unless someone painstakingly plotted the dots from over 15 serial killings. Has LE ever done that? But if what you say is true - that my methods are basic police work - at least by me sharing it, we may learn something additional about the case. The problem with Lindbergh is that there has to be a lot of information which is not known - and probably never will be. For example, it's known by fact that BRH had something to do with it (call Kevkon) but to what extent? The whats? bring up a lot of what ifs?, and some investigators totally disregard them, but how else are you going to come to an unknowable answer? What if BRH was CAL's spurned homosexual lover? If that information was known by the police it would never see the light of day. Surely, there are a lot of facts about this case that we don't know, but how many of those facts are truly relevant? We don't have a crystal ball, so "we don't know what we don't know." However, your point here is actually a great reason for why we must use techniques like Geo. Geo and other techniques help "fill in the gaps of our knowledge". As long as people are willing to commit time to this case, there is hope that we can still uncover relevant facts. If we uncover more facts or if we develop new techniques for analyzing them, then we could go a long way towards gaining a better understanding of this case. what if the Nazis wanted CAL as a spokesperson in USA to keep America out of a potential war (see Mein Kampf) and killed his son, and said your mom is next then your wife then you? Lindbergh must have known that his son was dead because he was in no hurry to get him back. Organized crime wouldn't touch that crime, but current, 1932, bank robbers would. Baby Faced Nelson was extremely nuts and would unqualmly kill anything that was trouble for him. That scenario would have been revealed of course, but perhaps it was never known. In reality crime should be looked at as who wins. In Lindbergh Hauptmann won some, but it really looks like he couldn't have done it alone, and if someone else was involved they would have been looking for much more money. Hamm and Bremer were kidnapped shortly after CAL III for lots more ransom. So who won? As much as the administrators here hate to admit it, the Nazis won. You are making a point that perhaps we should all pick up our toys and go home because we may never know certain facts, and it's hopeless to try to figure this case out. But I for one am willing to stay and work on this case. I am hopeful that if enough people commit time, we can make progress.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 22, 2012 16:14:03 GMT -5
I believe it is used by the Behavioral unit in Quantico. I know John Douglas incorporates it into his profiling, though it is not as well defined as your system. I'd love to get your system involved with the current Nova production.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2012 23:36:34 GMT -5
I didn't mean you, SOJ, I meant the highly taxdollar paid profilers who come up with solutions like "he's a loney" at about a hundred thousand dollars an opinion. Your philosophy was pretty closely done by Dudley Schoenfield at the time of the kidnapping. He did exactly what you could probably do, pinpointed the perpetrator to an area of NYC. Remember though that you're doing it after the fact and he did it before. This was well publicized, but what was not brought out at the time was that the police had figured that out long before Schoenfeld. So to them he, and probably you would be simply more fodder. The crime as it went down was solved by a police detective and not a psychic or a psychiatrist or an insider - or somebody with a fancy new title, including Donovan (but why was he involved anyway?). Again, there are so many questions about Lindbergh that there is certainly something which is unknown about this particular crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2012 23:52:46 GMT -5
Pick up your toys.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2012 0:26:09 GMT -5
For SOJ - can you tell me of one crime that wasn't solved by the police? BTK, Bundy, Green River, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 23, 2012 1:34:02 GMT -5
I didn't mean you, SOJ, I meant the highly taxdollar paid profilers who come up with solutions like "he's a loney" at about a hundred thousand dollars an opinion. Your philosophy was pretty closely done by Dudley Schoenfield at the time of the kidnapping. He did exactly what you could probably do, pinpointed the perpetrator to an area of NYC. Remember though that you're doing it after the fact and he did it before. This was well publicized, but what was not brought out at the time was that the police had figured that out long before Schoenfeld. So to them he, and probably you would be simply more fodder. The crime as it went down was solved by a police detective and not a psychic or a psychiatrist or an insider - or somebody with a fancy new title, including Donovan (but why was he involved anyway?). Again, there are so many questions about Lindbergh that there is certainly something which is unknown about this particular crime. I agree with much of what you have said here, but I'd like to point out that my Geo methods does not just provide a location for where the perp lived, but can be used to help provide explanations for other patterns we see in this case. For example, the significance of the STAmford mailing and other strange things about this case that we are trying to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2012 8:31:26 GMT -5
I understand Jack's skepticism and I think there is definitely a place for it along these lines. But for me I try to keep an open mind due to the fact I see the possibilities in SOJ methods to bear fruit. Even if its not 100%, I see where something could be learned by and through what he is doing. And if not, we're no worse off then when/where we started because, like Jack said, there is so much we do not know. So I say we're never going to know less because someone is trying to work through it in a different way. But having said that, I do also expect counter-arguments to test some of what SOJ may assert.
I thank SOJ for taking his methods to our board, explaining them, then attempting to prove its worth to us and thereby giving us that opportunity to learn, agree, or disagree. (I also want to thank him for his service and everything he did to protect our Country).
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2012 8:52:37 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Is SOJ really Oliver North. One thing about me and this site, SOJ, is exactly like my uncle Saul the barber used to say to his customers, "don't worry, in a week or two you'll forget you even got a haircut."
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 23, 2012 11:54:53 GMT -5
Gents, no problem. I encourage good dialogue. This is a great case that begs for debate and a variety of different perspectives.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2012 12:53:22 GMT -5
It's not really a great case. After 80 years they are still arguing about rail 16 and Hauptmann's perhaps innocense. I've watched this site for several years and have seen nothing concluded. I imagine the problem was Lindbergh himself. But investigators look at him and say, oh well he was just very chatty with press people. If you look back at what Kevkon and Michael say about him, he's not that way at all. So he was a good actor, but why act at that time? In this crime it's not as important to find out who did it as to find out who didn't do it. So, if you're really interested in solving it, you have to eliminate lots. And there is tons and tons of information about it. So, SOJ, lets start at square one. Did Anne do it? There are no pictures of her even being pregnent. After CIII was born she went off on a flight/excursion with CII for a long while. How many women would do that - any? Hauptmann had something to do with it, and that's what your investication reveals, but the real purpose of the crime will probably be forever unknown.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 23, 2012 20:12:30 GMT -5
SOJ, This is SO fascinating! I think you have a book waiting to happen!!
Are you familiar with the Timothy Spencer AKA Southside Strangler case? It was back in the 80's. Rapist/killer It's said to be the first case of a DNA conviction in Virginia. The locations being Arlington and Richmond, VA. I had told one of my daughters about your profiling. She had been living in Richmond at the time of these crimes.The very thought scares me to death!
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 24, 2012 2:47:18 GMT -5
SOJ, This is SO fascinating! I think you have a book waiting to happen!! Are you familiar with the Timothy Spencer AKA Southside Strangler case? It was back in the 80's. Rapist/killer It's said to be the first case of a DNA conviction in Virginia. The locations being Arlington and Richmond, VA. I had told one of my daughters about your profiling. She had been living in Richmond at the time of these crimes.The very thought scares me to death! Mairi, until now, I was vaguely aware of this killer. However, I did some research on him and performed Geo analysis, and the results are very interesting. First of all, the Southside Strangler was none other than Timothy Wilson Spencer. His case is notable for several reasons. The man was on parole and living in a halfway house at the time of the murders. He was also an African American, 25 years old at the time of the 1987 murders. You don't see too many African American serial killers. Finally, like you said, he was the first murderer in Va convicted based on DNA. He raped and murdered his first victim in Arlington, Va in 1984. However, by 1987, he was living in a halfway house on the southside of Richmond, Va. He then killed and raped four women within a span of four months. Three of the women lived within 3 miles of the halfway house he lived at, and the final victim was killed in Arlington, site of the first victim. What strikes me about this case is the great similarity to the Gainesville Ripper, Danny Rolling, who instead of strangling his victims, stabbed them to death. However, they killed in very similar patterns, the most obvious being that his three victims in Richmond all lived within a few miles of each other. This was also true of the Gainesville, Florida murders in 1990. Thus, when I saw the close proximity for each of the three southside victims, it was fairly obvious to me that the perp was on foot just like Rolling; indeed he was. Next, I had to determine the axis in accordance with rule #5, which ran roughly parallel to the Midlothian Turnpike. Rule #5 involves regression analysis, so it's a bit complicated. I would rather keep things simple at this point. Thus, I was certain the killer lived parallel to this turnpike. The only issue I had was to determine which end of the axis he lived on. Since I believe he was on foot, the usual 15 mile rule does not apply for the comfort zone (it also does not apply for smallish towns of less than 100K population). Thus, we use 5 miles for perps who have this “local” signature. In this case, the killer was on foot without a car just like Danny Rolling was. Also like Rolling, the Southside Strangler was a burglar who eventually turned to rape and murder. This is one reason I believe that whoever kidnapped little Charlie at Highfileds and later left him on the side of the road, was a burglar turned killer. More on that theory later. Finally, they both killed just five women total (that we know of). So the Southside Strangler and the Gainesville Ripper shared a lot of similarities...except they did not kill their victim with the same weapon. Rolling stabbed his victims multiple times with a K-Bar knife and Spencer strangled his victims with a ligature (sort of tourniquet device that the killer places around his victim's neck). I discovered that Spencer went trolling for his three Richmond victims at the old Cloverleaf Mall, which has since been demolished. There is a receipt for a book purchased by victim #3 in the bookstore in the mall, the same bookstore that victim #2 worked at. Finally, victim #4 lived just across from the mall. Since he trolled at the mall yet killed closer to Richmond, you have to place his residence closer to Richmond (due to Rule #3). Also, since Richmond has a river running near it (like NYC has the east river and the Hudson), you need to factor this geographic fact into your analysis of where the perp lived. This will be covered in Rule #9. Finally, Rule #1 says that when plotting "events" you must always plot the location where the killer trolled as well as where he abducted them, killed them, and dumped them (sorry for the matter of fact way of putting this). Thus, he must have lived off the Midlothian Turnpike closer to Richmond. In fact, he lived at a halfway house at 1500 Porter Street in Richmond, which is on the southside not far from where he killed victims #2 and #3. The halfway house is just off the Midlothian Turnpike exactly 5 miles from the old Cloverleaf Mall. Now, the Arlington murders are a bit strange. Arlington is approximately 100 miles from Richmond. However, Danny Rolling exhibited a similar pattern. He killed first at Shreveport, La, over 800 miles away from Gainesville. Ted Bundy also killed over long distances like this. One of the Hillside Stranglers, Ken Bianchi, also stopped killing in LA and moved away to Bellingham, Wa., where he was eventually caught. Thus, it's well known that some serial killers stop killing and move on to kill in other cities. In summary, this is a challenging serial killer to perform Geo on because he only had three kills in Richmond and four events total counting his trolling. Thus, we will learn with rule #8 that sample size is an issue with so few events. The main pattern here was that after I plotted his first two kills, it seemed likely that the perp was on foot and killing locally. He trolled locally not far from where his victims lived. This was his MO: a girl caught his eye at the mall; he followed them home, cased their home, found the weakest point of entry, and then struck at night, killing his victims by strangulation within a minute with very little struggle. This case is very similar to the Gainesville Ripper case of 1990. Spencer was executed in 1994. Here are the victims: #1 Carol Hamm from Arlington #2 Debbie Dudley Davis, 35 yr old account executive who lived in Westover Hills #3 Dr. Susan Hellams who lived near the perp on west 31st street. #4 Diane Cho, 15 yr old HS student, who lived near the mall #5 Susan Tucker, 44 of Arlington.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 6:42:01 GMT -5
Rolling WAS an interesting guy. He said that the evil would come upon him at night and in the morning he'd feel sorry for what he'd done. Again though, the police solved Rolling (a detective noticed crime similarities), not a psychic or psychiatrist. If Rolling wouldn't have robbed the supermarket and left town that one might have been on the list of unsolved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2012 7:37:21 GMT -5
But Jack, you can't deny that psychological elements exist. When I first emailed Ryan about SOJ he referred me to a book written by Charles Remsberg and Dennis Anderson concerning tactical edges on the street. There's a section on "flight patterns" as it relates to predictable human behavior. I think if you take the skills a seasoned Officer/Detective has in identifying what they do, and expand it - then you may very well have what SOJ is attempting with Geo.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2012 9:37:15 GMT -5
SOJ, how has your GEO worked on the Boston Strangler crime? You know that is a very tricky case regarding the attacks.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 24, 2012 13:38:11 GMT -5
SOJ, Thank you very much for the added details about the "Southside Strangler". It was quite interesting to me. That his crime circuit was on foot is remarkable. Years ago I lived in Richmond, VA and the place-names you mentioned were familiar to me. I appreciate the time you spent in describing it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 13:48:36 GMT -5
I agree with you Michael, but just don't think it's anything new. I worked for a construction magazine and there was rule at the time that contractors usually bought things within 90 miles of their home base. Smaller things to buy were closer so they wouldn't go across state to get a hammer, but might to get a backhoe - but only so far. Same is true of everybody, basically we're lazy, even murderers. BTK is a good example. He picked out people he saw while driving around but he stayed within his area when picking them out. Of course Hauptmann/Lindbergh would be way out of BRH's general area, but it's an exclusive crime, and as SOJ says the other events were well within his confines. It just seems to me like nothing new, but something to talk about I guess.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 14:52:54 GMT -5
Actually SOJ is way way off. Ask him where his initial (right after the kidnapping) proximity of the perpetrator would be and he'd tell you he/she was in the boonies of NJ mountains or hills or he would be a liar. Every system has it's little flaws - ta ta.
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 25, 2012 21:59:31 GMT -5
SOJ, how has your GEO worked on the Boston Strangler crime? You know that is a very tricky case regarding the attacks. I did him a few years ago. I'll have to dust that file off when I get a chance.
|
|