Post by woofytreats on Dec 16, 2016 20:35:27 GMT
I'm not much of a fan of probability theory to generate a static reality of what was or wasn't possible during the crime series...but if you apply probabilities about him not getting caught, you'd also have to apply similar probabilities of having one person "protecting him" or an agency or person generating an edict that somehow moved him out of an area without this information eventually becoming known. I think that's potentially both improbable and unknowable just like applying what might be subjective math to generate how it shows that there's something in the background that prevented him from being apprehended. I can't tell you that wasn't the case, but I can tell you that there are numerous probabilities that don't involve a correct or incorrect percentage of offenders getting caught within x period or number of crimes.
The example I always use is the concept of being "more surprised that he wasn't shot than wasn't caught" spread over the entire EAR period. Sac was locked and loaded during this period and if you believe Crompton's book, there was the incident where the woman chose not to shoot him directly and instead shot the window frame because she was scared of a murder rap. Is there a 50/50 probability of this result or did he get lucky?? Math is unlikely to tell me that part if the subjective qualities are at play. Being that people were apparently able to get the drop on him on more than a few occasions, that in and of itself, bumps up the numbers for a gun owner having access to his or her firearm and dispatching this guy. In that frame of mind, maybe the question to ask is what's the probability of EAR/ONS picking the wrong house and situation versus a random criminal?? If he truly was a different breed of criminal, then that might argue against applying similar statistics to give a particular result that wouldn't necessarily apply to him in comparison to the typical criminal.
This thread seems to generate a false argument at the very beginning. The "mere" fact isnt what the argument is. There are a great number of instances which some interpret as honest mistakes, and others interpret as another example of incompetence which always seem to err in earons favor. I would even question the idea of "LE collusion". Is that what we are talking about? Is it implying that every jurisdiction was colluding, or particular agencies? It seems quite possible that Sac wasnt complicit, that they were just arrogant buffoons. And that once earons migrated to OC, he was protected by an attorney with political and underworld connections. It is still quite possible that LE VIP'S didnt know that a certain person was earons, only that they had been cleared somehow, and they had some powerful people as friends. Does this thread even consider the idea that earons had some type of official badge? Who was protecting Officer Jerry? If everyone knew he was dirty, than who was protecting him? He should have been shown the door very early in his career, and yet he is probably get a retirement check every month as we speak.
I am curious too about the official CA murder clearance rates. Much of our opinion on the efficacy of LE is based on these statistics. And with in them I would expect to see just about every possible outcome in a murder. From the random opportunist murders of hitchhikers, drug addicts, and prostitutes, to the motive based husband, boyfriend, business partner, type of murders. As well as the murder suicides, murder victim being shot by LE or the victim, or a bystander. Or the cases where the murderer quickly confesses. If LE is willing to include all these cases into one basket, why should we not? But if instead of using 50/50, which seems generous compared to the LE clearance rate of 65/35, should we also factor in that earons had 3 years of extremely active home-invasion/robbery/rape? Crimes in which by their nature, there was a witness and evidence left? I would think that is highly uncommon in the majority of cleared CA murders.
Imo, the earons crimes seem to completely unique. Quite unlike murder series in which the bodies are left hidden or buried somewhere, far away from the scene of the murder. Or a series in which the victims are chosen when the opportunity arises. Or a series in which the victims are chosen from a normally vulnerable section of society. In this case LE had at least 60 crime scenes to investigate. And untold numbers of witnesses. That should have been enough to catch him. I want to know why it wasnt.
While I wouldn't necessarily argue with the idea that he should've been caught over a series of 50+ crimes, I run back to the idea that there is a missing component or components that are a part of this equation. Attributing that to the level of public participation, poor police work, nefarious connections allowing him a free ride, all have inherent biases that might fall under the category of availability error. There are instances where access to police reports might sever long-standing contentions about x or y that are being promoted. An example would be some of the things in "Hot Prowl" that are based more on theorization supporting the author's contention than what it says in the police report that sufficiently refutes it. I just offer this as an alternate reality that might actually more closely resemble reality versus something promoted on the internet with only other criminals exploits and scenarios to offer as comparison.