AETV User Profile "ear" and "EAR"

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2016 12:59:11 GMT richporce said:

Feb 25, 2016 12:27:32 GMT @murdoc said:

While the true EAR was certainly bold in his methods, I don't believe he'd "completely" out himself with full use of his moniker on an online board. He may get in there but he isn't going to give himself away so easily. Just mho. Despite this opinion, I am a firm believer that if someone wants the attention destined for a wanted psychopath, then at the very least he should be treated as such and be thoroughly investigated. Worst case scenario, they're outted as a mentally challenged fraud and become something of the 'wolf' in "the kid who cried wolf", when in actuality their an unwanted pussy cat

Not giving EAR nor the user any credit for anything I might add. I just hate that someone can get under peoples skin like that online.

He didn't "completely out himself" though. He never posted. Assuming it actually was EAR behind those monikers, or one of them, all he did was log in on dates of crimes, one of which only he and a few retired cold case detectives would have known/suspected was related to EAR.

I mean it is a bit of a coincidence, isn't it? That the profile "EAR" is registered on a cold case board on the exact date of what is possibly his first murders, crimes which had never been linked in public to the EAR.

Just making an account on a date can't be considered to be "completely outing himself". Sure, if he'd started posting and shouting "I'm EAR!!" then that would be a bit much, but this sort of behavior is suggestive of what we know to be EAR's cunning/calculative, and more importantly, SUBTLE terror tactics. He left little clues like this before. Shoe laces under cushions. Hang up calls. What's to say he wasn't sat there, sniggering to himself, happy with his plan of leaving a very subtle little calling card online, signing up on a date only he and a few retired detectives considered significant, just a tiny little message of "I'm still out here, watching". This has EAR written all over. 

Ah, crap. I'm referring to that last goon on this board -_- smh... you made a good point and I just noticed the entire thread title. However, using the name "ear" on a board about a serial killer named "ear" is more of a nudge than a wink, if you catch my drift. Not doubting this though, I promise as I was not around at the time that happened. 

Still, with the internet anyone could find the DOD's of those victims. Most of us here are well aware of them anyway and that's not including the guests/lurkers who frequent the board for information. Not saying anyone at all is to blame nor am I disagreeing with you about the AETV ear being a possible person of interest, but there are in fact some sick people out there who get their jollies by provoking individuals so invested in such a case. Using the very resources we use to learn the days that the victims were taken away, it's not a long shot that someone would use that to make a sick, impractical joke to yank the chains of sleuths. Just like this newer version that posted recently, I feel all they wanted to do was stir the pot and make us all dance for their entertainment. Not saying that this is the case, just that it does and has happened and if someone who knew enough got upset enough to lash out, then there's that too. All in all I am only thinking out loud right now and not trying to argue, as I do see your point. 

I had no idea that the Maggiore homicides had not been publicly connected at that time by the way.

[Deleted]

I never visited the AETV board so my question is, could someone lurk on there without having a screen name like they can on here or did you have to join with a screen name to see the posts?
If you did not have to sign up with a screen name then why would he risk being caught when he could have just lurked like one can on this site?

[Drifter]

could someone lurk on there [the old AETV message board] without having a screen name ... or did you have to join with a screen name to see the posts?

You could read the posted messages without having to create a screen name.

D.

[TheBat]

Isn't the old saying that criminals usually hide in plain sight? The EAR handle would have been so obvious that MOST people would disqualify it as being the actual EARONS.

It's almost as if it was a calculated risk where he hedged on the idea that no one would bother looking into it.

[sultrycrockett]

Feb 25, 2016 10:06:17 GMT @cherokee said:

Feb 25, 2016 6:12:10 GMT sultrycrockett said:

Another thing I forgot, one of the old detectives who originally worked the EAR cases said in a podcast that he was certain EAR was listening to a police scanner and was probably an amateur radio operator. He said EAR would adjust his prowl/attack areas based on where LE was concentrating their efforts, and would react to case information discussed over the police radio.

So, if we know EAR has demonstrated past behavior of some technological know-how to use against LE, to gather information, and to stay a step ahead, why wouldn't that behavior continue? Why wouldn't EAR learn to use the web and figure out how message boards work? Why wouldn't he keep studying LE's movements on his case? If he liked technology back then, he probably still does.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Lurking and prowling, the use of technology to follow his own crimes, the interest in his own publicity, these EAR behaviors would certainly continue online. He used a police scanner and radio, tools, various cars, various weapons, television, and he understood how to plan and map, and was careful. No doubt he'd be on the web sneaking around. It's the best source of information for him from LE on his case, especially if he's no longer in California. It's mostly anonymous and it's easy to use.

Not trying to be a negative Nancy here but how do we know he did any of these things? "He used a police scanner and radio, tools, various cars, various weapons, television, and he understood how to plan and map, and was careful." Yes he used various weapons and did plan but the rest is pure speculation as we don't know for a fact he used a police scanner, a map or that he drew a map or maps, we don't know what type of car or cars he drove. Not trying to argue but this is the sort of thing that gets out there as truth and misinformation am I wrong? If the things I have mentioned have been proven I apologize but I have not seen anywhere that those have been proven as fact.

One of the two original detectives who wrote a book on the case, he mentioned in a podcast on YouTube that he was sure EAR was using a scanner and had a police radio or was listening to the channel.  The reason is because EAR would adapt to the broadcasts.  If they concentrated on a certain area, he would move his attacks.  After a while, the detective who worked the case firsthand said he realized EAR was listening, so he said he tried to get officers to keep information off the air, but he says some officers didn't, and because they discussed the case over the air it affected their ability to trap him and surprise him.  That is not misinformation, and it does not have to be 'proven' because it is a reasonable observation by an investigator who worked the case and recognized it.

As for EAR's use of various weapons, these were identified by witnesses.  He used guns and knives.  He used different burglary tools, which is how he gained entry into so many homes, hence the 'tools' reference.  He left tool markings on windows as well, it was one of several signatures at the scenes.  I think he even used a dildo on one victim, which I think in Sudden Terror was referred to as a rubber penis or something of the like by a victim.

Investigators found he cruised neighborhoods in different vehicles, which were reported by witnesses, and EAR had parked different makes and models of vehicles seen in places where the dogs lost EAR's scent.  I don't know about tire impressions.  The various vehicles were described by people who saw them.  

The television reference was EAR's, spoken by him to a victim.  He also reacted to news reports, particularly when he changed areas.  No one would argue and say that he did not follow his crimes on television.  The Sudden Terror book mentions as well that EAR said things to victims about the police (that were things reported on television), and had given the victim(s) messages for the police.  Also, could even EAR prove at this point that he owned a television in the 1970's?  It's only relevant to the point that EAR paid attention to reports on his crimes.

I feel like what you're doing is trying to question everything without considering how the information applies to the original point.  If you want you can go verify the things I posted on your own.  You'll find they were reported and are in the book or have been discussed in the podcast on YouTube.  The original point is that it is not a stretch for someone with a demonstrated skill with tools and technology to learn to use a computer to his advantage.  In fact, it would be expected.  EAR did follow law enforcement's moves because it was critical to his success, he enjoyed the game.  Have you read the profile on EAR?  It is not a stretch to think that some of his lurking behavior would continue online and he'd maintain interest in activity related to his case.

Whenever someone starts a post with "Not trying to be a Negative Nancy here but" ...it usually means they're being just that.  Are you following along with the line of thinking as it relates to the possible online behavior of EAR?  Do you have anything you'd like to contribute?  It's a discussion.

[sultrycrockett]

Feb 25, 2016 13:41:04 GMT @murdoc said:

Feb 25, 2016 12:59:11 GMT richporce said:

He didn't "completely out himself" though. He never posted. Assuming it actually was EAR behind those monikers, or one of them, all he did was log in on dates of crimes, one of which only he and a few retired cold case detectives would have known/suspected was related to EAR.

I mean it is a bit of a coincidence, isn't it? That the profile "EAR" is registered on a cold case board on the exact date of what is possibly his first murders, crimes which had never been linked in public to the EAR.

Just making an account on a date can't be considered to be "completely outing himself". Sure, if he'd started posting and shouting "I'm EAR!!" then that would be a bit much, but this sort of behavior is suggestive of what we know to be EAR's cunning/calculative, and more importantly, SUBTLE terror tactics. He left little clues like this before. Shoe laces under cushions. Hang up calls. What's to say he wasn't sat there, sniggering to himself, happy with his plan of leaving a very subtle little calling card online, signing up on a date only he and a few retired detectives considered significant, just a tiny little message of "I'm still out here, watching". This has EAR written all over. 

Ah, crap. I'm referring to that last goon on this board -_- smh... you made a good point and I just noticed the entire thread title. However, using the name "ear" on a board about a serial killer named "ear" is more of a nudge than a wink, if you catch my drift. Not doubting this though, I promise as I was not around at the time that happened. 

Still, with the internet anyone could find the DOD's of those victims. Most of us here are well aware of them anyway and that's not including the guests/lurkers who frequent the board for information. Not saying anyone at all is to blame nor am I disagreeing with you about the AETV ear being a possible person of interest, but there are in fact some sick people out there who get their jollies by provoking individuals so invested in such a case. Using the very resources we use to learn the days that the victims were taken away, it's not a long shot that someone would use that to make a sick, impractical joke to yank the chains of sleuths. Just like this newer version that posted recently, I feel all they wanted to do was stir the pot and make us all dance for their entertainment. Not saying that this is the case, just that it does and has happened and if someone who knew enough got upset enough to lash out, then there's that too. All in all I am only thinking out loud right now and not trying to argue, as I do see your point. 

I had no idea that the Maggiore homicides had not been publicly connected at that time by the way.

Yeah, I feel like after reading your original post you weren't quite grasping the implications of the two EAR lurker accounts connected to those dates.  You can't simply dismiss something like that as an investigator, particularly what what is known about EAR and his profile, without first thoroughly checking it out and turning over the rock to see if the guy is hiding under there.  You can't just dismiss things like that, no matter what your general opinion is on sick people.

RichPorce made a really good point, which is that it makes you wonder how many times investigators dismissed possible leads without ever really checking them out.  We already know their process for eliminating suspects was completely flawed, but what about leads and tips that came in?  If Larry Pool is any indication of flawed thinking on the case, what else has been missed?  Police Departments should be required by law to catalog and save and file away all leads and tips that come in, regardless of how crazy they seem, so they can be scrutinized in the future.  They should be filed away with a report on where they came from, when, what phone # called it in, how it was investigated, what the resolution was, and who took the tip.  Then those tip reports should be saved with a copy, or the original tip sheet, even if the tip was reported by Elvis.  There's no way to go back and look at how a case was worked from top to bottom without being able to scrutinize all leads and tips and subsequent operations performed by the investigators.

[Deleted]

Feb 26, 2016 7:27:09 GMT sultrycrockett said:

Feb 25, 2016 10:06:17 GMT @cherokee said:

Not trying to be a negative Nancy here but how do we know he did any of these things? "He used a police scanner and radio, tools, various cars, various weapons, television, and he understood how to plan and map, and was careful." Yes he used various weapons and did plan but the rest is pure speculation as we don't know for a fact he used a police scanner, a map or that he drew a map or maps, we don't know what type of car or cars he drove. Not trying to argue but this is the sort of thing that gets out there as truth and misinformation am I wrong? If the things I have mentioned have been proven I apologize but I have not seen anywhere that those have been proven as fact.

One of the two original detectives who wrote a book on the case, he mentioned in a podcast on YouTube that he was sure EAR was using a scanner and had a police radio or was listening to the channel.  The reason is because EAR would adapt to the broadcasts.  If they concentrated on a certain area, he would move his attacks.  After a while, the detective who worked the case firsthand said he realized EAR was listening, so he said he tried to get officers to keep information off the air, but he says some officers didn't, and because they discussed the case over the air it affected their ability to trap him and surprise him.  That is not misinformation, and it does not have to be 'proven' because it is a reasonable observation by an investigator who worked the case and recognized it.

As for EAR's use of various weapons, these were identified by witnesses.  He used guns and knives.  He used different burglary tools, which is how he gained entry into so many homes, hence the 'tools' reference.  He left tool markings on windows as well, it was one of several signatures at the scenes.  I think he even used a dildo on one victim, which I think in Sudden Terror was referred to as a rubber penis or something of the like by a victim.

Investigators found he cruised neighborhoods in different vehicles, which were reported by witnesses, and EAR had parked different makes and models of vehicles seen in places where the dogs lost EAR's scent.  I don't know about tire impressions.  The various vehicles were described by people who saw them.  

The television reference was EAR's, spoken by him to a victim.  He also reacted to news reports, particularly when he changed areas.  No one would argue and say that he did not follow his crimes on television.  The Sudden Terror book mentions as well that EAR said things to victims about the police (that were things reported on television), and had given the victim(s) messages for the police.  Also, could even EAR prove at this point that he owned a television in the 1970's?  It's only relevant to the point that EAR paid attention to reports on his crimes.

I feel like what you're doing is trying to question everything without considering how the information applies to the original point.  If you want you can go verify the things I posted on your own.  You'll find they were reported and are in the book or have been discussed in the podcast on YouTube.  The original point is that it is not a stretch for someone with a demonstrated skill with tools and technology to learn to use a computer to his advantage.  In fact, it would be expected.  EAR did follow law enforcement's moves because it was critical to his success, he enjoyed the game.  Have you read the profile on EAR?  It is not a stretch to think that some of his lurking behavior would continue online and he'd maintain interest in activity related to his case.

Whenever someone starts a post with "Not trying to be a Negative Nancy here but" ...it usually means they're being just that.  Are you following along with the line of thinking as it relates to the possible online behavior of EAR?  Do you have anything you'd like to contribute?  It's a discussion.

I thought I was contributing to the discussion with my post. Perhaps you missed what I said. "Yes he used various weapons and did plan but the rest is pure speculation as we don't know for a fact he used a police scanner, a map or that he drew a map or maps, we don't know what type of car or cars he drove. Not trying to argue but this is the sort of thing that gets out there as truth and misinformation am I wrong?"
It has not been proven that he used a scanner or different vehicles nor what types. The map found has not been linked to the EAR be it handwriting analysis or dna. Again I am not trying to argue but just because someone wrote a book or did a podcast and expressed their opinions does not make it fact. Instead of saying I am being a negative Nancy because I started out my original post with that statement show me proof that he used a scanner, drew the map and tell me exactly what cars he drove. You cannot and neither can an author of a book nor can anyone that did a podcast. If you can provide proof I would love to see it. Was that proper contribution to the topic?

[sultrycrockett]

Cherokee, now you're being stubborn. If the original investigator says it was so with good reason, particularly if it was deduced after some logical considerations and observations, I'm inclined to agree. The investigator recognized a pattern in EAR's behavior that seemed to be reactive and not accidental, and related to broadcasts. He stated this. What you're saying is his deduction doesn't constitute proof. Well, they never caught EAR nor searched his home to confirm the investigator's deduction, but then again, they didn't have to. They were able to make the deduction after recognizing a series of adjustments made by the offender, based on the broadcasts over the air. That's a statistical confirmation. Because it was improbable that EAR could know that information and change his behavior, without first hearing it over the air, means you can draw this conclusion.

If your vegetables in your garden keep disappearing on days when you are not tending your garden, you can assume the rabbit who is eating your carrots is aware of your presence. EAR knew when and where undercover detectives were positioned in houses, and what neighborhood streets were being staked out. Other than him being a cop and privy to that information, how else could he know when the only source of that information was over the air? Do you need 'proof' that the rabbit recognizes your presence? Since you can't speak with the rabbit directly, because he doesn't speak English, is it more logical to simply make the conclusion the rabbit's behavior is evidence of his state of mind and intentions with your garden of carrots?

The "someone" and "author of a book" or "anyone that did a podcast" you refer to was an original investigator who worked the case. You're trying to make it seem less probable because you don't want to mention specifically that he had firsthand knowledge of the case. That gives what he wrote and said something called credibility.

As for the map, you do not know what kind of link may or may not be on it, or the accompanying letter and homework, because Pool did not release that information. He didn't disclose the results of any handwriting analyses done on any of it. I've asked on other threads and no one knows. Michelle MacNamara reported the find in her article, but gave few details. There were also few details released with regard to what the original investigators did to link it to EAR. Pool didn't give details on what the dog's responses were to the letter, only that the letter was found where one of EAR's cars had been, and that spot was discovered by an animal. This is common in investigations. If there is information they do not have to give out, they won't. But you can't assume it is not there. You don't know for sure what links have or haven't been made, or what analyses have been done. But you can assume they've probably done some work on it, we just don't know what. It would have been the 2nd time it was analyzed.

As far as your argument about 'facts' in general, the exploration of cases isn't always hinged on facts that are established as facts beforehand, but are confirmed afterward, once the person has been caught. But before that happens, you can operate on the assumption of certain known facts, and suspected facts. Examples would be EAR having a stutter or impediment, him having kept the trophies he took rather than discard them all, and his ability to plan and execute. No, no one sat with him while he planned. The proof of his planning is circumstantial based on interpreting the evidence.

They do know he used different vehicles, both original investigators mention this in their books. If they had the actual vehicles, they would have caught EAR. In your mind you probably think proof means they need to have his car in their possession. No, they don't. They simply need to operate within a reasonably assured deduction based on evidence of behavior, eyewitness descriptions, and evidence from the dogs because of how and why they would lose the scent where they did at the times they did.

You should try critical reasoning rather than requiring "proof" for everything. If there was proof for everything, and you're going to stick with that argument, then you'll never be able to mentally investigate anything that isn't already captured beforehand. That's not realistic in cases like these. To solve a case like this, you'd need to generate ideas and focus areas based on critically thinking about what you can deduce from what you know for sure, and then from what is possible or likely.

In the case of the rabbit in the garden, you don't need to have him tell you what he does and does not know about your schedule. You can operate under the assumption he knows when you're not around because your carrots are missing. You can statistically analyze the odds that this rabbit is either just lucky by chance, or by some knowledge of you being gone. The math alone will tell you the significance of the rabbit's behavior. That is circumstantial evidence based on observation and analysis. That's what the detective did to recognize that LE was being hoodwinked by EAR based on their broadcasts.

I think if you tried hard enough you could make deductions of your own and contribute something interesting or new to the discussion. You can do that based on what we know and what we can reasonably assume based on the evidence in the case.

[Deleted]

Feb 26, 2016 8:56:07 GMT sultrycrockett said:

Cherokee, now you're being stubborn. If the original investigator says it was so with good reason, particularly if it was deduced after some logical considerations and observations, I'm inclined to agree. The investigator recognized a pattern in EAR's behavior that seemed to be reactive and not accidental, and related to broadcasts. He stated this. What you're saying is his deduction doesn't constitute proof. Well, they never caught EAR nor searched his home to confirm the investigator's deduction, but then again, they didn't have to. They were able to make the deduction after recognizing a series of adjustments made by the offender, based on the broadcasts over the air. That's a statistical confirmation. Because it was improbable that EAR could know that information and change his behavior, without first hearing it over the air, means you can draw this conclusion.

If your vegetables in your garden keep disappearing on days when you are not tending your garden, you can assume the rabbit who is eating your carrots is aware of your presence. EAR knew when and where undercover detectives were positioned in houses, and what neighborhood streets were being staked out. Other than him being a cop and privy to that information, how else could he know when the only source of that information was over the air? Do you need 'proof' that the rabbit recognizes your presence? Since you can't speak with the rabbit directly, because he doesn't speak English, is it more logical to simply make the conclusion the rabbit's behavior is evidence of his state of mind and intentions with your garden of carrots?

The "someone" and "author of a book" or "anyone that did a podcast" you refer to was an original investigator who worked the case. You're trying to make it seem less probable because you don't want to mention specifically that he had firsthand knowledge of the case. That gives what he wrote and said something called credibility.

As for the map, you do not know what kind of link may or may not be on it, or the accompanying letter and homework, because Pool did not release that information. He didn't disclose the results of any handwriting analyses done on any of it. I've asked on other threads and no one knows. Michelle MacNamara reported the find in her article, but gave few details. There were also few details released with regard to what the original investigators did to link it to EAR. Pool didn't give details on what the dog's responses were to the letter, only that the letter was found where one of EAR's cars had been, and that spot was discovered by an animal. This is common in investigations. If there is information they do not have to give out, they won't. But you can't assume it is not there. You don't know for sure what links have or haven't been made, or what analyses have been done. But you can assume they've probably done some work on it, we just don't know what. It would have been the 2nd time it was analyzed.

As far as your argument about 'facts' in general, the exploration of cases isn't always hinged on facts that are established as facts beforehand, but are confirmed afterward, once the person has been caught. But before that happens, you can operate on the assumption of certain known facts, and suspected facts. Examples would be EAR having a stutter or impediment, him having kept the trophies he took rather than discard them all, and his ability to plan and execute. No, no one sat with him while he planned. The proof of his planning is circumstantial based on interpreting the evidence.

They do know he used different vehicles, both original investigators mention this in their books. If they had the actual vehicles, they would have caught EAR. In your mind you probably think proof means they need to have his car in their possession. No, they don't. They simply need to operate within a reasonably assured deduction based on evidence of behavior, eyewitness descriptions, and evidence from the dogs because of how and why they would lose the scent where they did at the times they did.

You should try critical reasoning rather than requiring "proof" for everything. If there was proof for everything, and you're going to stick with that argument, then you'll never be able to mentally investigate anything that isn't already captured beforehand. That's not realistic in cases like these. To solve a case like this, you'd need to generate ideas and focus areas based on critically thinking about what you can deduce from what you know for sure, and then from what is possible or likely.

In the case of the rabbit in the garden, you don't need to have him tell you what he does and does not know about your schedule. You can operate under the assumption he knows when you're not around because your carrots are missing. You can statistically analyze the odds that this rabbit is either just lucky by chance, or by some knowledge of you being gone. The math alone will tell you the significance of the rabbit's behavior. That is circumstantial evidence based on observation and analysis. That's what the detective did to recognize that LE was being hoodwinked by EAR based on their broadcasts.

I think if you tried hard enough you could make deductions of your own and contribute something interesting or new to the discussion. You can do that based on what we know and what we can reasonably assume based on the evidence in the case.

I am not being stubborn, I asked for proof and you cannot provide it. You take what you have read and heard about EAR as gospel and I don't. There is absolutely no proof that the person seen in the areas driving different vehicles was even the EAR. I see vehicles in my neighborhood all the time that I have never seen before but it does not mean a serial rapist is on the prowl. I have also found hand written notes blown out of trash bins by the wind in my yard but I doubt they were written by a serial rapist but who knows. As far as Michelle McNamara goes, the only time I saw her do a report her grammar was so horrible I did not even watch the whole thing because I could not take her seriously and I still don't. As far as the rabbit story, how do you know he took the carrots when you were gone? Were you watching the garden 24 hrs a day 7 days a week. Maybe he took them when you were posting on a blog? Maybe he didn't take them, perhaps it was a neighbor that stole them. The Police cannot be everywhere all the time just as we cannot. I am not saying he did not do any of those things, different cars, scanner, drew maps, all I am saying is we don't know that he did. What they thought they knew then got them no closer to catching him and has not to this day so I don't put much stock in what they thought, only what they knew about him and thats not a whole lot in my opinion.

[sultrycrockett]

You know the rabbit took the carrots when you were gone because the rabbit (you are aware of) did not take them while you were tending the garden since you would have saw him. You know the rabbit eats carrots and lives near your garden, do you really need to catch him on video to know it's him? You can figure it out using math and by Occam's Razor. It's basic problem-solving, it's an elementary principle. Based on what you know about your rabbit offender, you can make educated observations about the rabbit's behavior relative to your own behavior. I've taught this principle to undergrads many times and it's extremely rare that any of them can't figure this out at a basic level. This is like freshman in college-level logic.

You see how deductive reasoning works? You can experiment with it and then do mathematics to discover probability. Probability can be used during legal trials because it is a form of circumstantial evidence, particularly when it's compelling. It is not hearsay or speculative if the results of the math are statistically significant. This is how you build a case around a narrative to describe behavior circumstantially.

You know what, you are an adult. I can't teach you something this elementary if you are unwilling to apply it. Basic research methods, logic, decision-making, and even comparative politics are all college courses you could take to learn how to do this type of mental math to come to conclusions and interpret behavior.

The poor analogy you used of seeing vehicles in your neighborhood is not the same as in the EAR cases. Did you read any of the books? or listen to interviews given by the detectives? They knew with a certainty the offender used multiple vehicles, because of a compelling amount of different evidence that pointed toward it. You don't need the actual car in your possession to know the car exists. See how that logic works? If the car was strategically placed by the offender, people saw it, and resulting scent trails from crime scenes led to it, could you reasonably assume it was the offender's car since it consistently happened after his crimes and was connected to them physically? That's different from a car just cruising through your neighborhood. See why your analogy is absurd?

You know what man, I can't keep explaining this to you. This is getting childish. You need to educate yourself on how to critically think about evidence and how science even works, and how logic works at a basic level. It is your responsibility to educate yourself. What you're doing is not trying to think, but to argue.

You're questioning established concepts that are demonstrable by evidence, logic, eye witness testimony, and confirmation by the original investigators based on firsthand observation. After you're called on it and your hand is held, you're then choosing to argue using no logic, but instead inappropriate analogies. Based on your logic, a UFO could have done it despite the evidence all pointing to a human being because in your world anything is possible.

[Deleted]

Feb 26, 2016 10:40:21 GMT sultrycrockett said:

You know the rabbit took the carrots when you were gone because the rabbit (you are aware of) did not take them while you were tending the garden since you would have saw him. You know the rabbit eats carrots and lives near your garden, do you really need to catch him on video to know it's him? You can figure it out using math and by Occam's Razor. It's basic problem-solving, it's an elementary principle. Based on what you know about your rabbit offender, you can make educated observations about the rabbit's behavior relative to your own behavior. I've taught this principle to undergrads many times and it's extremely rare that any of them can't figure this out at a basic level. This is like freshman in college-level logic.

You see how deductive reasoning works? You can experiment with it and then do mathematics to discover probability. Probability can be used during legal trials because it is a form of circumstantial evidence, particularly when it's compelling. It is not hearsay or speculative if the results of the math are statistically significant. This is how you build a case around a narrative to describe behavior circumstantially.

You know what, you are an adult. I can't teach you something this elementary if you are unwilling to apply it. Basic research methods, logic, decision-making, and even comparative politics are all college courses you could take to learn how to do this type of mental math to come to conclusions and interpret behavior.

The poor analogy you used of seeing vehicles in your neighborhood is not the same as in the EAR cases. Did you read any of the books? or listen to interviews given by the detectives? They knew with a certainty the offender used multiple vehicles, because of a compelling amount of different evidence that pointed toward it. You don't need the actual car in your possession to know the car exists. See how that logic works? If the car was strategically placed by the offender, people saw it, and resulting scent trails from crime scenes led to it, could you reasonably assume it was the offender's car since it consistently happened after his crimes and was connected to them physically? That's different from a car just cruising through your neighborhood. See why your analogy is absurd?

You know what man, I can't keep explaining this to you. This is getting childish. You need to educate yourself on how to critically think about evidence and how science even works, and how logic works at a basic level. It is your responsibility to educate yourself. What you're doing is not trying to think, but to argue.

You're questioning established concepts that are demonstrable by evidence, logic, eye witness testimony, and confirmation by the original investigators based on firsthand observation. After you're called on it and your hand is held, you're then choosing to argue using no logic, but instead inappropriate analogies. Based on your logic, a UFO could have done it despite the evidence all pointing to a human being because in your world anything is possible.

I am not arguing with you and will not argue with you, drifter has enough to do than have to intervene when two posters start arguing. I asked for proof and you cannot provide it. You would rather resort to name calling and make condescending remarks because I replied to your post with my opinion. You don't have to like my opinion or what I post but the condescending remarks and name calling is uncalled for and I won't be dragged into it. My last post on the matter.

[Relentless]

check out this guy, what do you think he is implying?  twitter.com/thecalller11

[tmacchallenger]

Feb 27, 2016 5:25:56 GMT Relentless said:

check out this guy, what do you think he is implying?  twitter.com/thecalller11

What a creep. Two daughters or two victims maybe? Probably just some stroke that stumbled across that painting on the internet. It might need its own thread though.

[Hawkeye]

Feb 27, 2016 5:25:56 GMT Relentless said:

check out this guy, what do you think he is implying?  twitter.com/thecalller11

I hope it's not a an attempt to attract attention in the delusional hope someone is going to want to buy that and hang it on their wall.    Artists do like to provoke but it's almost always about self promotion.  

[Hawkeye]

Feb 27, 2016 5:25:56 GMT Relentless said:

check out this guy, what do you think he is implying?  twitter.com/thecalller11

Also why is she wearing a clerical collar?   I obviously don't know if that is what is intended to be depicted but that is what it made me think of.