Post by rocker on Nov 11, 2013 21:29:21 GMT
Quote from Sandia: "rocker, I'm wondering if your first sentence is a typo. Do you actually suspect he DID use reverse psychology? I thought you previously stated you were sure he would have been caught if he attempted that. Possibly I am mixing you up with a different poster."
Are you referring to this exchange?
Quote from clandestineclementin: "I do not believe he was playing reverse psychology in saying he need whatever for his van by the river. "
Response from rocker/me: "I concur that it`s extremely unlikely that he lived in a van down by the river. Supplying accurate directions to victims would have ended his reign of terror with a comprehensive search."
Quote from Sandia: "I am of the mind he would not attempt reverse psychology and that he would not have made these comments about his van if he really had a van. I believe LE would not be able to disregard that statement even if they thought it was a red herring and I think he knew that, so I believe it was something he knew would be a smoke screen and actually give him pleasure in the toying with LE."
I construe his attempts to misdirect LE to be on the lookout for a van to be a form of reverse psychology by having them concentrate on a van and not on what he personally owned.
"Next about vehicles, that you think he may have stolen, borrowed, owned. O.K. I'll pipe in on that one too.
1) Stolen: I really doubt that. Driving around in a hot car -- don't LE patrol cars have a list of hot/stolen cars to be on the lookout for? That could have been a critical error and caused him to be apprehended quickly."
I think that a stolen car would really be pushing his luck. I view it as a possibility only in the context of it not ruling it out entirely because we do have evidence he was a thief.
" Borrowed: I don't think so. If borrowed with permission, would have to account for where, why, why so late? If borrowed without permission, he could be caught doing that and have to answer."
That one I also consider possible but as you point out, it carries with it additional risk. I consider it is in light of the security badge that was discovered. I'm wondering if it's possible back then for him to have worked for a security company that used vans and his presence would be inconspicuous/overlooked.
"Owned: I think he owned the car and that it was not registered to him and had been paid for in cash. If he had to escape and abandon the car he knew he would be caught if it was registered to him. We know of several instances where that has happened. I am going to make a leap and wager it was his M.O. and that is what always happened. I'd be willing to bet on that one."
Yes, ownership is most feasible.
"That was a very interesting observation about the sound of the sliding van door but that would only come into play if he used the sliding van door. I don't think he would have used it. First, he is alone and I believe it more likely he would use the driver door. Secondly, I would think that since he was aborting his attack due to nervousness, he would not choose that loud sounding door. Thirdly I think that would have been mentioned to LE and LE would accept the victim's assessment of van if that were the case, but they seemed to question it."
I agree. Why the victim thought she heard a van is anyone's guess.
What do you suppose would happen if he was just pulled over for a traffic violation and he was caught without a registration card?
The portion you re-quoted is from Sandia.
My response was specifically regarding ownership versus borrowed or stolen with the reply "Yes, ownership is most feasible."
F1 spoke on the subject of registration at length in the following thread from this board which may be of assistance to your question.
earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/193/car-stuff