Post by michravera on May 22, 2017 18:29:30 GMT
I have suggested that many of the attacks were in areas where EAR had done at least some recon and merely "harvested" victims that were in an area where he knew that he could get away. This seems like the way most of the attacks in the EAR phase occurred.
I have suggested that some of the attacks may have been victim specific "goal" attacks. He found a victim and then worked out how to attack "safely". My hunch is that this is what happened in the Davis and Stockton attacks.
I don't know enough about his Bay Area and Southern California method and victims to have formed an opinion about how those attacks came to be.
If I am right (and there is no reason to suppose that I am or am not), the "harvest" attacks would tells us where he was able to spend time in recon (maybe he lived there, worked there, hung out there). The "goal" attacks would tell us who he was (what kind of woman he wanted to attack, why he attacked them, etc). Or he was trying to send a message...
"Harvest" attacks would require very little work after finding the "right place" to do the attack. He needn't have carried much defensive hardware. He would just have needed enough weaponry to encourage compliance of the victims. He knew that he could get away because he had made sure that he had at least 3 ways out.
"Goal" attacks would be more about saying "I want to attack her" and then making a few checks to make it likely that he could get away. Defensive hardware (like a gun) would be a must for these attacks since he only made sure that he had one or two ways out and would be willing to kill or hurt someone if they blocked them.
Of course, all will come clear when we catch this guy and ask him. But, I offer this distinction for the help, if any, that it provides.
I have suggested that some of the attacks may have been victim specific "goal" attacks. He found a victim and then worked out how to attack "safely". My hunch is that this is what happened in the Davis and Stockton attacks.
I don't know enough about his Bay Area and Southern California method and victims to have formed an opinion about how those attacks came to be.
If I am right (and there is no reason to suppose that I am or am not), the "harvest" attacks would tells us where he was able to spend time in recon (maybe he lived there, worked there, hung out there). The "goal" attacks would tell us who he was (what kind of woman he wanted to attack, why he attacked them, etc). Or he was trying to send a message...
"Harvest" attacks would require very little work after finding the "right place" to do the attack. He needn't have carried much defensive hardware. He would just have needed enough weaponry to encourage compliance of the victims. He knew that he could get away because he had made sure that he had at least 3 ways out.
"Goal" attacks would be more about saying "I want to attack her" and then making a few checks to make it likely that he could get away. Defensive hardware (like a gun) would be a must for these attacks since he only made sure that he had one or two ways out and would be willing to kill or hurt someone if they blocked them.
Of course, all will come clear when we catch this guy and ask him. But, I offer this distinction for the help, if any, that it provides.