Post by locard on Aug 5, 2017 10:02:11 GMT
The FBI has statistics to support many different findings including geographic profiling models which suggest an offender who stays close to home. You're right,there are those handful of offenders who are transient and mobile. The majority are not.
If EAR was travelling from afar to offend, why would he repeatedly attack the same neighborhood knowing full well that the areas in question would have come to the attention of LE, roving bands of armed citizens, etc...? Using the methodology you suggest, he could have offended anywhere at all. The world would be his oyster.
More evidence is required to support the conclusion you have come to than a hypothetical profile from the FBI. Is there evidence that I am overlooking? I'm certainly open to the possibility that I could be wrong.
I believe that he was mobile. He proved that in his Northern and Southern California attacks.
EAR was a thrill seeker, liked a challenge, and he liked to up the ante. He liked the attention and the drama he created which is why he came back to the same neighborhoods to offend in the Sacramento area. I think you're ascribing to him normal behaviors, what a normal person would do: Leave danger. He's not one of us. He attacked and murdered couples because it was a challenge to him as well, even if it was dangerous and difficult. For him it was a sense of accomplishment.
Geographic profiling is frequently wrong and is not a hard science. The geographic profilers have failed to prove where he lived in Northern and Southern California.
As to your last paragraph, why not just state that you disagree with the FBI's extensive research/papers on the travel habits of serial rapists that can be found on the government's website? I referred to their research which is not a "hypothetical profile". Do you have research that contradicts the FBI's research on this topic?
There is no further evidence to support any of our theories until this offender is identified and more is known about him.