Geographic Profiling

[agatha]

Jan 5, 2014 22:31:03 GMT agatha said:

Jan 5, 2014 19:13:08 GMT ice said:

f1guysus: I think that's a law that needs to be changed as only someone that has committed a crime or planning to commit one would refuse to cooperate. Then again, as a law-abiding citizen I'm all for having everyone's DNA on record even if it means taking it at birth!

playinem121: If you take it zip code by zip code based on the geographical profiling above (or even a smaller area based on where LE thinks he lived during the attacks - didn't he walk off once after a rape without his pants on?!) and get a list of the residents during that time, by the time you've eliminated them by sex, age, race, height etc. surely the number won't be that high? In the Colin Pitchfork case they went after 5,000 men!

Greetings ice, and welcome to the board. It's always valuable to get some perspective from across the pond. I confess, I've been sitting here rereading your post a number of times, and working myself up into a sweat, because it addresses an issue that begs a response, but the answer verges on the political, a big no-no on this board. At the risk of crossing the line, I'll do my best to discuss DNA testing in the USA. We don't have Napoleonic Law here. The law of the land is the constitution. It assumes innocence until guilt is proven, and offers all citizens the right to privacy. With those two facts in mind, it would not be possible to require blanket DNA testing of everyone at birth, without an amendment to the constitution. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt most Americans would be willing to give up ( yet another) constitutional right, even under the auspices of protecting the public. I may be wrong about that, but at the moment, DNA testing remains voluntary, unless one is incarcerated for certain crimes in certain states, ( as I understand it, and I could be wrong about that detail......there might be a federal law regarding felons, I'm not sure.). I know the laws here can be confusing for a foreigner. Believe me, most of us studied history and civics in school and we still don't understand it all. The most common argument in favor of DNA testing at birth, is that the innocent have nothing to fear from having their DNA profile on record. Actually, there are a number of persuasive reasons for keeping one's genetic make-up to oneself, not the least of those being the risk of insurance companies withholding benefits from individuals with chromosomal predispositions to certain diseases, the profiling of people susceptible to certain medical conditions for either enforced treatment, denial of treatment, forced sterilization, or quarantine. It all sounds very ultra-paranoid and 1984-ish, until one considers what fresh havoc a power like the Nazis could have perpetrated had they access to DNA information. I'm sure if you had asked a Berlin born, secular German Jew his risk of persecution by his government in 1934, a year before the inception of the Nuremberg Laws, he would have laughed and told you he was an innocent man with nothing to fear. As visionaries like H.G. Wells, Orwell and Philip K. Dick have warned, it behooves us to cling mightily to our protections against the predations of totalitarianism. I apologize for dipping my toe into the murky waters of politics; and please don't feel put off by this response to your post, ice. You do us all a favor by getting us to discuss these very important issues. You are very welcome to the group!

Sorry f1, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. That's ok with me. Those pesky rights, like freedom of speech, guaranteed under the constitution,  are why I decided to become an American citizen!

[ice]

Jan 5, 2014 22:33:51 GMT agatha said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:31:03 GMT agatha said:

Greetings ice, and welcome to the board. It's always valuable to get some perspective from across the pond. I confess, I've been sitting here rereading your post a number of times, and working myself up into a sweat, because it addresses an issue that begs a response, but the answer verges on the political, a big no-no on this board. At the risk of crossing the line, I'll do my best to discuss DNA testing in the USA. We don't have Napoleonic Law here. The law of the land is the constitution. It assumes innocence until guilt is proven, and offers all citizens the right to privacy. With those two facts in mind, it would not be possible to require blanket DNA testing of everyone at birth, without an amendment to the constitution. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt most Americans would be willing to give up ( yet another) constitutional right, even under the auspices of protecting the public. I may be wrong about that, but at the moment, DNA testing remains voluntary, unless one is incarcerated for certain crimes in certain states, ( as I understand it, and I could be wrong about that detail......there might be a federal law regarding felons, I'm not sure.). I know the laws here can be confusing for a foreigner. Believe me, most of us studied history and civics in school and we still don't understand it all. The most common argument in favor of DNA testing at birth, is that the innocent have nothing to fear from having their DNA profile on record. Actually, there are a number of persuasive reasons for keeping one's genetic make-up to oneself, not the least of those being the risk of insurance companies withholding benefits from individuals with chromosomal predispositions to certain diseases, the profiling of people susceptible to certain medical conditions for either enforced treatment, denial of treatment, forced sterilization, or quarantine. It all sounds very ultra-paranoid and 1984-ish, until one considers what fresh havoc a power like the Nazis could have perpetrated had they access to DNA information. I'm sure if you had asked a Berlin born, secular German Jew his risk of persecution by his government in 1934, a year before the inception of the Nuremberg Laws, he would have laughed and told you he was an innocent man with nothing to fear. As visionaries like H.G. Wells, Orwell and Philip K. Dick have warned, it behooves us to cling mightily to our protections against the predations of totalitarianism. I apologize for dipping my toe into the murky waters of politics; and please don't feel put off by this response to your post, ice. You do us all a favor by getting us to discuss these very important issues. You are very welcome to the group!

Sorry f1, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. That's ok with me. Those pesky rights, like freedom of speech, guaranteed under the constitution,  are why I decided to become an American citizen!

Hi Agatha! Many thanks for your greetings and your detailed response to my suggestion. I knew as I typed it that it wouldn't be popular so I am not really surprised. Nor am I put off by it, in fact your reply has been very informative and I am now much the wiser! Of course, everything you say is true and my suggestion would only work in a perfect world (one not controlled by the 1%, but don't get me started!) where DNA profiles would be stored for criminal purposes only and not be sold for profit.

The reason I mentioned it was due to the Colin Pitchfork case in the UK whereby the police sent 5,000 letters out to men in the area telling them to come in for a DNA test. I I may be wrong, but I don't think it was voluntary. But even so, if you refuse the spotlight is going to fall on you as the police are going to wonder why. I remember there being a bit of controversy at the time but not enough to stop the process. Most men went willingly to provide a sample as they knew they were innocent.

[lepke]

During Operation Minstead, the police investigation aimed at apprehending a serial rapist, who was attacking elderly women in South London, there was a similar situation. Years before the rapist was caught, a man by the name of Delroy Grant who shared many similarities with EAR/ONS, the police sent letters to thousands of men in South London, asking for voluntary DNA samples. The fact that the rapist was known to be black, and that the letters were only sent to black men, caused a bit of a stink, especially as when people objected to volunteering their DNA, the police made it known that refusal to volunteer a sample would be considered suspicious.

[zuluslayer]

It is/was possible to narrow the list using a computer program(According to sudden terror). The company behind was just afraid of being sued.

[jakobscalpel]

Jan 6, 2014 2:05:43 GMT zuluslayer said:

It is/was possible to narrow the list using a computer program(According to sudden terror). The company behind was just afraid of being sued.

This is what got me interested in the case. Getting the data is the hard part. Writing the queries to whittle the pool of potential POIs is the easy part. Of course, the assumptions behind those queries have many uncertainties and if a company was afraid of being sued (for being wrong!) that is why.

It seemed so clear when I was reading ST.
1. Get all tax data from the years of the crimes with location of residence for everyone within 200km radius of any crime.
2. Find average geographical center over all crimes for each annual time period.
3. Weight all people according to distance from geographical center for each year.
4. Sum up weights
5. Filter by wide windows on relevant data (Male, 18-40, penis size (jk!), etc)
6. Order by weights descending

You now have your list of POIs

The big assumption, of course, is that EAR/ONS paid taxes. Like I said, getting data is the hard part. There are other data sources of course. I have access to none of them

[agatha]

Jan 5, 2014 23:53:52 GMT ice said:

Jan 5, 2014 22:33:51 GMT agatha said:

Sorry f1, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. That's ok with me. Those pesky rights, like freedom of speech, guaranteed under the constitution,  are why I decided to become an American citizen!

Hi Agatha! Many thanks for your greetings and your detailed response to my suggestion. I knew as I typed it that it wouldn't be popular so I am not really surprised. Nor am I put off by it, in fact your reply has been very informative and I am now much the wiser! Of course, everything you say is true and my suggestion would only work in a perfect world (one not controlled by the 1%, but don't get me started!) where DNA profiles would be stored for criminal purposes only and not be sold for profit.

The reason I mentioned it was due to the Colin Pitchfork case in the UK whereby the police sent 5,000 letters out to men in the area telling them to come in for a DNA test. I I may be wrong, but I don't think it was voluntary. But even so, if you refuse the spotlight is going to fall on you as the police are going to wonder why. I remember there being a bit of controversy at the time but not enough to stop the process. Most men went willingly to provide a sample as they knew they were innocent.

"A world not controlled by the 1%".... The crux of the issue!  I'm thrilled to hear you say that. It's lonely out here in Conspiracy Land, to which I've been relegated by my family, who think I'm delusional because I see that 1% under every rock. Also, a very interesting comment from the UK, which is surpassing anything Orwell imagined in the area of Total Surveillance. But on the subject of this thread, Geographic Profiling, I wonder how useful that can be after the EAR crimes? It's obvious he was tied to the Sacramento area,( and most likely, Visalia, before that), but as he evolved into a serial killer, and had more adult commitments, would it be likely that he could have become quite mobile, as do many serials? It's clear he had some reason to be in the general area of Goleta, Ventura and Irvine, but I suspect he may have been nomadic, with permanent roots elsewhere. Which brings us back to the belief of many on this board, that his identity will come from information gathered at his earlier crimes. Not only would he have been younger, less sophisticated criminally, more careless and impulsive then. He would have possibly been more accountable to others for his time, and maybe less able to move outside his immediate community. Look at Israel Keyes. He spent enormous amounts of time and money, criss-crossing the country, stashing murder kits and trolling for victims. Of course, he revealed virtually nothing to LE before he killed himself, but based on missing persons files, it appears he didn't .....eliminate...in his own nest. At least, not until he kidnapped the 18 yr. old in Anchorage, which, of course, became his downfall. The Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, was known to drive hundreds of miles up and down the California coast, until the spirit,( actually, according to him, Satan), moved him to exit the freeway and target a random victim. Geographic profiling has already been able to narrow down the likely residential area of EAR, but can anything be done with that information at this late date? Would it even be possible, given money and personnel, to trace individuals residing in that area 30+ years ago?

[ice]

Jan 6, 2014 5:05:35 GMT agatha said:

Jan 5, 2014 23:53:52 GMT ice said:

Hi Agatha! Many thanks for your greetings and your detailed response to my suggestion. I knew as I typed it that it wouldn't be popular so I am not really surprised. Nor am I put off by it, in fact your reply has been very informative and I am now much the wiser! Of course, everything you say is true and my suggestion would only work in a perfect world (one not controlled by the 1%, but don't get me started!) where DNA profiles would be stored for criminal purposes only and not be sold for profit.

The reason I mentioned it was due to the Colin Pitchfork case in the UK whereby the police sent 5,000 letters out to men in the area telling them to come in for a DNA test. I I may be wrong, but I don't think it was voluntary. But even so, if you refuse the spotlight is going to fall on you as the police are going to wonder why. I remember there being a bit of controversy at the time but not enough to stop the process. Most men went willingly to provide a sample as they knew they were innocent.

"A world not controlled by the 1%".... The crux of the issue!  I'm thrilled to hear you say that. It's lonely out here in Conspiracy Land, to which I've been relegated by my family, who think I'm delusional because I see that 1% under every rock. Also, a very interesting comment from the UK, which is surpassing anything Orwell imagined in the area of Total Surveillance. But on the subject of this thread, Geographic Profiling, I wonder how useful that can be after the EAR crimes? It's obvious he was tied to the Sacramento area,( and most likely, Visalia, before that), but as he evolved into a serial killer, and had more adult commitments, would it be likely that he could have become quite mobile, as do many serials? It's clear he had some reason to be in the general area of Goleta, Ventura and Irvine, but I suspect he may have been nomadic, with permanent roots elsewhere. Which brings us back to the belief of many on this board, that his identity will come from information gathered at his earlier crimes. Not only would he have been younger, less sophisticated criminally, more careless and impulsive then. He would have possibly been more accountable to others for his time, and maybe less able to move outside his immediate community. Look at Israel Keyes. He spent enormous amounts of time and money, criss-crossing the country, stashing murder kits and trolling for victims. Of course, he revealed virtually nothing to LE before he killed himself, but based on missing persons files, it appears he didn't .....eliminate...in his own nest. At least, not until he kidnapped the 18 yr. old in Anchorage, which, of course, became his downfall. The Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, was known to drive hundreds of miles up and down the California coast, until the spirit,( actually, according to him, Satan), moved him to exit the freeway and target a random victim. Geographic profiling has already been able to narrow down the likely residential area of EAR, but can anything be done with that information at this late date? Would it even be possible, given money and personnel, to trace individuals residing in that area 30+ years ago?

It's not Conspiracy Land, it's Reality Land. Just over a year ago, a friend of mine (you know the one, your 'weird' friend on FB that keeps posting 'conspiracy theories') told me to watch The Zeitgeist Movie. I did and I haven't looked back. The information is out there but most people are not interested as they prefer a comforting lie over the inconvenient truth. Anyway, let's not get into this subject on here!

I am convinced the GSK lived very close to one of the early attacks and simply walked the couple of blocks back to his house. I believe he was still living with his parents at the time but could come and go as he pleased like a lot of the teenagers of the time (see goletaguru). This is why I don't think the tax idea mentioned above would work as he probably wasn't paying taxes, at least in the early days. Tracing individuals residing in the area 30+ years ago would be tough, but what seems even tougher is legally getting one's hands on the list! 

[ironmaidens666]

Jan 6, 2014 13:06:14 GMT ice said:

Jan 6, 2014 5:05:35 GMT agatha said:

"A world not controlled by the 1%".... The crux of the issue!  I'm thrilled to hear you say that. It's lonely out here in Conspiracy Land, to which I've been relegated by my family, who think I'm delusional because I see that 1% under every rock. Also, a very interesting comment from the UK, which is surpassing anything Orwell imagined in the area of Total Surveillance. But on the subject of this thread, Geographic Profiling, I wonder how useful that can be after the EAR crimes? It's obvious he was tied to the Sacramento area,( and most likely, Visalia, before that), but as he evolved into a serial killer, and had more adult commitments, would it be likely that he could have become quite mobile, as do many serials? It's clear he had some reason to be in the general area of Goleta, Ventura and Irvine, but I suspect he may have been nomadic, with permanent roots elsewhere. Which brings us back to the belief of many on this board, that his identity will come from information gathered at his earlier crimes. Not only would he have been younger, less sophisticated criminally, more careless and impulsive then. He would have possibly been more accountable to others for his time, and maybe less able to move outside his immediate community. Look at Israel Keyes. He spent enormous amounts of time and money, criss-crossing the country, stashing murder kits and trolling for victims. Of course, he revealed virtually nothing to LE before he killed himself, but based on missing persons files, it appears he didn't .....eliminate...in his own nest. At least, not until he kidnapped the 18 yr. old in Anchorage, which, of course, became his downfall. The Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, was known to drive hundreds of miles up and down the California coast, until the spirit,( actually, according to him, Satan), moved him to exit the freeway and target a random victim. Geographic profiling has already been able to narrow down the likely residential area of EAR, but can anything be done with that information at this late date? Would it even be possible, given money and personnel, to trace individuals residing in that area 30+ years ago?

It's not Conspiracy Land, it's Reality Land. Just over a year ago, a friend of mine (you know the one, your 'weird' friend on FB that keeps posting 'conspiracy theories') told me to watch The Zeitgeist Movie. I did and I haven't looked back. The information is out there but most people are not interested as they prefer a comforting lie over the inconvenient truth. Anyway, let's not get into this subject on here!

I am convinced the GSK lived very close to one of the early attacks and simply walked the couple of blocks back to his house. I believe he was still living with his parents at the time but could come and go as he pleased like a lot of the teenagers of the time (see goletaguru). This is why I don't think the tax idea mentioned above would work as he probably wasn't paying taxes, at least in the early days. Tracing individuals residing in the area 30+ years ago would be tough, but what seems even tougher is legally getting one's hands on the list! 

If he lived with his parents there would be a number of problems with that

1 How does he get out the house without raising suspicions? some parents are like you can go out but i want you back before school tomorrow

2 Where does he keep his various guns and flashlights that he had without them being discovered?

[ice]

Jan 6, 2014 14:06:23 GMT ironmaidens666 said:

Jan 6, 2014 13:06:14 GMT ice said:

If he lived with his parents there would be a number of problems with that

1 How does he get out the house without raising suspicions? some parents are like you can go out but i want you back before school tomorrow

2 Where does he keep his various guns and flashlights that he had without them being discovered?

I'm only talking about the earlier crimes.

1. I think he sneaked out of the house after they went to bed and was back before they awoke. Most of the attacks were on weekends which means he would have more freedom and his parents probably stayed in bed longer.

2. Flashlights wouldn't raise suspicions but guns would. His stash could be in his room if his parents weren't the kind to snoop around or the guns were actually his father's. During the early crimes he may have had a secret hiding place by the creek and then after that simply kept them in his car.

[agatha]

Jan 6, 2014 14:06:23 GMT ironmaidens666 said:

Jan 6, 2014 13:06:14 GMT ice said:

It's not Conspiracy Land, it's Reality Land. Just over a year ago, a friend of mine (you know the one, your 'weird' friend on FB that keeps posting 'conspiracy theories') told me to watch The Zeitgeist Movie. I did and I haven't looked back. The information is out there but most people are not interested as they prefer a comforting lie over the inconvenient truth. Anyway, let's not get into this subject on here!

I am convinced the GSK lived very close to one of the early attacks and simply walked the couple of blocks back to his house. I believe he was still living with his parents at the time but could come and go as he pleased like a lot of the teenagers of the time (see goletaguru). This is why I don't think the tax idea mentioned above would work as he probably wasn't paying taxes, at least in the early days. Tracing individuals residing in the area 30+ years ago would be tough, but what seems even tougher is legally getting one's hands on the list! 

If he lived with his parents there would be a number of problems with that

1 How does he get out the house without raising suspicions? some parents are like you can go out but i want you back before school tomorrow

2 Where does he keep his various guns and flashlights that he had without them being discovered?

I think those are important points to consider. How could a young person, still living at home, be able to spend so much time out and about in the middle of the night? Also, keep in mind he devoted enormous time before his crimes, to planning that included peeping, stalking and recon. My theory is that he obviously came from a dysfunctional background, to be so disturbed. He most likely didn't have the sort of involved, aware parents that keep tabs on their kids. Perhaps he had a single parent who cared very much, but who worked nights, and slept days. He would have hours of unsupervised time. And the reality is, some people just don't bother to set limits for their kids. Drifter is convinced he did not lead a normal, predictable lifestyle, in a stable home, that he likely was a street person, or nomadic. I think he could have been one of those sad creatures who never mature, never establish independence, live with a parent or parents indefinitely past adolescence. That sort of situation would put him under the radar, allowing him to slither along without leaving the usual adult footprints of things like property taxes, utility records and the like. That sort of arrangement would give him plenty of time and anonymity. As for stashing his equipment, if he was living in his mom's basement, or if his family had issues, his environment could gave been chaotic enough to hide an arsenal in plain site. Think HOARDERS meets INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY.

[ice]

I like the idea he probably only lived with his mother and she worked nights (a nurse?). He was obviously completely unsupervised for hours during both the day and night.

I had, and still do have, great parents that were on my case constantly but could easily have been out all night and stashed my stuff in my room without them knowing. However, it would have been impossible for me to spend so much time preparing and if I was up all night not falling asleep the next day in class!

[Drifter]

quote from ironmaiden666:
"If he lived with his parents there would be a number of problems with that

1 How does he get out the house without raising suspicions? some parents are like you can go out but i want you back before school tomorrow

2 Where does he keep his various guns and flashlights that he had without them being discovered?
------------------------------------------------------------

As others have mentioned, one could get around this argument. But to do so is a bit of a stretch, imo.

As a result, ironmaiden666 has brought up two very good arguments re: the guy's age. If one is to argue that the East Area Rapist was young, then one is going to have to confront these two arguments. The simple, most obvious, answer is to conclude that the guy couldn't be living with parents, for said reasons. Ergo, he must have been out of the nest, and therefore older.

An extension of these two arguments is that he also could not be living with friends or in some college dormitory, regardless of age.

Despite this logic, it's still "possible" that the guy could be young; it's just that the odds, to me, favor someone who is older.

Further, the very fact that the guy was successful in not being caught suggests a criminal with prior experience and a high degree of knowledge of evasion tactics, not characteristic of youth.

Drifter

[batman]

Let us ask the question, how many serial offenders of this type have lived with their parents during their early crime history 'in affluent areas'. I would agree he seems to be active in areas he lives in.

Jeffery Dahmer
Edmund Kemper

I am sure you can think of many more.

Would 'parents' in this context really be a misnomer? I think yes as really we are talking about 'somebody' (at least 1 legal guardian) taking care of them. Aunt, uncle, could even be fostered. I think the following. In the reports it is claimed LE think he has complete control of the situation because he knows how to psychologically manipulate couples to some extent. So basically, whoever his guardian was, he was more onto them than they were onto him I think. At least in interview with serial killers, its a big shock right? So... Hiding small items is nothing for a hiking/fence hoping/creek activity type of outdoor personality. I think. Could be dead wrong though!

[Deleted]

Just to clarify my screen name is f1guyus not f1guysus. And I wasn't in any way trying to say that it's OK to do blanket DNA testing. The opportunities for abuse are just too extreme. I was pointing out that there isn't a legal way to do it the way the British LE guys did. 

[lepke]

What about DNA testing without using a blanket?