Which points of his MO are consistent across EVERY attack?
Mar 27, 2018 21:33:53 GMT
ElfinEars, cleopatra, and 1 more like this
Post by rkz on Mar 27, 2018 21:33:53 GMT
I keep reading and re-reading the accounts of the attacks on the Cold-Case EAR/ONS page and I keep running across little bits of each account that make me think, "Wait, this might not be EAR...this could be someone else," because it seems like there are sometimes only tenuous associations between incidents or features of every attack.
For instance, I think Attack #23 is very significant because (among several other reasons) it's one where EAR does not force his penis into his victim's bound hands, asking her to "play with it." I used to think that this was the one point of his MO that is consistent across every known EAR attack, but I was surprised to re-read the details of this attack again to see that this particular feature wasn't part of Attack #23. Another strange feature of this attack is that the victim says that she was sure that at some point EAR penetrated her with a dildo instead of his penis. Is this why he didn't ask her to "play with it?"
Attack #39 is another attack in which EAR did not impel his victim to "play" with his penis in the victim's bound hands.
The MO isn't always completely consistent across each attack. Sometimes EAR tells his victims that all he wants is food and money, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes victims experience hang-up calls and prank calls surrounding their attack; sometimes they don't.
There is also the matter of witness descriptions in each attack. Some victims say he had hazel eyes, some blue, some brown. Some victims say he had an unpleasant body odor, others don't. Sometimes his penis is miniscule; sometimes it's around five inches long. It's these small (sometimes large!) discrepancies that give me a little bit of doubt that some of the "canonical" attacks may have been the work of some other perp.
When EAR was active, there were a number of other rapists active in the Sac area. There were also attacks perpetrated by copycats, again according to LE.
The reason why I'm asking this is because, according to LE, the one thing connecting all of the attacks isn't DNA (DNA was only retrieved from THREE (!!!) EAR attacks), and it isn't any other form of physical evidence - it's the witness descriptions of the attacker's MO. That is the sole feature of every attack that is supposed to be consistent enough to work as a signature across every single one. However, if enough of the reports of his attacks include clashing accounts of what that MO consisted of, then we have to narrow down PRECISELY what it is in his MO that unites EVERY attack.
I used to think that the three points in EAR's MO that are consistent across every attack were that EAR a) bound his victims; b) he put his penis in his victim's bound hands and told her to "play with it"; and c) that he rummaged through the house of each victim. The more I read the more I notice that this isn't necessarily the case. And the more I think back to the fact that there were active copycats and other active serial rapists in the Sac area at the time, the more doubts I have that every attack in the EAR series was perpetrated by one person. It could be the case (however unlikely) that other rapists knew of EAR's signature MO and decided to adopt it as their own for one attack or more; many of the known features of the attacks were made public via LE and the newspapers, so it might be useful to take note of which features of his MO were held back from public disclosure.
So...what, specifically, are the points that comprise EAR's modus operandi; and are there any points in his MO that are completely, undoubtedly consistent across EVERY EAR attack? It might be a good idea to examine the cases with a finer toothed comb to see if there's a possibility that the perp WAS NOT the EAR. Is there a spreadsheet or a table somewhere that compiles every single known component of the EAR MO to best show which components are known to be present and consistent across every single attack? Because right now it looks like the ONE thing that is consistent across every single attack is that the perp was a white male (and even THAT is in question if 10/21/75 comes into play….)
Also: are there any EAR attacks that seem to you like they might NOT be the work of EAR? Which ones, and why?
For instance, I think Attack #23 is very significant because (among several other reasons) it's one where EAR does not force his penis into his victim's bound hands, asking her to "play with it." I used to think that this was the one point of his MO that is consistent across every known EAR attack, but I was surprised to re-read the details of this attack again to see that this particular feature wasn't part of Attack #23. Another strange feature of this attack is that the victim says that she was sure that at some point EAR penetrated her with a dildo instead of his penis. Is this why he didn't ask her to "play with it?"
Attack #39 is another attack in which EAR did not impel his victim to "play" with his penis in the victim's bound hands.
The MO isn't always completely consistent across each attack. Sometimes EAR tells his victims that all he wants is food and money, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes victims experience hang-up calls and prank calls surrounding their attack; sometimes they don't.
There is also the matter of witness descriptions in each attack. Some victims say he had hazel eyes, some blue, some brown. Some victims say he had an unpleasant body odor, others don't. Sometimes his penis is miniscule; sometimes it's around five inches long. It's these small (sometimes large!) discrepancies that give me a little bit of doubt that some of the "canonical" attacks may have been the work of some other perp.
When EAR was active, there were a number of other rapists active in the Sac area. There were also attacks perpetrated by copycats, again according to LE.
The reason why I'm asking this is because, according to LE, the one thing connecting all of the attacks isn't DNA (DNA was only retrieved from THREE (!!!) EAR attacks), and it isn't any other form of physical evidence - it's the witness descriptions of the attacker's MO. That is the sole feature of every attack that is supposed to be consistent enough to work as a signature across every single one. However, if enough of the reports of his attacks include clashing accounts of what that MO consisted of, then we have to narrow down PRECISELY what it is in his MO that unites EVERY attack.
I used to think that the three points in EAR's MO that are consistent across every attack were that EAR a) bound his victims; b) he put his penis in his victim's bound hands and told her to "play with it"; and c) that he rummaged through the house of each victim. The more I read the more I notice that this isn't necessarily the case. And the more I think back to the fact that there were active copycats and other active serial rapists in the Sac area at the time, the more doubts I have that every attack in the EAR series was perpetrated by one person. It could be the case (however unlikely) that other rapists knew of EAR's signature MO and decided to adopt it as their own for one attack or more; many of the known features of the attacks were made public via LE and the newspapers, so it might be useful to take note of which features of his MO were held back from public disclosure.
So...what, specifically, are the points that comprise EAR's modus operandi; and are there any points in his MO that are completely, undoubtedly consistent across EVERY EAR attack? It might be a good idea to examine the cases with a finer toothed comb to see if there's a possibility that the perp WAS NOT the EAR. Is there a spreadsheet or a table somewhere that compiles every single known component of the EAR MO to best show which components are known to be present and consistent across every single attack? Because right now it looks like the ONE thing that is consistent across every single attack is that the perp was a white male (and even THAT is in question if 10/21/75 comes into play….)
Also: are there any EAR attacks that seem to you like they might NOT be the work of EAR? Which ones, and why?