Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 5:07:23 GMT
The wearing of various masks seemed to be tremendously important to the EAR. He wore a wide range of masks from commercially available ski masks to apparently homemade masks. The use of the masks clearly achieved the purpose of obscuring his facial features and making identification more difficult. In the ONS attacks after the first Goleta attack which failed was there any indication that the perpetrator wore masks? Does anyone have any idea about this? The answer might reveal more about the differences in what this offender is motivated to do for utilitarian purposes and what he is motivated to do because of deep seated compulsion.
Another question has to do with the ONS crimes. In the first unsuccessful Goleta attack, the offender seemed to follow the EAR script. He had the female bind the male. He bound the female and then made certain the male's bindings were secure. He then removed the female to another part of the home ostensibly for the purpose of committing the sexual assaults. I have not been able to ascertain from any of my own research if in the subsequent ONS attacks involving couples (Offerman-Manning, Smiths, Harringtons and Domingo-Sanchez), the perpetrator removed the female victims from the initial (bedroom where both victims were encountered) location of the attack to a secondary location within the home as he commonly did in his EAR crime phase when assaulting couples. Does anyone know the answer to this or have any ideas on the subject? Again, the answers will give strong indications regarding the compulsory vs. utilitarian aspects of the EAR/ONS' motivations.
The final question for now addresses the ONS crimes as well. Once again focusing upon the offender's attacks upon the male-female couples who became his victims, enough information exists for the inference to be formed that the beginning of his attacks proceeded in much the same manner as they did in the EAR crime phase. There was probably the initial encounter in which he used the advantage of surprise and awakened the couple sleeping in their bed. He most likely followed the EAR pattern of using both a show of force capability (brandishing a firearm in all likelihood) combined with the explicit threat of violence, to then have the female victim bind the male. He most likely followed the EAR progression of binding the female victim and then either rebinding the male victim or ensuring that the male was securely restrained. At this juncture as the EAR, the offender would have removed the female to a secondary location almost always within the home and proceeded with the sexual assault(s). What happened in the ONS' attacks? Did the ONS kill the male victim and then sexually assault the female right there in the primary location before also murdering her? That seems like the most utilitarian progression but, did he have some compulsion to keep the male victim alive until the sexual assault was completed and then kill both victims? Did he remove the female victim to a secondary location for the sexual assault and then bring her back to the primary location to be murdered? The evidence that I am familiar with does suggest that the ONS' victims were murdered within the primary (bedroom and immediate vicinity) attack location. What was the order of the crime's progression though? Is it possible that after securing both of his victims he ransacked, raped and then killed in no particular order? Did he kill the female victim first? Whatever the answers are, they will again yield tremendous insight into this killer's motivations and the driving forces that propel him.
Another question has to do with the ONS crimes. In the first unsuccessful Goleta attack, the offender seemed to follow the EAR script. He had the female bind the male. He bound the female and then made certain the male's bindings were secure. He then removed the female to another part of the home ostensibly for the purpose of committing the sexual assaults. I have not been able to ascertain from any of my own research if in the subsequent ONS attacks involving couples (Offerman-Manning, Smiths, Harringtons and Domingo-Sanchez), the perpetrator removed the female victims from the initial (bedroom where both victims were encountered) location of the attack to a secondary location within the home as he commonly did in his EAR crime phase when assaulting couples. Does anyone know the answer to this or have any ideas on the subject? Again, the answers will give strong indications regarding the compulsory vs. utilitarian aspects of the EAR/ONS' motivations.
The final question for now addresses the ONS crimes as well. Once again focusing upon the offender's attacks upon the male-female couples who became his victims, enough information exists for the inference to be formed that the beginning of his attacks proceeded in much the same manner as they did in the EAR crime phase. There was probably the initial encounter in which he used the advantage of surprise and awakened the couple sleeping in their bed. He most likely followed the EAR pattern of using both a show of force capability (brandishing a firearm in all likelihood) combined with the explicit threat of violence, to then have the female victim bind the male. He most likely followed the EAR progression of binding the female victim and then either rebinding the male victim or ensuring that the male was securely restrained. At this juncture as the EAR, the offender would have removed the female to a secondary location almost always within the home and proceeded with the sexual assault(s). What happened in the ONS' attacks? Did the ONS kill the male victim and then sexually assault the female right there in the primary location before also murdering her? That seems like the most utilitarian progression but, did he have some compulsion to keep the male victim alive until the sexual assault was completed and then kill both victims? Did he remove the female victim to a secondary location for the sexual assault and then bring her back to the primary location to be murdered? The evidence that I am familiar with does suggest that the ONS' victims were murdered within the primary (bedroom and immediate vicinity) attack location. What was the order of the crime's progression though? Is it possible that after securing both of his victims he ransacked, raped and then killed in no particular order? Did he kill the female victim first? Whatever the answers are, they will again yield tremendous insight into this killer's motivations and the driving forces that propel him.