Post by known_unknown on Feb 20, 2014 16:28:47 GMT
Two questions that I've been thinking about and would appreciate any feedback on, especially from those of you who have really studied the cases. The first question is more objective, the second more subjective and speculative.
1. It is obviously common knowledge that EAR frequently made use of green belts, creek beds, drainage ditches, and fields as byways to and from attacking his victims. One thing I would really like to know is the actual data on how many of his victims' homes were in very close proximity to one of these features. It is hard to determine this from just ST. Is anyone aware of any sources or previous efforts by posters that compiled this data (say, like an actual number, e.g., "Out of 50 EAR assaults, 43 were located very close to or actually abutted a green belt/drainage ditch system/creek bed/field"). If the actual data is hard or impossible to come by, subjective impressions of those who have studied the case closely would be quite welcome.
2. The more subjective/speculative question (although it is probably informed by the answer to the first question): It seems fair to assume that these features were strategically important, but do you think they were crucial? In other words, if EAR lived in an area that did not have any comparable features (for instance, I live on the east coast where there is nothing comparable, although I grew up in a large southern city that did have a series of interconnected drainage ditches that ran behind people's yards), do you think he still would have done the things he did?
Everyone is of course welcome to their opinion, and I can easily see someone saying something along the lines of "Someone this sick and seemingly determined would have done these things in any environment he happened to find himself in" (which would be a reasonable response), but if the answer to the first question is something close to 100%, I think it may bring up the possibility that his confidence to strike as boldly as he did may have been in large part (if not entirely) based on his knowledge of and access to these features/systems.
These questions took on added significance to me after watching some of the videos of these areas that Gian Julian Quasar posted on his YouTube channel wherein he tours a number of these types of areas that the EAR most likely took to commit some of his attacks (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOLPnyg1ROtT-M3_3dcVYRw) (note that there are a good number more videos than just the three that automatically display). I was struck in the way that you sometimes can only be by actually seeing something as opposed to reading about it with the degree to which these paths and systems almost seemed to provide or allow for a guided tour of people's backyards and ultimately the less well fortified back part of their home (owners may have had the illusion that these areas were safe because of the fact that they were fenced in). These videos and features had a significantly creepy/disturbing quality to me, partly I'm sure because we know what these areas were used for in the context of the EAR cases, but it also seems like they may have been destined to be misused in some way given the proximity to homes and the relative privacy/anonymity they offer (although of course the neighborhoods were probably built in a time when these considerations may have seemed less significant).
1. It is obviously common knowledge that EAR frequently made use of green belts, creek beds, drainage ditches, and fields as byways to and from attacking his victims. One thing I would really like to know is the actual data on how many of his victims' homes were in very close proximity to one of these features. It is hard to determine this from just ST. Is anyone aware of any sources or previous efforts by posters that compiled this data (say, like an actual number, e.g., "Out of 50 EAR assaults, 43 were located very close to or actually abutted a green belt/drainage ditch system/creek bed/field"). If the actual data is hard or impossible to come by, subjective impressions of those who have studied the case closely would be quite welcome.
2. The more subjective/speculative question (although it is probably informed by the answer to the first question): It seems fair to assume that these features were strategically important, but do you think they were crucial? In other words, if EAR lived in an area that did not have any comparable features (for instance, I live on the east coast where there is nothing comparable, although I grew up in a large southern city that did have a series of interconnected drainage ditches that ran behind people's yards), do you think he still would have done the things he did?
Everyone is of course welcome to their opinion, and I can easily see someone saying something along the lines of "Someone this sick and seemingly determined would have done these things in any environment he happened to find himself in" (which would be a reasonable response), but if the answer to the first question is something close to 100%, I think it may bring up the possibility that his confidence to strike as boldly as he did may have been in large part (if not entirely) based on his knowledge of and access to these features/systems.
These questions took on added significance to me after watching some of the videos of these areas that Gian Julian Quasar posted on his YouTube channel wherein he tours a number of these types of areas that the EAR most likely took to commit some of his attacks (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOLPnyg1ROtT-M3_3dcVYRw) (note that there are a good number more videos than just the three that automatically display). I was struck in the way that you sometimes can only be by actually seeing something as opposed to reading about it with the degree to which these paths and systems almost seemed to provide or allow for a guided tour of people's backyards and ultimately the less well fortified back part of their home (owners may have had the illusion that these areas were safe because of the fact that they were fenced in). These videos and features had a significantly creepy/disturbing quality to me, partly I'm sure because we know what these areas were used for in the context of the EAR cases, but it also seems like they may have been destined to be misused in some way given the proximity to homes and the relative privacy/anonymity they offer (although of course the neighborhoods were probably built in a time when these considerations may have seemed less significant).
