|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 21 October 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: The Sniper (Tarot Card Killer?) in the D.C. area:
Archive through 21 October 2002
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 06:08 am |        | Judith:
Even home grown terrorists go for targets with ties to the government with more deaths and not just civilians one by one. Although I suppose it could be a terrorist who thinks anyone anywhere near DC is a government target. It still doesn't seem likely, but I guess we can't rule out a particularly illogical terrorist wannabe.
Jesse:
Perhaps the FBI agent meant that of the five cases he dealt with only one had an accomplice. It's hard to know what kind of experience he's referring to.
It's not a scientific way of figuring these things, but I find going though the serial murder cases at The Crime Library website (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serialkillers.htm) can give good knowledge for comparison purposes, especially to see if all the popular assumptions you see bandied about on TV and on these boards actually hold true (a lot of them don't, you can read and see for yourself).
There are more cases listed there with two murderers than you might otherwise assume -- there's even a Partners in Crime section listing them. The way the same cases are listed multiple times it's hard to get a count, but it doesn't look like it's 25% though. Maybe 10%. And in some of the listings for singular killers the authorities say they were looking for an accomplice and never found one. I think it's likely that there wasn't another killer in most of those, but you never know.
Dan |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 09:11 am | | Hi, all:
Bob, good to have your thoughts on this case.
I think this killer can be considered a terrorist in the same way that David Berkowitz was a terrorist. He will probably turn out to be a similar sort of person. Judy might be right though that he is or was a member of a militia group, a person who wants to show the incompetency of the authorities.
An MSNBC story on the latest shooting, last night in Falls Church can be seen at "Police probe fatal Virginia shooting." A woman was fatally shot in the head while loading car in mall parking lot outside a Home Depot store. Amazingly a cream Chevrolet Astro van, similar to the van spotted near the site of Friday’s Fredericksburg shooting, was spotted leaving the scene. As in the earlier shooting, it is described as a van with a silver ladder roof rack and had a burned out left tail light. With the amount of law enforcement agencies involved it is incredible that the shooter is able to escape each time, facilitated presumably by a good knowledge of the escape routes, in each case near major highways.
Chris |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 08:15 pm | | Hello All.
Sorry if this appears pedantic, but there are clear and important differences between terrorization and terrorism. Whilst Berkowitz, Alfred Hitchcock and the dog down the street may at one time or another have instilled terror in any number of people, the terrorist normally belongs to a minority group seeking to impose a clearly defined political/ideological agenda by way of extreme violence and intimidation. Unfortunately, however, the term is vague, since one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Even so, a lone sniper operating in a relatively confined area cannot in the strictest sense of the word be described as a terrorist.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 12:28 am | | | Normally, I don't comment on the 'current events' threads, but I can't help making one comment. I see in today's news that George Dubya shoved his foot down his throat in coming out against "ballistic fingerprinting"...it would be an 'invasion of privacy'. Well, with all due respect George, the Maryland Sniper is currently enjoying a great deal of privacy...in fact, we don't have the faintest idea who he is. So many thanks to the NRA, and all hats off to stupidity. |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 12:19 pm | | Dear R J,
I heard that eejit on NPR over the weekend! While testing the ballistics on every gun manufactured while still at the factory seems a simple, logical and safe way to trace said gun, the NRA seems to have extended the 2nd Amendment to include the actual gun!! I never knew a gun had rights....
interesting theory; I guess that means that toilet paper and nose spray have rights, too. It could be that the NRA has well and truly stepped in it this time! We can only hope!
Regards,
J |
Author: Chris Jd
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 02:20 am | | sorry, wrong place
jd
|
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 03:53 pm | | Hi, all:
Interestingly, as a parallel to evaluation of the the witness testimony in the Whitechapel murders, it is now reported, "Some Witness Reports Not Credible, Police Say" in the Washington sniper enquiry.
Police are evidently saying the noise and confusion might have effected the witness statements. I was also reading that in cases like this, where the shooter is at a distance, the witnesses tend to look at the victim first, and that whatever they say is effected by that sight, not the undiluted view of the suspect, of whom they may only get a glimpse afterward, if at all, so that whatever they say about the shooter may be biased.
Chris |
Author: Vicki
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 05:01 pm | | Hello everyone,
I wonder why they don't try hypnosis with some of the witnesses?
Vicki |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 05:13 pm | | Vicki,
Probably because recent studies have shown that hypnosis is more likely to distort memories than improve them.
You'll notice in the latest news articles the authorities are saying that witnesses of future shootings should write down what they saw immediately afterwards (on their hands if no paper is available) and not talk with other witnesses or the press before speaking to the police. Interacting with others can destroy accuracy. Even just someone asking things like, "Was the hair color of the shooter brown?" can get people believing that it was brown, even if they never got a good look at it.
It's the same problem with hypnosis, except worse, because people in a trance are highly suggestable.
Back on the subject of the Ripper, it's modern studies of the horrible reliability of eyewitness testimony that makes me believe the descriptions of the person or persons seen that were thought to be the killer and passed down to us today are pretty much nearly useless.
Dan |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 12:27 am | | Dear Dan,
I have to agree with your assessment of witness reports; there have been many tests done that involve a room full of people, UNDER NO STRESS AT ALL, who are confronted with a gun-toting person, and then are asked to write down descriptions of the "criminal'. Descriptions of the same person vary from totally bald and clean shaven, to fully bearded with long, shaggy hair; descriptions of clothing are wildly inaccurate. Even police departments seem to prefer good, solid forensic and circumstantial evidence to that given by "eye witnesses".
There are multiple factors governing the reports of eye witnesses, and such reports are viewed (quite rightly) skeptically. There was a true eye witness to an attempted abduction by the Hillside Stranglers, but because of their direct threats to her, the witness tempered her story, and it was eventually totally disregarded because of its' unreliability.
I, too tend to view witness accounts of Ripper "sightings" for the reasons I have just given. I also dismiss a great deal of Caroline Maxwell's
"sighting" of Mary Kelly on the morning that she died. Besides her admission that she did not know Kelly well, and therefore might have confused her with someone else, there is also to be considered the fact that for the first time in her life, Maxwell was an important person; reporters, doctors and the police were asking her questions and listening to her answers and writing them down. She got her name in the papers and was quoted extensively. A sighting and a conversation with a person so recently found horribly butchered, made her a very important person, indeed. Who among us can condemn her for wanting to be "famous" for a few minutes? AND, don't forget that Kelly wasn't around to contradict her story. Other than creating a Maguffin that has haunted us, lo, these many years, what harm did she really do? A great lot, actually.
Every witness "sighting" creates another lead that must be followed up, and as such, wastes time and investigative shoe leather. Son of Sam was caught by sheer donkey work, as were the Night Stalker and Gacy; others have been caught by accident, but I can't remember any that were caught by an eye witness......someone PLEASE correct me if I missed one....I do suffer, sometimes from what my husband calls "mental pause"!!!
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 12:35 am | | Hello All.
Dan's observations explain why testimony procured through hypnosis is and has always been inadmissible in an English court of law. For this reason, English police forces have for a number of years utilized the cognitive interview when dealing with potentially important eyewitnesses. Ordinarily, the 'interview' is conducted by a psychologist over the course of several sessions. Based on the principle of context dependent memory, the technique involves evoking a mindset as close as possible to that which the subject was experiencing at the time of the event. In terms of the senses, olfaction is the most powerful memory trigger. This being so, the interviewer will often encourage the subject to remember the type of smells (s)he experienced prior to and during the event itself. The quantity and quality of hitherto unremembered information that can be accessed by this simple technique frequently astonishes even seasoned detectives. Unlike hypnosis, moreover, this type of interview (if conducted properly) runs no risk of false memory syndrome, a consideration that renders it a viable investigative tool within the constraints of the English juridic system.
Boring? Well, probably. But it does emphasize the point made by Dan regarding the notorious unreliability of eyewitness statements, particularly given the primitive interviewing techniques employed by those engaged on the Ripper manhunt.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 06:09 am | | Beltway Sniper "Gone To Lunch"! It may be, he/she has an empty-clip...been shot by another sniper...
or busy working the case :-)
What effect on the White House think-tank?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 04:49 pm | | Dear Vicki,
Hypnosis is very tricky. Some factors have to be considered.
1) The person performing the hypnosis has to be a forensic hypnotist. He or she has to know what they are doing or the information received will be of no use.
2) The questions asked under hypnosis have to be specific. Usually open ended questions are asked. Close ended questions are often misleading. For example if you were trying to determine what a person ate for breakfast on October 17, 2002 the hypnotist would not ask, “What did you have for breakfast on October 17, 2002.” Instead the question would be phrased more along the lines of, “On October 17, 2002 what was your morning activities?” Follow up questions would be used to lead you to the question that you need to ask; “On that morning, what did you have for breakfast.”
3) The witness being placed under hypnosis would have to susceptible to hypnosis.
4) The length of time between the event and the time the hypnosis takes place.
It is also important to note that most questions asked under hypnosis deal with the five senses. People speak in relation to their senses. Some people are auditory based. Some people are visual sensed. Some people are olfactory sensed. Very few people are tactile sensed and even fewer are taste sensed. By listening to how people talk can give you a clue to what sense they are based on. An visually sensed person will say “ That seemed kind of odd.” An auditory sensed person will say, “ That sounded to good to be true.” A tactile person will say, “ Something did not feel right.”
Some people will operate on more than one sense. If it is unclear as to which sense the person is operating on then eye movement will key you to which sense is their primary base. Up and too the right is an auditory sensed person showing deception. Up and too the left is an auditory person showing truthfulness. Over and too the right shows a visually sensed person showing deception and over and too the left is a visually sensed person showing truthfulness. Tactile based people show downward eye movements. Usually it is the investigator that will brief the hypnotist as to the subject’s base sense, however; the hypnotist will watch the subject and make his or her own observations. It is very important that a person can be switched from one sensory mode to another. In witness interviews and suspect interrogations the investigator will try and shift the subject being questioned to the tactile sensory mode as this mode deals with emotions and is the most powerful.
Once the sensory base has been determined, the hypnotist will start asking questions referring to the subject’s other senses for example; “When you heard the shot what did you see?”
I have used hypnosis several times on witnesses. In each case, the situation was just right (the key words here are “just right”), and the results were phenomenal. In one case, I remember one of a dozen witnesses placed under hypnosis actually confessed to the crime and another witness described him perfectly. A search warrant was later obtained and the murder weapon, a .380 semi-auto pistol was found hidden in the sleeper section of a sofa. Subsequent ballistic test confirmed the gun found in the search was in fact the murder weapon.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 04:51 pm | | Dear Rosemary,
What think tank?
Love,
The Vicar of Bray |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 07:02 pm | | | Good post and good point,Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Judith-
I don't know if Caroline Maxwell's report of seeing MJK alive that morning can be dismissed out of hand, but certainly people are correct to be skeptical of it. The points you made about how she would feel uncharacteristically important giving her info would also hold true for most of the other known witnesses too.
I'm curious, did you think to bring that up before or after we found out that the prime Beltway Sniper witness was reported as making his report up out of thin air?
Learning about the sniper shootings certainly is applicable to discussions about the ripper killings.
Another interesting point might be, now that the sniper has been out of site most of the week, why he (or they) kept a low profile. It'll be interesting to hopefully find out later when the person (or persons) is caught why that was. Did normal life just got too busy, were the investigators too close, did someone else get suspicious, or what? Not that we could say that the same reason was why Jack's rippings got spaced out as time went on, but it'd be another data point to consider.
Dan |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 11:00 am | | Actually, Dan, I THINK I made that point before the Sniper witness had been proven full of the proverbial ____. But that really doesn't matter; I'm not prescient, nor do I want to be the first to say....whatever. The point I was trying to make was that I agreed that witnesses are often unreliable, and an entire case should not be hung on that particualr hook. Witnesses have their own agenda, their own approach, and their own abilities to observe (or NOT), and their reports must be taken with a large dosage of salt before giving them credibility.
And, I also agree that possibly Maxwell did see Kelly; it's also possible that she saw Kelly on another morning, and confused the days. What bettter story than she told? You know, "I saw Kelly only minutes before she died!!!" That sort of thing always gets attention.
Mu husband thinks the sniper has been resting this week because of all the media coverage of what the police are doing, and that he is rethinking his plans to avoid all the choppers, dogs, bells and whistles. He could be right. I do have a strong gut feeling that he will not be taken alive, and will go out as Charles Whitman did. What a pity!
I hope everyone has a great weekend,
J |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 08:59 am | | Hello everyone,
As you'll know by the time you read this, someone else was shot last night. Balistic tests are still pending, as the bullet has yet to be recovered from the victim as of this posting, so there is still some doubt that the shooter was indeed the DC sniper.
One of my co-workers had an interesting observation last night, that the sniper might just work an odd rotating-shift job like we do at the factory. He pointed out that the shootings only occured on our days off! (We're over 14 hours drive from DC though, so I doubt that the shooter is one of my co-workers! LOL) But this would go a long way towards explaining the timing between the events. Remember, the sniper has some sort of life that they would have to maintain between murders- if only to hide from the cops. From reading this thread, one would gather that we all think that this guy does nothing but ride around looking for victims. They have to live somewhere, earn money to eat, pay the usual bills, and hide behind a screen of normalcy. Let's not forget that they can't be a monster all the time or they'd be too easy to detect.
Scott, good points about hypnotism. Its a very difficult tool to use and experts are required to gain valid statements with it's use, just as you say. BTW, since we live so close together I'm still eager for a social meet sometime when our schedules permit. Perhaps lunch at the Taco Stand, or something. I'm going to be forced to take some time off to use up my last vacation week for the year soon. (Halloween thru Nov. 11th is what's scheduled) Let me know if you have any free time in that period.
Vila
vila@america.net |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 07:35 pm | | Just an itty bitty reminder: We still don't know if the sniper is or is not an al-Qaeda operative. If it should turn out that he is, please keep in mind who first posted this hypothesis.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 08:26 pm | | | Way to go,Sherlock Radka !!! |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 10:48 pm | | Hi all,
In the United States, 40 people are murdered by guns each day. The media and many citizens love the DC sniper story. Its quick, easy and convenient to cover.
Serial killers are great drama - a wonderful source of entertainment for those who find bloodshed compelling.
I find it quite sick to see the media cheering on this sinister character - and citizens almost pleased with the fact he has struck again so that they may enjoy the mystery.
The media and the public's reactions to such mayhem has changed little since the era of the Whitechapel murders.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: brad mcginnis
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 12:28 am | | Hi Richard,
I dont doubt that 40 people a day are killed by firearms. However, I would bet that most of them are domestic disputes, accidents, gang killings or other crime related situations. These are situations in which the average person shall never find himself. The sniper is killing ordinary people going about their ordinary daily business. The fact that the victims are random and everyone in the area could be the next victim is what makes this scary. The news coverage of a killer like this in a metroplex area like D.C., Va, and Md isnt sick, it's genuine concern. I hope they get the guy or guys soon. As a parent I'm glad my kids are out of the danger area.
Yours, Brad |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 06:05 am | | | Ditto Brad ! The teachers in Philly have been giving the kids a daily run-down of the snipings. The little ones are well aware of whats transpiring,believe me. Random killings comprise very little of the daily death toll due to firearms,most of which,are committed by non-NRA members. I ain't a NRA member,but I remember seeing that outfit get mentioned sorta in the negative before,and having a few pals in that group,I wanted to point that out.....Mr.Dewar is correct in the perception that some folks are titilated by these tragedies. They've got "pools" going on how many the sniper will kill before getting caught,like they did with the Atlanta Child Murders,around here......... |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 12:13 pm | | Hi All,
CNN is reporting that two men have been taken into custody in Richmond, VA. The details are a bit sketchy, apparently the police were staking out a phone booth when a white Plymouth van with a roof rack pulled up. The driver was taken into custody without a struggle, a second person was picked up "in the vicinity".
No other information is available at this time. Let's hope they caught the bastard(s).
Jim |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Hi, Jim et al.:
It looks as if the sniper case might be unfolding but perhaps also be getting a lot more complicated. While sources seem to indicate the men taken into custody in Richmond this morning may have something to do with the case, one source has indicated the sniper has not been apprehended. One man was in a white Plymouth Voyager minivan that had pulled up to a pay phone at an Exxon gas station in Henrico County in east-central Virginia. Police appear to have been ready to swoop which may indicate that the pay phone had been indicated in the note left by the shooter in Ashland at the scene of the last shooting. Sources said the man is a 24-year-old native of Mexico.
Another curious development is that Interpol are talking about a French army deserter who is known as a marksman and who is missing in North America, fueling speculation of a link to the Washington-area sniper. The 25-year-old second lieutenant, who was not identified, did not return to class in September at the elite military school, Saint-Cyr Coetquidan in Brittany, in western France, after going on vacation in August.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
