Comments for WOO IN REVIEW: Criminal Profiling Contest at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 26 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:36:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1798 1. Jeffrey Gacy - No (not yet) A typical rich kook with woo-ful ideas who would certainly hurt anyone he felt like hurting and considers murder to be just another fun activity, but at present is too busy having a good time to invest any effort into it. This type could easily turn into a serial murder if somebody crossed him: he would be ruthless and vicious but probably not all that cautious. 2. John Wayne Zodiac - No A sad drunk who is probably not organized enough for these murders. Could get suicidal. 3. Charles Bundy - No A basically positive guy with a love of reading. Not a criminal type. 4. Jack Manson - No Sounds like the type to sleep around, probably not averse to violence, but not this type of killing. 5. William George Tylenol - No Neurotic, should see a shrink. 6. Green River Ramirez - Borderline possible The only candidate who would have found it easy to drug the drinks. Talking about people vanishing and reappearing seems quirky, but it seems unlikely he would "vanish" somebody and then smash their face in. 7. Gerard Wuornos - No Sounds like a nice guy. 8. Ted Schaefer - Highly probable The only candidate who has specific problems with uppity women, which must be the reason for the victims being violated and disfigured. A customer getting annoyed over a bad deal ought to have amused him, but he was too overcome to continue functioning normally. Did this event predate the first murder? Did his interview at Harvard? 9. Richard Dahmer - No No reason to doubt his genuine grief. Not religious enough to be a kook. 10. Clifford Heirens - No Sounds like a nice guy. BONUS ROUND Gacy could be capable of anything, up to and including murder. Zodiac could get violent if he doesn’t get suicidal first. Manson and Ramirez are both likely to committ sexual harassment or rape. - rosie Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:33:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1796 As for the other suspects: Gacy is probably a little too young, but more importantly he is too physically strong. He would not have needed to drug his victims in order to abduct them. Zodiac's alcoholism and gambling show that he lacks self-control, whereas the killer is most likely a very organised and controlling person. Bundy attacts attention, but doesn't quite fit the profile. He may be an under-achiever, but he doesn't seem unhappy with his position in life. He apparently had a normal childhood, with a mother who did not stifle him. Manson, being a bouncer, may not have had the opportunity to abduct the victims at the given times. He is also most likely fit and muscled and would therefore not need to drug victims. He is not meticulously presented and he does not seem to be an under-achiever. Tylenol is the youngest of the suspects - probably too young. He lacks the self-confidence necessary to commit these crimes. Ramirez appears to have some issues with women - he has been married 3 times and a complaint of sexual harassment has been filed against him. He never went to college, and seems unsatisfied with his job as a magician. His drinking to excess and intercourse with fans suggest that he may not be the meticulous planner that the killer is. We don't know about Ramirez's upbringing. He does match my profile in some ways, but Ted is a better match. Wuornos seems like an individual with a balanced family life. He is kind to his pets, his family and his neighbours. He is not a snappy dresser and does not have much money. He is uneducated. Dahmer lacks the social skills to engage intelligent, attractive women. His upbringing and marriage show no signs that would suggest that he would turn to violence. Heirens is happy in his job and in his life. He is uneducated and never wanted to go to college. In a real investigation, of course, a lot more information would be available. There may well be important information that we do no have that would rule any of these suspects in or out. A conclusion based on a profile must necessarily be tentative and always subject to revision in the light of new information. BONUS ROUND From the information given, there's no real reason to suspect anybody of crimes other than what is suggested explicitly by the information given. Gacy may be prone to possible domestic abuse, but it's a long shot. Zodiac may be picked up for drunk and disorderly conduct at some point. Ramirez might conceivably be charged with sexual harassment, or possibly rape. - James R Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:01:01 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1795 (Due to length, I'll have to split this into two halves.) We are told that "these crimes are designed. They are the perfect conditions for a profiler." Under perfect conditions the obvious has to be correct. The victims were 22-28 year-old women who were attractive, well dressed, of above-average intelligence, well employed, social, strong-willed and independent. They were apparently willing to sit down and talk to the offender for up to half an hour, despite not being short of other opportunities to meet and dance with interesting people. The offender must have been able to hold his own in a conversation with an intelligent and attractive woman, indicating that he is likely to be intelligent, educated and attractive himself. Most probably, the offender would have been of a similar age to his victims at the time of the crimes, and of the same race. Obviously, he must have been able to abduct the women between 10 pm and 2 am. He must also have had enough money to be able to buy good clothes and to afford drinks such as champagne. The offender's modus operandi suggests that he planned his crimes well in advance, bringing along necessary tools (e.g. drugs for the drinks, the hammer, the plastic bag and a shovel used to dig the grave). The drugging of the women suggests that the offender could not necessary rely on brute strength during the abductions. The crimes obviously followed a predetermined plan - attracting a victim, drugging her, abducting her, driving her to a safe location (for the killer), stripping her, humiliating her and physically hurting her (rape), building to a frenzy of attack with the hammer and finally suffocating her with the bag, followed by burial. It is not totally clear what the major satisfaction was for the killer. Perhaps it was in the humiliation or induced fear of the victim, or perhaps it lay in the final act of suffocation. The killer clearly likes a routine and a plan. His crimes show a kind of regret or at least respect for the victim after the fact, as evidenced by the burials. The compulsive neatness of the folded clothes (with no blood) might show either respect, or just a fastidious kind of orderliness. Perhaps the killer is impotent, or maybe the rapes are just another form of humiliation of his victims. The extreme anger shown by the killer, and particularly the viciousness of his attacks show that the killer has major issues with women. Since all of the victims were strong, successful women, the killer himself is probably resentful of such women and may well have had negative experiences with such women in his past. He may be submissive to such women in his "normal" life, or he may be open about his resentment. Out of the 10 suspects, number 8 (Ted Shaefer) is my prime suspect. He is 29 now and would have been around 24 at the time of the first crime. We are not given precise dates, but his experience with the affluent young woman at the Wynn could well have occurred at around the time of the first killing, and may even have been a trigger for the start of his killing spree. We know Ted has had some issues with women, including his rejection at Harvard by the woman he called a "stuck-up snob". As is common with serial killers, Ted is an under-achiever, holding a series of relatively low-status jobs that he may consider below his intellectual ability. His girlfriend appears to be higher-status than him, and he is perhaps over-attentive to her. He may well be intelligent, but he dropped out of his university course. He is charismatic. He seems like a planner who pays attention to detail (e.g. see his cooking). His interest in the investigation is typical of serial killers, and he has a criminal record as a juvenile (we don't know what for). - James R Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:59:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1793 Hmm, I suspect this exercise is intended to show that profiling doesn't work, but it's fun, so here goes. Supposedly, all of these suspects had the opportunity to commit these crimes (and make the drive to Death Valley and back, which is what, maybe 2 to 3 hours each way), so I'll take that as a given. First, the suspects I ruled out: 1. Jeffrey Gacy. He's amoral, but seems to have plenty of outlets for his need to take risks: extreme sports, serial sex. His comment about murder being an attempt to absorb the power of the universe is unsettling, but also a little obvious (and woo) if he's the killer. 3. Charles Bundy. Intelligent but too introverted-the blond party girls aren't likely to care much about Voltaire. He also focuses his imagination on writing. 4. Jack Manson. He's good at identifying party girls (good victims). His remark about politics suggests he may be good at manipulating people. But the killer has anger issues-he's beating these women in the face with a hammer-and it's noted that even as a bouncer dealing with unruly drunks, Jack has never engaged in a fight. Most serial killers can't control their anger that well. And it seems unlikely he would take his young children to the place where he buried his victims. 5. William George Tylenol. He's got the messed up background, but he's likely way too emotional to pull off crimes like these. 7. Gerard Wuornos. He seems to have solid relationships. Plus, he has a dog-and probably would have left a dog hair or two (at least) on the victims' bodies or clothing. He also shows little interest in the crimes. 9. Richard Dahmer. He doesn't have the social skills. As both his customers and he point out, he's not very good at talking to people, especially women. 10. Clifford Heirens. He has a mobile lifestyle, but nothing else at all in his background suggests that he would be a killer. He's apparently quite happy with his life. Now on to the three possibles: 2. John Wayne Zodiac. At first I ruled him out because he struck me as too disorganized, with his gambling, drinking. But there is one huge red flag-his girlfriend broke up with him four years ago (and the relationship may have started going downhill before that, about the time the first murder was committed), and he has not had a relationship since. He is also familiar with the off-strip clubs. He and his mother have lost contact-there's obviously some problem with that relationship. As a clown, he would most likely own a fedora. However, he has a clear history of dealing with stress by drinking, gambling and going to prostitutes. Seems likely that he would simply repeat that pattern. And there is no evidence in his past suggesting he has any particular problem with women. 6. Green River Ramirez. Not wanting to talk about his family is a red flag-that and his low self-esteem hint at possible abuse. Many would find his profession very interesting, so he would have no trouble picking up women. His remarks on disappearances suggest he could have a bit of a problem distinguishing the line between reality and fantasy. The scenes are also staged; the women's clothing is neatly folded. But this guy is a performer and would be running a big risk that someone would recognize him, fedora or no fedora. If he were kidnapping women, he’d probably do it more discreetly. The other problem is that he works with his wife (assuming she's still his assistant). Grabbing a quickie with a female fan is one thing. Getting off from work, saying "Seeya later, honey," picking up a woman, killing her and driving 5 hours roundtrip is another. 8. Ted Schaefer. He's my choice because of who the victims are: sociable, confident, attractive, and unlikely to flirt with just anybody. Ted is described as handsome, charismatic and good to women. He actually sounds too good to be true, which means he's either gay or a psychopath. :-) A man who gives his girlfriend Tiffany jewelry and makes vichysoisse probably dresses well and knows how to impress the ladies. He would be able to easily attract these women and quickly gain their trust. The fact that he mentions the "stuck up" woman at Harvard after several years is telling. Another stuck up woman probably cost him his job at Wynn--it would be useful to know when that incident occurred...maybe about five years ago? He has also been in trouble with the law, if only as a teenager. Mostly I chose him because his profile is similar to that of Ted Bundy. The crimes are similar as well. Bundy beat, then strangled, nearly all of his victims, and often raped them with objects. He was handsome, educated, charismatic, well-liked, and had a steady girlfriend. His victims were similar to each other in age and looks. Of course, every serial killer is different, especially the fictional ones, but what the heck, similarity to Ted Bundy is as good a rationale as any. - rightbrain Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:12:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1792 I can't remember who asked what questions, and I've already pored over the answers, so I'll just respond to what I remember without saying who I'm talking to, and we can pretend I'm talking to a wall. Yes, actually conducting interviews of suspects is police work, not BAU work. The actual procedure needed to be summarized in order to allow this exercise to be a contest. In the contest, participants are both local police and BAU agents. This is why - the BAU deals, for the most part, with unknown perpetrators. That means they analyze crime scenes, the mode of death (if it is homicide they are investigating), the victims chosen. They interview victims if there are survivors. They then build a profile from the ground up. That was not a feasible way to conduct a contest. Instead, participants both created and utilized the profiles. No, Mr. Randi was not a part of designing the contest. The first and last (and middle, where applicable) names were all taken from real life serial killers. "Ramirez" was chosen for Richard Leyva Ramirez, also known as 'The Night Stalker.' All other questions will be addressed at the close of the contest. - asmith Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:47:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1791 I'd have to say, the answer about Tylenol being the killer is surely interesting. I stand by my opinion that he couldn't have been the killer, though. It's logistically challenging for someone to do the killings, and a person who, I quote, "is never late and never calls in sick" would have a really hard time doing everything properly in the allocated time. Also, he does not look like the kind of person who could entertain a person such as the victims for one hour in a club. I wonder... hasn't Mr. Randi somehow chipped in a bit in this contest? Since Ramirez is a magician and stuff... Hasn't he played a little bit of "How would I have to be if I were a serial killer?" I'm just curious on that. - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:37:38 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1789 I think William George Tylenol is the killer. He is intelligent, antisocial and is unable to act upon his sexual needs. He always feels like he is not worthy of whatever little accomplishments he gets (such as kissing a girl on the first date, acing a test, etc.) He says he doesn't have a relationship because he doesn't have time, but this is clearly a lie. His work is methodical and gives him access to drugs. He also seems to be rather compulsive about his actions, as he is NEVER late and NEVER calls in sick, as if going to work was a ritual he could not break. He looks stressed because he probably can't sleep at night. The Rohypnol could possibly not even be stolen, it could have been prescribed to him for his insomnia. But he knows what is keeping him up at night - the anger towards his foster mom, and the many women out there who are just like her. And he knows precisely how to get rid of this stress - by killing them. All of them. Which is why, just past his bedtime (10pm), he leaves the house and finds the women at the clubs. He predates on women that pretend to give attention/affection to males, only to use them as means of obtaining money/perks. This reflects his foster mother's attitude, which he despised. She was probably close to the victims' age and appearance. He smashes their faces so he can picture hers, instead, as he rapes the victims. He uses an object because he is impotent - either because of an erectile disfunction or because he, even at this moment of domination, cannot stand up to women. He is also a premed student and knows that the Rohypnol would be hard to detect due to decomposition. - a3maniac@gmail.com Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:32:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1783 They telling me a T did it. Tom, Tim, Tad-do any of these mean anything? I'm seeing an uncle with a pain in the chest area, maybe a cough? Anything making sense? I will remotr veiw this and get back to you after my appearance on Montel..... - nelson650 Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:12:28 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1782 Let's start with who didn't dun it: Jeff G.: I've gotta rule out Jeff because he seems to be a very carefree person. This attitude would result in him not holding any particular grudges (especially against women since his interactions with women are purely pleasurable). Also, he would not be organized well enough to commit the crimes and maintain the level of neatness. John W.Z.: John strikes me more as a possible pedophile (I think I've just entered the bonus round!) or possibly homosexual. He appears to love to be around children, in fact he bases his career choices on the establishments being "Family Friendly." The alcoholism shows problems with control and the fact that his ex knows all about his excursions shows he's not good at hiding things. Charles B.: The fact that Charles appears to be an intelligent guy who hasn't had the opportunity to express it in life would lead to him being frustrated. However he appears to have found ways to make the best of his life. He's taking college classes online, he seems to have a happy home life, he indulges his mind with reading classical literature and he and his wife have an arrangement to keep their marriage "fresh". Besides the fact that he has no triggers to cause him to murder (so violently at that) he has made his situation work for him. Jack M.: Jack Jack Jack. I want so badly for Jack to be the killer! He's outgoing, flirtatious, attractive, well dressed (besides the hair which may be a trademark, hence the hat!). I thought initially that the birth of his first child coinciding with the start of the murders, with the escalation around the time of the birth of his second was enough of a motive. However, Jack isn't the killer. He appears the like the fact that he has never been in a fight (even after being threatened) which makes me believe he isn't violent. Also, despite the fact that he's attracted to strong, successful women i.e.: his wife. He doesn't show any aggression toward women. P.S. Jack may have a double life, possibly a second girlfriend but not serial killing. Will G.T.: William is much too frenzied and worried to have committed the murders. Yes, he comes from the damaged childhood, and yes, he may possibly have access to rohypnol. However, he doesn't have the confidence needed to approach the women, talk with them for half an hour while secretly drugging them. He'd freak out. If he did somehow manage to get through that part he would bury them much deeper in the hopes that they would not be found. Green R.R.: Green is outgoing and very lucky with the ladies. However it is one thing for women to approach you after you have just had a successful performance onstage, and a totally different thing to go to bars and approach women. Green is not confident and an alcoholic. That would lead to very erratic behavior. Nothing like what we see with our killer. Gerard W.: Gerard is a family man. He appears to be very focused on family. He's a bit of an underachiever but not a murderer. He goes and reads to his sick mother! Works with his father and his wife. His dress is not that of the killer. He may have a drinking issue which could cause problems if he's trying to keep his composure in a club. He's also uninformed and uninterested in news, even news possibly related to the serial killer. Rich D.: Rich is a very lonely man. He's also very awkward as evidenced by the conversations with motel patrons. That would be a problem since our killer is charming and personable with women. He may have some aversion to women that frequent clubs but I think that would lead him to avoid the women, not kill them. Cliff H.: Cliff is a hard worker, happy and family oriented. All he wants is to work for his pay and get home to his family. Cliff has no reason to commit the murders and does not exhibit any violent tendencies. Ted S.: Ted's the KILLER! Ted is very short tempered as shown by his storming off the job due to 1 customer. That customer, and the admissions lady from Harvard, both fit the description of the victims. His girlfriend also seems to fit the description of the victims. He appears to be unconfident which may lead him to believe he is undeserving of the women. This is what causes him to lavish the gifts and surprise extravagant meals on his girlfriend. It is also smash the women's faces with the hammer. He is from a lower-class family which makes him hate wealthy people. He's interested in psychology (as a hobby), which may include criminal psychology, leading him to believe he will get away with the crimes forever (leading to the increased frequency of killings.) Throw in the sealed history, possibly containing violence (against animals anybody?) and you have the makings of a serial killer! Bonus!!! John may be accused, and possibly convicted of pedophilia later. Will may commit a violent crime later, possibly even murder or rape. - MAZZ Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:40:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1781 Using the woo-based "profiling" in the way described - to eliminate people from he pool of suspects - sounds more like normal police procedures and not the typical profiling we hear about. I'm actually surprised that people don't think much of profiling, since we see so much favorable press in tv. Even such normally good shows like Bones gives good press to profiling. Unfortunately, as you said, it rarely works as advertised. What you seem to be doing with this test is a simple exercise of knowing people and their habits. Is this a new definition of profiling? For the challenge, I'd go with number eight. He studied vulcanology, so he has to have a hammer. Seriously, how about some more information that we might have as detectives. What were the individuals doing at the times of the disappearances. Do they have alibis? Do any of them have or have access to a vehicle similar to the one reported? How about the important information, rather than this mental masturbation effort? - badger3k Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:22:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1780 The victims are all intelligent, dominant, outgoing, educated, and relatively secure, both financially and emotionally. The killer would then have to appear to be very similar. What do the bodies say about the killer? The folded clothing indicates a very precise, if not compulsive, individual. The jewelry indicates that money is not an issue for the killer, as does the SUV and his clothing. Raping with a foreign object would indicate that the crime is not really sexual, but a matter of domination. The facial injuries and consistent appearance (short blonde hair, caucasian, blue eyes) probably mean that the victims are proxies for the person who the killer wants revenge on. The killer is well dressed, with a dramatic flair as evidenced by the fedora. That combined with the vehicle would imply either someone with reasonable assets, or the ability to borrow them. The victims engaging him in conversation for extended periods, and drinking with him, indicate he is eloquent and charming. He is likely in an unsatisfying relationship, or none at all. Probably unsatisfied with life in general, or he would not be engaging in homicidal behavior. He is a night owl, and at his best during the hours of the crimes. The known crimes occurred over the last 5 years, so the initiating incident must predate that. He dehumanizes women, does not see them as equals. Who matches the description most closely? 1. Too unstable, certainly not the fedora and alcohol type. Seems to be fairly satisfied with his current life. Day person. Not the suave, charming type. 2. Too uncontrolled, gambling and alcohol addictions. Known female associations do not match the victims, ie. successful socially and financially 3. No money, appears to be satisfied with his personal life, loving family background. 4. A good possibility. Well dressed, social, likes fine alcohol. Good self control. However, he has a good relationship with his wife/family, and stays home much of the time. 5. No money, a nervous wreck. 6. Excellent possibility. Charming, financially successful, eloquent, controlled, precise by profession. Expert in misdirection and probably a good actor. Married several times, and apparently uses women sexually. Current wife is "inferior" to him (former assistant). Off stage, has self esteem issues. Unsatisfied personally and professionally. Night owl. The sexual harassment complaint indicates his dehumanizing of women (power, not sex is usually behind harassment. It would be odd for someone with a "normal middle class" family to refuse to discuss them. 7. No money. Stable, loving family. Healthy relationship with women. Considerate, and a casual dresser. 8. Doesn't seem to have an issue with women in general, too unfocused and undisciplined to commit the crimes. 9. To all appearances, a fairly normal individual. He is emotionally needy, not out for revenge. 10. Emotionally secure, with no money. Appears to be a happy guy with a stable history. Gregarious, but not smooth. overall, Green River Ramirez appears to fit the bill the best. Although he has a hispanic and/or native american name, there is nothing about the description to indicate what his appearance is. - redwench Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:30:35 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1779 After reading all the excellent analyses above, I can only come to the conclusion that profiling is woo-woo. All the evaluations make sense, but they point to different suspects. Is this the point you were trying to make? - GusGus Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:36:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1778 Tylenol (no. 5) seems a likely candidate, because he has access to rohypnol (please do correct me if I'm wrong, but last I read, the drug wasn't approved, and could not be marketed freely). His constant state of loss of self is also an alarm signal. However, it is unusual that he would have the time or the financial possibility to commit the crimes. Also, his locational and logistical possibilities are so limited, that it doesn't take a profiler to realize that he isn't very likely to be able to commit the murders (let alone so many of them). Also, it should be noted that the logistical challenges imply that the killer has to have some sort of "safe spot" in the Park, in case anything unforeseen arises. Now, this leads us to Richard Dahmer (no. 9). His Fred AStaire liking tips off the fedora. His wife's death would be an apparent trigger. There is a very subtle hint that he goes to the Park at night (wishing to see the stars). He wasn't too young when the abductions started. But all the suspicions kind of end up here. He does not fit the profile because there seems to be nothing connecting him to this typology of women that are being targeted. There is nothing to indicate why he would prefer this type of women, or why. Rather, Richard looks more like a sad person that is slowly building up from the dust of his prematurely-ended marriage (your wife dying while you're 28 is certainly a tragedy). I had to ask myself: why would such a person start to commit crimes? And if that hasn't convinced you, there's another problem with Richard: His wife dies "5 years ago", that placing her dead in 2004. Since the first victim was abducted in 2003, this means that his wife would have to still be alive while he committed the first murder. Strange as it is, there is absolutely no indication that he had any reason or desire to commit anything wrong in the first place. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the Investigation Squad, we are left with just one suspect: Number 2, John Wayne Zodiac (please pardon me, but I couldn't help laughing when I saw his name). Now it may be deliberate on behalf of the people organizing this contest that he was given such a "sounding" name, but clearly he has absolutely nothing in common with it. He's not a John Wayne, and he's clearly not mystic. Let me describe him, as I see him: He is 35, older than any of the victims when he would have started the murders. He's unmarried, not in any stable relationship, he's a drunkard, he tries to push himself forward as a family guy, although it is obvious that he could never be one. He rents a cabin in the Park, he frequently visits clubs. He comes about as a man without many inhibitions, and seems to be a good talker (I have seen myself how far a funny personality can get you). He was always picked on, and therefore has built a sense of self-vengeance and the desire to excel. Not only that his face would be easily forgotten, but his face ISN'T THERE AT ALL: he is the only one of the suspects whose face clearly isn't public and can be easily hidden (he's a clown). Everything about him screams of frustration for not being something more than a mere clown, a figure that he uses in order to dissipate his sadness and inner wrath. Does it not look odd to anyone that a good-looking person would become a clown and therefore hide his personal appearance? In my opinion, he is the only one that has any remote chance of fitting the profile. Also, his habits could not make anyone suspicious as to what he was doing in the Park at night, he is the only one who would not raise suspicion when going into clubs, he appears to be free-enough of inhibitions to be able to convince women to sit for a chat. Frequenting prostitutes, he could have access to rohypnol through unlawful sources. His logistical and timing possibilities also give him enough of a timeframe to commit the murders. I strongly believe that it is John Wayne Zodiac, suspect no. 2, is the author of the murders based on the above line of logic. This is Special Agent Wannabe Blank, thank you for your time. Sorry I had to make such a mess out of the response. - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:28:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1777 That would be the clear take-offs. Let us now see the suspects that cannot be so easily taken off the list: 6. Green River Ramirez is definitely an interesting character. I'm certain that most would have indicated him as the most likely suspect, however, it is, in my opinion, impossible for him to be the killer. Although he has that self-doubt that is indicated in the first part of this analysis, although he is a drunkard, although he tries to hide from people despite his will to be recognized, there are some problems with him that put him off the list: one, he is married. He would have to not look suspicious to his wife(s) when doing the killings and dumping the bodies. Although he does rent a cabin in the Park, the abductions and killings have not only been in the vacational season, and my thoughts on the matter would be that he would have a really hard time justifying his going out to the Park so often. Two: he is a performing magician at the Hilton, and quite successful according to the testimony of his manager. His face is clearly difficult to miss in the croud, and he would also have to account for his whereabouts during these longer trips to dump the bodies. Three: his name suggests a Hispanic origin. Although passing as white would definitely be possible, certainly someone would have noticed until now that the killer had certain Hispanic traits. His public extra-marital affairs are also a tip-off that he is not the killer. 8. I will not be surprised if nearly everyone pointed towards Ted Schaeffer. Basically, "suspect" is written all over his face. He has had encounters with "snobbish" women, he was kicked out of the University because of a woman, he seeks professional high-class women, as shown by his relationship to a law consultant and his self-told desire to be more with her, he certainly seems to disregard himself, he feels "relaxed" in the Park and "more affectionate than usual". However, I will take him off the list as well. First, he is not single; his going out would look suspicious. Even more suspicious would be him going to clubs at night, though he is clearly an introvert AND, most importantly, having a girlfriend that would be home at that time. It is not specified what are his working times as a dealer, but if they are during day-time, he would look suspicious to his wife and friends, and if they were during evening or night times, well, the conclusion goes without saying. He does not appear to be the pathological introvert, and it is nearly impossible for him to not notice that he and his efforts are appreciated by those around him, therefore making him unfit for the profile. Also, wouldn't it be a clear tip-off if the earrings he gave to his girlfriend? So, we are left with three people: No. 5, no. 9 and no. 2. Since these suspects are somewhat similar, I am forced to analyze them together. First of all: none of the three suspects have wives or stable relationships. We therefore eliminate the possibility of them being suspected by spouses or girlfriends. Second of all: all three of them seem to have something on their mind. Tylenol seems too stressed out with his University, Dahmer is still sorrow after the loss of his wife, and Zodiac "can't get out of character", though it is highly unusual to make jokes on the topic of serial killers, even though he is, in fact, a clown. Third: All three share the apparent poverty in which they live. Four: all of them go to the Park basically alone. Five: None of them seem to care about their personal appearance. Six: None of them hold relationship with parents. - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:27:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1776 Now comes the analysis of the suspects. I have taken the liberty of shuffling them around. First, I analyze the suspects that I wish to clearly take off the list. 1. Jeffrey does in no way fit the profile of the suspect. Although he is probably the one with the most financial resources and could easily be on the business of body dispatch, he seems by all means a "free spirit", and therefore not bound by any obscure ideals. In fact, he does not seem to have any ideals at all. The fact that he is caught cheating by his girlfriend and that he does prefer one-night-stands indicates that he is not seeking the ideal person and does not have it in mind. The only one light abuse situation with his girlfriend indicates that the anger was momentary, genuine and spontaneous, otherwise we would find many numerous acccounts of either visibly repressed anger or fits of violence. He also does not seem the person who would hide, having no reason to do so. Also, he appears to have been very young when the first abduction/murder occurred. I therefore take Suspect 1 off the list. 4. Mr. Manson, at first, seems like a likely suspect. However, there is a problem with him: he's a bouncer at a hot club, and the faces of such are rarely forgotten. He clearly would have a hard time initiating conversation with just about anybody in a club of LV because of that, risking recognition on any attempt. Another big issue with this character is that, since he would be working at the time the abductions took place, he could not have the possibility to leave his place. Although he is forced to lie and hide his actual standing, clearly if he were the perpetrator, he would have thought of a better way of making himself invisible than wearing a fedora. His background indicates that he is an intelligent man, and this, combined with his job, takes him immediately off the list of suspects. At this point, we are left with 8 suspects. 7. I'm taking Gerard off the list of suspects from the start. His background shows no signs of desires to be (himself or in the company of) upper-class people. He appears to be the typical lower-class worker. No higher education has been mentioned in his profile. He would also have a hard time with the timing, due to his job and since both he and his wife are working at the same place. In case he would be the killer, surely the police would have found signs of the dog, or, if not, there would have been complaints or the neighbours would have noticed suspicious behavoir related to hte dog. Also, his familial status would make it very difficult for him to commit the crimes without anyone noticing. Also, he would not risk taking the dog to the Park to "run free" and possibly pinpoint the location of one of the graves (which would not be too difficult, since the graves were shallow). 7 suspects remaining for now. 10. Mr. Heirens, in order to be the killer, would have to be a fantastic actor and a magician so good, that he would do the abduction and killing deeds without his wife and boss ever noticing that the SUV was gone or that he was away for extended periods of time (necessary, in my opinion, to commit the crimes). Also, the frequent killings in the last year would surely have raised suspicion to his stay-at-home wife. Higher education and wisdom did not appear to be on the list of priorities for this man, and it would be unusual that an ideal so high in his victims would come to him. I'm taking him off the list, and there are 6 remaining suspects for now. - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:26:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1775 Out of this, the following profile comes up: - the suspect is not a known or public person; one could say that he is a "nobody", his face does not stand up in the crowd, and there are not many people that see his actual face; furthermore, the suspect goes to an even greater length covering his appearance by wearing the fedora, and makes sure that his license plates are not seen by the camera through means unknown (the situation doesn't mention that, even though this would probably be the first thing Police would be after :) ). By all means, the suspect is unknown to the public and intends to stay that way - the suspect is deeply disturbed by either something that has happened or by something that still happens (perhaps his standing, social status, family situation, etc.), resulting in his serial killer behavior; the crimes seem to indicate that he is in need of recognition as a person and not as by his job or standing, which seems to be by all means dissatisfying to him - since none of the wives / girlfriends / women that have ever had contact with the man have been mentioned as fitting the victimology in any way, it is therefore left that we presume the victim pattern is rather a symbol than an actual person responsible for misery in the suspect's life; it is more a desire of the suspect, rather than revenge; the symbol that therefore emerges is the courageous, up-start, independent, charming and good-looking female, the (if you'd pardon my expression) "get-it-all girl", that, although typically looked on as "that girl", refuses to abide by the standards and is a rebel (the cut hair and the going alone to clubs points to that) - the suspect did not commit the crimes at the burial scene, and it goes without saying that he did not commit them at the abduction scene; rather, he committed them in a place he feels safe, in a place that he can be certain that nothing will interfere with his deeds; it therefore goes without saying that the object used to rape the victims and the plastic bag, as well as any other accessories used during this time will only be found with the victim - the motive behind abduction does not seem to be murder, but rather a desire, a fantasy. The suspect ends up in a fit of rage against his victim for not conforming to his desires; he then ends up "punishing" her through death, but, before that, does one last desperate effort to get her "type" out of his mind, smashing her face and destroying her appearance - his excessive care with the victim's jewelry and clothes indicates that he is not after these women themselves, but after the type, and is deeply ashamed of and concerned about what he is doing (which is indicated by the smashing of the face); it would not be surprising, though, if the suspect was on medication, had sleep disorders or was a drunkard - the suspect feels powerless in the face of these women, despite his personal charm and physical appearance - the suspect's feelings towards his ideal are so strong, that he does not dare rape them himself, probably feeling "unworthy" - the suspect is the kind of person who would strike the investigators as odd for owning an SUV (the Honda CR-V) - there is a strong feeling that the suspect is older than his victims, and has been so even with his first victim - the suspect is not outgoing and his financial status isn't one of the happiest (the bottle of champagne is a clear indicator) The following objective facts also come up: - the suspect must be going to the Park often, and must be accustomed to the place - the suspect must also have the financial possibility (or the recognized bad habit) of going to the Park often - the suspect can be either strong, or weak, since even if he were strong enough to ruffle the victim inside his car, he couldn't risk doing that in a crowded, public place with cameras watching on him; physical strength is not necessarily a factor to eliminate suspects - the killings and body dumpings weren't done overnight; the perpetrator would need quite some spare time at his disposal, and would need to be a person that nobody wonders about or notices if he goes missing fin the evening, to only reappear the next day or even later than that; possible, he was single - the modus operandi indicates that the deeds could have been done by one man alone, an accomplice not being necessary - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:25:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1774 I will have to split my entry into two or more, since the site states that it is "too long". This is Special Agent Wannabe Blank, commencing the profiling of the 10 possible suspects presented by the California Police, as follows: Upon analyzing the details of the crimes, the common significant details of each victim are: - young (all below 28), but of legal age in any state (none was reported as being under 21) - blonde hair, blue eyes - hair cut short - attended club(s) alone - rich / had no obvious money problems, well-dressed, with jewelry - raped with foreign object(s) - abducted between 10 and 2 Upon analyzing the timeline of the abductions / murders, it is clear that the murderer has gone on a spree, as his impulse towards committing these crimes has virtually exploded during the past two years (and 2008 in particular). The modus operandi shows that the criminal is not necessarily well-organized, but very concerned and burdened. The way the murders are committed, as resulting from the details, is this: 1. The suspect enters the club, pretending to be a single outgoing male, "looking for a bit of fun" 2. The suspect sets eyes on victim and uses his physical appearance and charm to lure her into a conversation and a drink 3. After a while, unknown to the victim, he slips rohypnol into her drink and makes sure that nothing looks suspicious (possibly doing this while still engaged in conversation with enough topics to touch), as the victim consumes the drink without any sign of worry 4. After rohypnol starts taking effect and before full black-out of the victim, he takes her out and into his car, driving her off 5. Victim is stripped naked, sexual intercourse takes place with the suspect using a foreign object rather than his own sexual organ 6. Victim's face is smashed with a hammer 7. Suspect puts a plastic bag on victim's face and suffocates her to death 8. Suspect takes dead body and belongings and buries them according to Police description - adimosh Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:24:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1773 Like weirdloser, I strongly object to this post. In spite of popular belief, profiling is not much better than guessing; and most "profilers" use outdated and very shaky versions of trait theories -which we now know are wrong. In [url]http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staff/LAlison/lalison19.pdf[/url] you'll find a profound and comprehensive discussion of this issues. Here's the conclusion of that paper: [quote]The notion that particular configurations of demographic features can be predicted from an assessment of particular configurations of specific behaviors occurring in short-term, highly traumatic situations seems an overly ambitious and unlikely possibility. Thus, until such inferential processes can be reliably verified, such claims should be treated with great caution in investigations and should be entirely excluded from consideration in court.[/quote] Besides not being in any way "scientific", I can't see why is this subject included in the SWIFT blog, which deals with skepticism and pseudoscience. Profiling (at least in the way it's currently done most of the time) is very likely as pseudoscientific as astrology. Please stop promoting this stuff. - stifenlaso Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:50:28 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1770 Let's begin with the evidence provided of the crimes. They begin a little more than 4 years ago with the frequency of each killing escalating from 11 months between the first two down to a month between the last two. So there was more than likely a trigger 4 years ago that set off the first killing, and it is more than likely an ongoing situation rather than an isolated event: the killing quelled whatever stress was present, but like a drug, his murdering became less and less effective in removing that stress leading him to kill more often. The victims were white, young, educated, independant women that represented a certain type of upper-class that the killer resented. The fact that the killer was able to engage in conversation with them indicates that he was at least college educated, socially confident, personable and more than likely sexually non-threatening in his behaviour. He is probably from a working-class family but works at a job that allows for a lot of interaction with upper-class. The killer is very organized and is not a drinker, preferring to remain in control, both of himself and others. Okay, let's see who is the best fit: (love the mish-mash if serial killer names, by the way) 1. Jeffrey Gacy - NO, too young for one, too disorganized and impulsive for another. Also, though technically a native, he has no real lasting ties to the area as far as employment and need not limit his activities to the area. 2. John Wayne Zodiac - NO, since he goes to bars and clubs for sex and drinking. I would think the killer uses the clubs exclusively for his victim selection. This would almost be like pooping where you eat, as it were. Also, too disorganized with the drinking. 3. Charles Bundy - NO, wouldn't have left the jewelry. Although he is well organized and claims he doesn't value material possesions, I would think given his situation, he would've held onto the jewelry as a backup financial plan. 4. Jack Manson - NO, although a close match. He has a number of skills the killer does, namely social confidence around women, college educated and not a heavy drinker, nothing in his description either qualifies him as predisposed to murder or disqualifies him. Failing any real triggers or stresses, I see nothing here. 5. William George Tylenol - NO, far too socially akward. He has stresses and issues to be sure, but none of the skills to carry thru on the crimes here. Also too young. 6. Green River Ramirez - NO, too much drinking. Also seems to lack enough self-confidence to attempt such a prolonged criminal activity. 7. Gerard Wuornos - NO, also too young, but mostly the dog. The dog is an unstable element and would be considered something not in total control by the killer. Also, taking the dog to Death Valley runs the risk of the dog discovering the bodies. Far too risky. 8. Ted Shaefer - YES! He has the college education and the social confidence to be able to engage the victims, is from lower class parents, works at a job that affords interaction with the upper-class. Seems to have issues with the victimology in his background, the "stuck-up snob" that interviewed him at Harvard as well as the woman whom he walked away from at his job at the Wynn. I would guess that his girlfriend also fits the victimology, although I doubt she always did. Another big red flag is the change in behaviour when at Death Valley, showing more affection and being more relaxed which is how the killer would feel when at his "trophy room". Throw in his probable history of violence (I seriously doubt that a juvenile record for shoplifting would be kept sealed for over a decade, but I'm no lawyer) and you have the best fit of the bunch. 9. Richard Dahmer - NO, the death of his wife did occur around the time of the trigger, but it was an isolated incident, not an ongoing one. Also, he lacks the social confidence to engage the victims and also envisions his wife watching over him. By all accounts, serial murder would not be something he imagines she would approve of. 10. Clifford Heirens - NO, mainly due to his ambitions for early retirement mean he would have not only taken the jewelry from the victims, but also would not have been off work during peak Taxi-driving hours of 10 and 2. So, there you have it: Ted Schaefer is my pick for the serial killer. - zaphod Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:30:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/383-woo-in-review-criminal-profiling-contest.html#comment-1769 It would be a better match if Ted had some other issues in evidence with women, but we get a little glimpse into his psyche as the narrative describes his inability to deal professionally with an insult from an affluent women. His intellectual self image is over developed, though he is very intelligent. He clearly has a problem with formal demands on his intellect. Apparently his entry to Harvard was abruptly self-terminated in an encounter with an intellectual capable women, or, to his account "a snob". This indicates some palpable resentment for women. Though a handsome man, he finds it necessary to supplement his connection to the women in his life with symbols of extravagance, Tiffany earrings and vichyssoise. His employment is consistent, but spotty, moving from job to job while doing essentially the same thing for the same money. That suggests some discomfort with his work environment over time, or an effort to change his personal patterns to better deal with emotional issues he faces. All references point to him as professional in the execution of his duties at dealing which is reflection of some fastidiousness in his personality and would account for way in which each victims clothing was treated. His chosen type of work also indicates that he is socially capable of interacting with people. His employment history is somewhat correlated to the murders. His socioeconomic beginnings correlate somewhat with the general white male serial killer profile. His interest in psychology is somewhat relevant in the same way some serial killers are interested in police work or positions of authority. The explanation of his sealed juvenile record is plausible, but it seems that the petty theft of a magazine doesn't rank as a deed that would make it through the court system to a permanent record in the first place. Ted feels in control in the desert and spends time there with his girlfriend who relates in increase in affection while they camp. This only indicates that it a comfortable and familiar environment for him. His victims are archetypes for whom he has great rage. He projects this rage through beatings to the face as if to destroy some aspect of the victims control over him. His subsequent treatment indicates his attempts at control. Though the crime looks sexual, it is more about ultimate control of some over riding insult or stress that has occurred to him in his life. - mscotthokie Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:17:09 +0100