Amber Phosphor

I think there’s something very shady about Charles Peter Hackett. Shannan Gilbert’s mother stated that he called her on the night that Shannan went missing. In this phone call, she relayed that Hackett had claimed that he had taken Shannan into his home because he had witnessed her running down the street in a sheer panic. He later denied this until phone records were released indicating that he certainly had called her that night. He then changed his story and admitted that he had called her but claims that he never said he saw Shannan that night. Shannan’s body was discovered in a marsh out behind Hackett’s home. When a neighbour mentioned that the marsh was being drained, Hackett apparently panicked. The police didn’t even begin looking for Shannan until six months after her disappearance and it was this search that uncovered the bodies on Gilgo beach. It’s quite clearly the work of a serial killer yet police claim they cannot link Shannan to those other victims even though there is a clear link - they were all Craigslist sex workers and their bodies were all discovered near one another… To me, it’s clear as day that she was a victim of the same killer. Shannan called 911 the night of her disappearance shouting “they’re trying to kill me” yet police claimed she was probably on drugs and ran into the marsh herself, but the autopsy concluded there were no drugs in her system.. I think Charles Peter Hackett had something to do with it. Why lie about calling the mother of a missing woman? Why tell people you took the missing woman into your home to help her and then deny it?

But then saying that, the killer continually called a victims sister. He sounded white according to police and he called from areas that were hard to trace and always stayed on the phone for a specific amount of time, almost as if he knew how long he could stay on the phone before the call can be traced. Makes me wonder if it’s an ex-cop or at least knew police tactics… If it were Hackett then I assume they would have been able to tell from his voice.

The “Big Five”, “FFM” (Five Factor Model) or “OCEAN” as it’s sometimes called, is a way to measure the five personality traits. The big five is what psychologists use when determining your personality. Big Five measures five personality traits and the first letter of them spell out the acronym “OCEAN”. These are:

Openness to experience - High openness reflects an appreciation for art, unusual ideas and adventures. This also is people who have an intellectual curiosity and creativity. These people seek out euphoric experiences. Those who score low in openness are the opposite.

Conscientiousness - The high scorers in conscientiousness are dependable and organized. They aim high and want to plan most events in advance instead of being spontaneous. The low scorers are more flexible and spontaneous.

Extraversion - The more extroverted people have more positive emotions, energy, assertiveness and tend to seek stimulation by socializing with others. Introverted (the low scorers) people are reserved and seek stimulation by doing their own thing. They are often associated with “new thinking”.

Agreeableness - If someone have an easy time being cooperative, compassionate and they trust people easily, then they are high scorers in agreeableness. If they are suspicious and competitive they are low scorers.

Neuroticism - The ones that score high in neuroticism are sensitive and experience negative emotions more easily than those who score low. These emotions are anger, depression and anxiety. They are seen as emotionally unstable. Low scorers are emotionally stable and calm.

Well now comes the controversy in the world of deduction. MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is based on the work of a brilliant psychiatrist named Carl Jung but constructed by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Carl Jung constructed the terms extraversion and introversion and was hugely influential in the world that is psychology. You have probably heard of, or taken the MBTI, it’s composed of 16 personalities and they look like INTP, ENTJ, ESFP and so on. Every letter symbolizes a personality trait and you are either E as for Extraversion or I for Introversion, S for Sensing or N for iNtuition, T for Thinking or F for Feeling, J for Judging or P for Perceiving. But do not mistake MBTI to be the work of Carl Jung. Here’s the problem. MBTI doesn’t work. There are dozen of examples that prove that it isn’t reliable. If you take the test one day and get ENTJ and you take it after a few weeks then you can get ISFP which is completely different. This is possible and happens quite a lot. Then how can you trust this? Well you can’t. Your personality changes over time but it doesn’t change that much after a few weeks. And one other thing, research show that you can be both a thinker and a feeler, most thinkers actually spend a lot of time feeling. So why would you use this instead of big five? I have no idea.

Why not use astrology instead? That describes your personality and isn’t proven to work, same as MBTI? (This is sarcasm of course)

This post is not meant to anger anyone, it is just meant to educate. So with this information in mind do choose the method you want.

Sites which explain the flaws of MBTI:

http://www.businessinsider.com/myers-briggs-personality-test-is-misleading-2014-6?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/09/29/the-mysterious-popularity-of-the-meaningless-myers-briggs-mbti/#45b82b1950ad

And if you want to know how you score on the big five:

http://psychologytoday.tests.psychtests.com/take_test.php?idRegTest=1297

So first off- I was inspired to write this post by a little thing I noticed the other day in class, but I’ll only share that anecdote if there’s interest for it (to keep this post nice and concise lol).

As Wikipedia nicely explains it: 

“‘Unilateral hearing loss (UHL)’ or ‘single-sided deafness (SSD)’ is a type of hearing impairment where there is normal hearing in one ear and impaired hearing in the other ear.

My dad was born deaf in one ear, and over the years I’ve picked up on a lot of the little habits he has as a result of the condition. Below are some habits you can look for that indicate a person might have this disability. (And of course, these won’t really apply if they have treatment such as a cochlear implant, etc.)

» Turning their normal hearing ear towards the speaker

This one is generally very subtle. It tends to noticeably happen when the person is having trouble hearing the speaker, as well as when the conversation is happening in a loud and/or dark environment. Another thing to add is that it’s usually a slighter head movement during close-range conversations, and a more extreme movement for long-range. 

» Prefer to walk/sit/etc on one side of a person

When in company they will tend to always have their normal hearing ear closest to their companion, exceptions being when they’re unable to- such as being with two people, sitting across from someone etc. 

» Only put in one earphone/headphone

In/over their normal hearing ear, obviously. Out of the habits I’ve listed, this is probably the one that’s most likely down to personal preference.

» Lack of ability to locate sounds

People with SSD hear in monoaural sound, which means any binaural sound cues are impossible- or extremely hard, depending on the severity of their deafness- to distinguish. Because they can’t localise sounds, they will often look around for the source of a noise. (That means no ‘Marco Polo’ or stereo music rip.)

↳ To an extent you can experience this for yourself by only putting one ear plug in- interesting thing to try if you’re ever bored.

↳ Also, and I can’t find the source of where I read this but, I read….somewhere..,,,..,that they can’t locate on a horizontal plane but can on a vertical plane. If that makes sense? Like they can tell how high or low a sound is?? Maybe someone can refute that, as I’m also not sure how true this is lol.

» Other 

- Won’t plug their exposed ear when on the phone in a loud place.

↳ This is another one that’s somewhat down to personal preference.

- Have trouble hearing in general, particularly on their deaf side, and especially when talking to passengers whilst driving a car. 

↳ The latter only really applies for countries that drive on the left side of the road however.

- Like to have subtitles on when watching something on the television. 

↳ This is another one that’s somewhat down to personal preference.

Obviously I’d recommend you take all of the above with a grain of salt, as I’m certainly no expert on this. And if you or someone you know has this condition feel free to add any other associated habits! Corrections, questions, calling me out on typos, etc, are more than welcome too. 

Hope you guys enjoyed this post and have a good rest of your week!

FINGERPRINTING

was one of the first forensic science applications

The ancient Chinese used fingerprints to identify business documents

In 1892, a eugenicist (an adherent of the often prejudiced system of scientific classification) named Sir Francis Galton established the first system for classifying fingerprints.

Sir Edward Henry, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police of London, developed his own system in 1896 based on the direction, flow, pattern and other characteristics in fingerprints. The Henry Classification System became the standard for criminal fingerprinting techniques worldwide, which relies on the unique pattern of loops, arches and whorlsthat covers each person’s fingertips.

There are two types of fingerprints:

Visible prints are made on a card, or on a type of surface that creates an impression, such as blood or dirt.

The Locard Exchange Principle  (trace evidence)

Edmund Locard was a professor and criminologist, wh o set up the first police crime laboratory in France, in 1910. He became known as “The French Sherlock Holmes”.

One of his most well known contributions to forensics is one of the most basic principles applied to crime scene investigation - The Locard Exchange Principle, which states, “with contact between two items, there will be an exchange,“ and is known most commonly as ”every contact leaves a trace” (trace evidence). 

Essentially, Locard’s principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene.

Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at—or taken from—a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.

Note: This is a very incomplete “masterpost” with a bunch of resources I know of compiled together. So a couple things:

1. If there is a good resource not mentioned on here, please inform me about it. I love hearing of great new learning tools. 

2. If you are not on the “Blogger” list and post 95-100% Deduction and Forensic related material, please message me (if you would like to be included). 

Enjoy! 

-Deductionist in Training

Videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_1saCPSYO8BoFiTouoPuYw (Whole YouTube channel dedicated to it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_UX85SX3c (Speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXtGQkJcQ0 (Body language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZTa8fZbuU (Body Language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vlpQHJ09do (Mind Palace)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6PoUg7jXsA (Mind Palace)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g69Ska5iHmU (Mind Palace)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahnDEXOagw (Mind Palace)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo4pMVb0R6M&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOPRKzVLY0jJY-uHOH9KVU6 (psych)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGl2BujkPQ&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOAKed_MxxWBNaPno5h3Zs8 (anatomy)

My Blog Tags

http://deductionistintraining.tumblr.com/tagged/deduction-tools

http://deductionistintraining.tumblr.com/tagged/body-language

http://deductionistintraining.tumblr.com/tagged/psychology

http://deductionistintraining.tumblr.com/tagged/mind-palace

http://deductionistintraining.tumblr.com/tagged/memory-tools

Bloggers

http://aguidetophotodeductions.tumblr.com/

http://seanie567.tumblr.com/

http://agameofdeduction.tumblr.com/

http://everydaydeductionist.tumblr.com/

http://elementarydeduction.tumblr.com/

http://the-brain-attic.tumblr.com/

http://thescientificdetective.tumblr.com/

http://thementalist221b.tumblr.com/

http://bloggerdeductions.tumblr.com/

http://galalfahmy.tumblr.com/

http://theartoftheconsultingdetective.tumblr.com/

http://youngtrainingdetective.tumblr.com/

http://ellipsisbehavior.tumblr.com/

http://amateur-deductions.tumblr.com/

Websites

Crime Scene Staging

When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look for behavioral “clues” left by the offender.  This is when investigators attempt to find answers to several critical questions.  How did the encounter between the offender and victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her?  Did the offender use ligatures to control the victim?  What was the sequence of events?  Was the victim sexually assaulted before or after death? When did the mutilation take place–before or after death?  Did the offender place any item at the crime scene or remove something from the crime scene?

As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them.  These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in the perpetration of the crime and obscure the underlying motive of the crime.  This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging.  Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

Reasons for Staging

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons–to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim’s family.  It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation.  This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim.  This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught.  Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim’s family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities.  This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body.  Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim.  For example, a husband may redress or cover his wife’s body, or in the case of an autoerotic fatality, a wife may cut the noose or the device suspending the body of her husband.  Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock that may be brought about by the position, dress, or condition of the victim.  In addition, they will often stage an autoerotic fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even writing a suicide note.  They may even go so far as to the make it appear to be a homicide.

For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders and autoerotic fatalities, investigators need to obtain an accurate description of the body’s condition when found and to determine exactly what the person who found the body did to alter the crime scene.  Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime scene dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true circumstances surrounding the deaths.

At the 2005 FBI Symposium on Serial Murder, in combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

“Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.”

This is the 2005 FBI definition of serial murder - which differs somewhat from previous definitions - it is somewhat broader.

“In the past thirty years, multiple definitions of serial murder have been used by law enforcement, clinicians, academia, and researchers. While these definitions do share several common themes, they differ on specific requirements, such as the number of murders involved, the types of motivation, and the temporal aspects of the murders. To address these discrepancies, attendees at the Serial Murder Symposium examined the variations in order to develop a single definition for serial murder.

Previous definitions of serial murder specified a certain number of murders, varying from two to ten victims. This quantitative requirement distinguished a serial murder from other categories of murder (i.e. single, double, or triple murder).

Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period.

Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).

There has been at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings:

The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

Although the federal law provides a definition of serial murder, it is limited in its application. The purpose of this definition was to set forth criteria establishing when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial murder cases. It was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder.

The Symposium attendees reviewed the previous definitions and extensively discussed the pros and cons of the numerous variations. The consensus of the Symposium attendees was to create a simple but broad definition, designed for use primarily by law enforcement.

One discussion topic focused on the determination of the number of murders that constituted a serial murder. Academicians and researchers were interested in establishing a specific number of murders, to allow clear inclusion criteria for their research on serial killers. However, since the definition was to be utilized by law enforcement, a lower number of victims would allow law enforcement more flexibility in committing resources to a potential serial murder investigation.

Motivation was another central element discussed in various definitions; however, attendees felt motivation did not belong in a general definition, as it would make the definition overly complex.

The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement.

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

• one or more offenders • two or more murdered victims • incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times • the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.”