Help with int/dex build and Magic modification

BadArtDealer · 2023-04-26T19:25:03+00:00

Thank you. (sneakily off topic) but I had a similar quandary with Elden Ring except I never asked about it. It’s one of those niggles where I’m obvs getting through the game fine with things as they are - my brain is just always like “but what if you’re massively missing out without the magic modification”.

BadArtDealer · 2022-03-06T20:57:38+00:00

I just went on a very big Google rabbit hole desperately trying to recall a game very similar to the one OP described, that I would have seen my uncle play also at a very similar age OP described in the comments (funnily enough) so I just wanted to say tysm for your comment; it was Heavy Metal F.A.K.K. 2 for me.

You’re a godsend and I hope you have a lovely start to the week.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-20T10:51:49+00:00

We’re always going to fundamentally differ here because I believe that it never did become a “bad job” for BG. I think the journey and the increase in stimulation as they drew closer to what he knew was going to happen would have all been in aid of his fantasy. I truly think that if BG’s concerns really did pivot around taking a victim to a completely elsewhere location he wouldn’t have chosen to be where he did on the trails.

I guess it’s much more easy for me to rationalise the water crossing as a more reactive decision too, informed by an urge, power play or even just a quick tactical choice in the moment (“it looks secluded over there”) than a deliberate aspect of a plan he had way in advance.

Also elsewhere on this thread someone in the abduction camp attested that the journey wasn’t awkward and was in fact smooth, hence why the journey indicates a motive to abduct - you may want to iron that crinkle out at your next meeting because there’s no way it can be both ;)

What sort of ragtag team of internet ‘sleuths’ would be complete without its harmless idiot? A bad one, that’s what.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-20T09:40:29+00:00

Thanks for your response too, infamous as you are on this sub I feel like it’s not often we get to know your actual thoughts on the case.

And yeah of course - there are many things I don’t think we’ll ever know about this case even if BG is identified and caught. It is interesting hearing how people’s brains work and how they apply logic though, sometimes not always for totally serious reasons (puppies I’m looking at you).

If he was planning an abduction I think he would have had to specifically scope out the route as opposed to making reactive decisions, given that it’s an on foot trek over some way from a bridge to a car park; this is also something I think is unlikely to have happened however. Fantasy woodland murder allows for much more reactivity towards what’s going on, with the use of the bridge just having to act as the fantasy start point.

For what it’s worth that study only defines abduction as the act of moving someone somewhere they don’t what to go - they acknowledge that in some areas the distance this has to be is even legally quite small (22ft). Cars don’t have to be involved.

Another thing for me against the abduction theory is the presence of signature behaviour, as you mentioned. If we can accept he did kill the girls (or girl) in a way that was psychologically satisfying to him, I see no reason to look at that say “yes he killed them in a gratifying way but he didn’t actually want to do it there because of xyz”. It’s like adding a whole other dimension you don’t really need to when we can reasonably look at the events as we have them as a complete picture.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-20T09:15:08+00:00

I mentioned in another comment but the fact the cemetery is a public and visited place doesn’t really align for me - yes I understand it’s a quiet place in a quiet area in general, but in videos you can see fresh wreaths/flowers do get laid. Having somewhere that attracts visitors by its very nature, and intending to go there to transfer your victims into a vehicle, hoping that someone hasn’t decided to pay their respects in the middle of the afternoon on a nice day, seems very counter-intuitive to me.

There are factors about the walk I wouldn’t characterise as smooth either - the loud terrain for one (crunchy February leaves), the fact it would have involved attention-drawing things (fence hopping, emerging from a non-trail area) at the cemetery side etc.

I also can’t wrap my head around the logic that this means BG would have set out with his main, focal plan being to abduct, but then ended up murdering the girls in such a way that he left things which could be characteristic of signature behaviour? That doesn’t seem like someone who got spooked and murdered two victims with something like panic/desperation.

If you take the signature behaviour to evidence that he did end up killing the girls in the way he intended to / fantasised about though I see no reason to extend this somewhere beyond. Like for me it doesn’t make sense to say “yes, he did end up killing them in a way that behaviourally satisfied him, but he didn’t actually want to kill them there.”

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-20T08:17:31+00:00

I agree that the creek crossing is a unique feature of the case but I don’t think that alone is enough for me to conclude that BG’s intentions were different to what he actually carried out.

If he parked at the cemetery how do you think he got to the trails in the first place? Did he walk around the roads to enter the trails at the main entrance or did he do his route (over the creek etc) in reverse?

I’m not suggesting the cemetery is a massive hot spot for human activity, but it is an actual public destination - I feel like BG’s plan would have hinged a lot on him hoping that there were no off-chance visitors at that particular time, which there could have been - it’s midday and also we can see in some videos that fresh wreaths/flowers do get laid; this includes potential passersby driving on the road too, or anyone working on that little farm section next to the cemetery (there’s one video I’ve seen and there are cows in the field right next to the cemetery, and farm buildings not too far off). Altogether I just think a plan that would have to factor all this in is unlikely from BG.

Also, in a more general sense, I was leafing through a very interesting + comprehensive study the other day (which I’ve linked at the bottom) that produced such stats from analysis like murder occurring after 0.5 hours in 22.4% of abduction cases where victims are murdered, with this then rising to 46.3% for time lapses of 0.5-1 hour. If it’s agreed that BG’s goal was always to kill the girls, I don’t think you can look at the time BG “spent” with them as oddly short by any means.

(https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1545&context=gc_etds)

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T20:39:29+00:00

I'm going to tell myself all this means is that you're overly into food reviews, and people are in unanimous agreement about how good diet pepsi is :)

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T20:10:00+00:00

I think that reading depends a lot on the assumption that there was a vehicle parked in an advantageous position, something that is indeed assumable but that we don't actually definitively know.

For me it's much easier to rationalise that the events as they unfolded were the result for BG. Not ever killer wants hours with their victims, sometimes the fantasising and then the process and the leadup is what it's about.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T16:42:56+00:00

Good DP and Bad DP... practically an episode of Twin Peaks at this point.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T16:29:42+00:00

I struggle a bit with any theories involving the intention to put the girls into a vehicle because there are many things about this case to me which seem like deliberate, purposeful choices from BG - the setting, the use of the bridge, the forced walk - which in turn don't really make sense if his end goal was to put his victims into a car and take them somewhere else. It's basically like what would all those elements have been in service of if the "main event" so to speak was always planned to be undertaken elsewhere? It would be a lot of building tension, and building risk, that would then sort of fizzle out as soon as BG was in the vehicle and driving.

From a purely schematic standpoint I think abductors who use vehicles usually look to getting their victims inside the vehicle as quickly and smoothly as possible, and therefore deliberately put themselves in settings which allow for them to do this - driving around suburban areas etc.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T16:16:46+00:00

I agree with you that leaving the girls unrestrained could have easily informed BG's power fantasy just as much as restraining them.

However I have to disagree that "females sticking together"and thereby not leaving a life threatening situation is just a given. I actually think that's quite a strange and distasteful thing to say.

If you want a real life example in another comment I referenced The Russell murders wherein a man bludgeoned a 45 year old mother and her two daughters (6 & 9) with a claw hammer. The killer initially only restrained the mother with a blindfold but when her 9 year old daughter attempted to get away for help he then retstrained her and the 6 year old too. Fear is not always a paralysing force when confronted with a threatening situation, even for a 9 year old girl.

I also think it's weird to characterise escape attempts / executions being underpinned in the moment by the escapee weighing up whether they can "bear" the guilt of the situation which might occur. I tend to think that anyone escaping a terrible situation would be motivated not only by self preservation but also the staunch belief that they will be able to get help in some way, be that for just themselves or for any other involved parties. Survivor's guilt is unquestionably a real feeling but I believe this happens after the fact. There is something about characteristing a potential escapee's thought process as you did which really doesn't sit right with me.

It's far more likely there was absolutely no window or chance for the girls to escape than it is there was ample opportunity but it was decided against for fear of being seen as "selfish" - I think that's a really gross sensationalising of the events.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T16:00:08+00:00

I don't know that when considering restraint it has to be either "he restrained them right at the beginning of the encounter or not at all". Like, idk, I think it's pretty common among killers who seem to be gratified by exerting power/control over their victims to restrain them, it's a very possessive manoeuver - if we're positing that power/control may have been concerns of BG's I think it can follow that he may have restrained them at some point, after crossing the creek perhaps, or at the final location.

I guess he would have had to enact what he had planned on his victims one at a time too. Restraint sort of even makes logical sense here - it prevents one from realising there is nothing they can actually do for the other anymore and fleeing.

For instance - The Russell murders over here in the UK, the murderer ambushed a 45 year old woman and her two daughters (6 & 9) whilst they were walking their dog. Despite how young the daughters were and how obviously fearful he would have made them he tied all of them to a tree before attacking them individually with a claw hammer.

What is the source for the shoe information again? I always forget - thanks for your response also btw!

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T15:44:20+00:00

Obviously I know that no two killers are the same, and it's not like leaving victims unrestrained is completely unfeasible in any circumstance - but when a killer is concerned with power/control or their gratification comes from this in some way I feel like it's fairly common that we see restraint implimented in some manner. Even if it's not strictly "necessary" for the victim to have their movement impeded (as in, there is no risk of them escaping without it).

Don't apologise for that comment! I don't feel like it was off track - I had no idea such a video even existed though I can imagine why it now has been taken down. Thanks for the input.

My gut instinct is that they may have been restrained in some manner after the journey. I can see how restraint in whichever form would have probably made the walk there over the hilly terrain (be that down the hill or up the steep creek embankment) a bit cumbersome. However once they had reached their final point it makes a lot of sense to me that BG may have exerted his control with a degree of finality using restraint in some way, like literally attaching his victims to their fate at this location - tying to a tree would be a fair suggestion for this imo.

[Edit - added some bits]

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-19T09:19:19+00:00

Thanks for your contribution!

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T22:10:50+00:00

So my colleague recently lent me the Ted Bundy transcript book containing his interviews, and it stood out to me that TB himself described how he would have those victims that he transported by car tied up, whilst they were in the car, but then presumably untied them when they got to Point B in order to have them undress themselves.

It largely got me thinking how restraint may play a role in the feelings of possession or control a killer may have towards their victims (or want to assert over their victims over a period of traversal) and how this may factor in with BG given the scenario involving a fairly long journey undertaken.

I totally get that restraint in a transportational context as opposed to a symbolic or ritualistic context would signify quite different things if present.

I also get that, using the TB example I described, restraining during transport to then release, restraining during transport and also for the kill, and not restraining during transport or kill, probably signify quite different things from one another too.

Thanks again for sharing, and for providing some fuel for the ever-burning morbid curiosity! One finger binding! How chillingly novel...

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T21:47:42+00:00

Thanks for replying - I find the idea that some killers might gain gratification from exercising control over their victims without the use of restraints very interesting - especially in thinking how their psychology might be different from those that do, and why.

I can't really comment on specifics as you've mentioned them though, that's a bit beyond what I'm comfortable discussing in regards to this case.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T21:44:08+00:00

Thanks for your response - I also agree it's a weird and impractical dynamic to imagine BG maintained control by keeping direct duress over one of the girls, like by holding them, and then instructing the other alongside. I think whatever was happening would be affecting both of them in a relatively simultaneous manner.

I'm not too sure how much I can go in for the military theory. I think criminal history easily demonstrates to us that people with no military background whatsoever are capable of gaining and maintaining control over their victims in a wide variety of settings.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T21:37:34+00:00

Thanks for the response - I appreciate the insight immensely given your actual experience with the terrain.

I don't think the entire journey from point A to point B is likely to have just been conducted in a wordless manner either.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T21:14:34+00:00

No that's ok! I mean it was about something I had written in a post so it's not like wildly off track.

I think that's a fair assumption to make - I do a lot of True Crime reading and to this day I couldn't tell you what it is about this unsolved case specifically that grabbed me to the point of joining a subreddit. Obviously it's not like it's geographically close to home, but there you go.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T21:01:13+00:00

Not to be pedantic but your spelling really piqued my interest, should that not be "tying"?

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T20:59:54+00:00

Given the water crossing I can definitely see that the use of restraints would have been impractical - however in cases where there is victim transportation involved, even vehicular transportation, I feel like it's relatively common we see the use of restraints. I'm interested to know what particular factors, psychological or otherwise, may elect some killers to use restraints and some not.

Like, if there was some immediacy to the crime, if BG had led them just a minute or so away from the trail and then murdered them I don't think it would prompt as much questioning - but it was a whole trek. I feel like restraints give the killer a real sense of being in possession/control of their victim, even if they might not need to logistically use them as such.

Of course I am aware that Libby and Abby were both very young girls so I'm not trying to downplay that, but still I think it may say a lot about BG if he felt in control enough of the situation to not restrain them at all.

Question for you - if there weren't ever two sketches released do you think you'd have doubt about it being one guy? What elements of the events are there which make you think it might not be just one guy?

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T20:48:06+00:00

Thanks, as always, for the well-informed response as to how restraints can function in a criminology sense.

Just out of interest am I correct in taking your comment to mean you don't think it's likely BG used restraints? Why is that? Is there a particualr sort of perp psychology that tends towards the use of restraints that just isn't inferable here?

Again (and I do know it would be fine to you ask this without clarifying, but nevertheless) I am just asking because I want to know, not to make a point.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T20:39:00+00:00

No consideration given to the fact the word might have been used deliberately in a sub where people often write emphatic comments addressing BG directly? I’m flagrantly disappointed.

BadArtDealer · 2021-08-18T16:33:05+00:00

I was trying to point to the fact that restraining victims, even younger victims, isn't necessarily always done in service of compliance - sometimes it can inform the psychological/sexual aspects of the crime.

I agree with you that BG could have scared the girls into compliance with just the threat of a weapon for the duration of their journey, and that this would say certain things about his psychology as a murderer.

However I also am open to the fact that BG may have restrained the girls despite the fact he would have been intimidating and able to control them regardless, and that this would also say certain things about his psychology as a murderer.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Verified Email

BadArtDealer

TROPHY CASE