moshimoshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
I think we're perhaps in danger of just rephrasing one another re VT & movement of people. I'm not sure his profession has much bearing however.I think the work he did was in the area of architectural programming. He specialized in the area of building use analysis, and would be able to use that knowledge to propose building design layouts that optimized time management and work flow. A simple example would be that every building needs washrooms. Their placement, in relation to other building functions (office space, lobby, stairwells, elevators), would be organized such that people time or people resources are optimized. That is, washrooms need to be located such that people can get in and out and back to work quickly.
How would that translate into getting away with murder? He would be good at analyzing people flow ... predicting commonly used paths and how to optimize variables. My guess, if someone like VT did this, he would have the forethought to analyze routes, and choose the route that least compromised his chances of getting away with it. I do not believe he would put a body in a bag in the front seat of his car and cross a bridge with 30 cameras ... unless he was completely out of his mind.
The cameras are just one consideration. There's only one other route I understand, so what he might have borne in mind is the possibility of being seen on either route. Unless you discount as impossible the likelihood of being seen on the second route, you would choose the one that you could explain being on. Even if that was the one with guaranteed observation from cameras. I mean, what if he took the other route and was caught on ANPR, traffic junction cameras, private cctv, commercial cctv, or remembered by a pedestrian or other motorist. What if he had no explanation for taking that route? That would be the end. But taking a route you had an explanation for taking, no problem.