Gilgo Beach LISK Serial Killer, Rex Heuermann, charged with 3 murders, July 2023

[Izzylizzy]

<modsnip>
Yes. I have seen that piece. In the link you posted, from Newsweek, they have conveniently cropped off VH's explanation of this piece. She felt necessary to say that the piece was inspired (and it is in the style of) Francis Bacon. Probably because it's not her usual art style and it's not content she usually would explore.

What I and we all know about VH is that she went to art school. I did too. It is not uncommon for artists to explore mediums and content in the style of classic artists (Francis Bacon is one) as a way to expand your own style and expression. Its actually quite common for this to be an assignment while in art school. Artists will usually pick an artist diametrically opposed to what they are used to as a way to grow and expand - to get out of their comfort zone and box. If you look at what VH used to post online, like multiple cartoons of humanized foxes talking to each other, it makes sense.

Also, never forget - Art is subjective. Art critique is made up of what the viewer sees in the art and quite often not even close to what the artist is trying to convey - or not convey! I'm not surprised that the subject of art (not matter who's it is) is a hot topic - we all interpret it differently and we see what we want to see.

By being the daughter of an accused SK who is charged with torturing and mutilating 6 women to death it just so happens that VH was inspired by Bacon and enough so to paint her own image trying to reflect off of his style and then posts it is what I see as concerning.

Was it Bacon's life that also inspired her?

Of all the artists in the world it was Bacon.

 

[Ruminations]

yes, yes.
We do keep bringing this up on the threads, but with all the posts and pages, it gets "lost in translation" ha ha.

I don't know if it has been specifically been stated that they found such technology.... but I strongly believe he used something like Seri, or more modern versions. Audio translation tools have been around for decades, and they do misspell.

I don't think they do caps lock, do they?

Maybe if you ask them too.

I know you can set word processing programs' spell checkers to skip all caps words.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

<modsnip>
Yes. I have seen that piece. In the link you posted, from Newsweek, they have conveniently cropped off VH's explanation of this piece. She felt necessary to say that the piece was inspired (and it is in the style of) Francis Bacon. Probably because it's not her usual art style and it's not content she usually would explore.

What I and we all know about VH is that she went to art school. I did too. It is not uncommon for artists to explore mediums and content in the style of classic artists (Francis Bacon is one) as a way to expand your own style and expression. Its actually quite common for this to be an assignment while in art school. Artists will usually pick an artist diametrically opposed to what they are used to as a way to grow and expand - to get out of their comfort zone and box. If you look at what VH used to post online, like multiple cartoons of humanized foxes talking to each other, it makes sense.

Also, never forget - Art is subjective. Art critique is made up of what the viewer sees in the art and quite often not even close to what the artist is trying to convey - or not convey! I'm not surprised that the subject of art (not matter who's it is) is a hot topic - we all interpret it differently and we see what we want to see.

BBM:"Also, never forget - Art is subjective"


I see VH's "A Work in Progress" as quite clear and self-explanatory.
My question is whose identities could she be expressing in the mutilated female and the bloody male monster?

 

[iamshadow21]

I don't think RH is necessarily a bad speller. It's likely that the text was not written manually but rather using a dictation method, such as Apple's Siri or Google's Voice Typing, which resulted in some unusual spelling errors.

Impossible for it to be either of the named services. The document predates both by many, many years.

MOO

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I don't think they do caps lock, do they?

Maybe if you ask them too.

I know you can set word processing programs' spell checkers to skip all caps words.

MOO

I think there are lots of commands you can us while you dictate. It's been soooo long ago when I used one.

 

[Ursamajr]

By being the daughter of an accused SK who is charged with torturing and mutilating 6 women to death it just so happens that VH was inspired by Bacon and enough so to paint her own image trying to reflect off of his style and then posts it is what I see as concerning.

Was it Bacon's life that also inspired her?

Of all the artists in the world it was Bacon.

Hindsight makes a lot of things interesting, doesn't it?
Do you know if VH was assigned that artist? I don't but she could have been.
I know a lot of young artists gravitate to Bacon because he was "edgy". Not all of it but some of his art made the "non-art types" uncomfortable. I remember quite a few fans of his when I was in art school. My interests were piqued by Bacon. I hadn't seen anything like that before. I'm just saying here, as an artist myself, studying fine artists being interested in Bacon and knowing of Bacon is nothing of note. I'd be more concerned if an artist with a degree didn't know who Bacon was.

All that said, If Rex Heuermann is the only thing that makes Victoria's knowledge of/interest in Francis Bacon of note, then it's not about Victoria.

 

[Ursamajr]

BBM:
I see VH's "A Work in Progress" as quite clear and self-explanatory.
My question is whose identities could she be expressing in the mutilated female and the bloody male monster?

This is what YOU see. This says more about YOU than the artist. And thats okay! There is nothing wrong with that. That is the point of art.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Impossible for it to be either of the named services. The document predates both by many, many years.

MOO

When were his docs again???
I was thinking about Dragon, which I know we were using in early 90s.

 

[iamshadow21]

When were his docs again???
I was thinking about Dragon, which I know we were using in early 90s.

That would be fine, Siri is just WAY too late.

The document was created and revised in the early '00s.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

When were his docs again???
I was thinking about Dragon, which I know we were using in early 90s.

And maybe the misspelling came in later??' I am talking blind here....I personally did not take time to really study his misspellings
I was merely commenting on the possibility of speech recognition.
But honestly, the earlier the device the more misspelled !!!

 

[tricia]

SHORT VERSION. THE JOHN RAY PRESS CONFERENCE AND ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST V.H. ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO BE DISCUSSED.
Since we are going aaround in circles when it comes to discussing what John Ray said in his press conference we are no no longer allowing this topic to be discussed on the board. You can use our private messaging system, called "Conversation" and discuss privately with up to 20 other members. Your conversation tab is in the upper right hand corner.
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[Angela_Beckett]

yes, yes.
We do keep bringing this up on the threads, but with all the posts and pages, it gets "lost in translation" ha ha.

I don't know if it has been specifically been stated that they found such technology.... but I strongly believe he used something like Seri, or more modern versions. Audio translation tools have been around for decades, and they do misspell.

Agree with you. I had a Palm Pilot just like the one HR used and where they found the macabre lists. That little device was the latest in technology at the time, and it was possible to hand write in its touchscreen display using a small stylo. Then it was possible to converted it into text. Of course, the text recognition technology of that time was not what it is today, it required to write each character certain way for it to be interpreted correctly. That’s why It was rather common to come across misspelled or changed words
Pretty sure said conversion caused the disorganizizing thing

 

[Just K]

Also within the CNN article:

The bail application highlights that two different forensic laboratories determined hairs recovered on five of the six charged victims were tied to Heuermann, members of his immediate family or to people he lived with, according to the document.

What am I forgetting here????? Just the step-son or someone else???

I believe they are referring to Witness#3’s hair found with Jessica. The assumption is Witness 3 was his first wife, ER. Then there is still an unidentified hair on Sandra Castillo.

 

[Sciurida]

That would be fine, Siri is just WAY too late.

The document was created and revised in the early '00s.

Apple's Siri and Google's Voice Typing were just examples to give an idea.

 

[fred&edna]

Apple's Siri and Google's Voice Typing were just examples to give an idea.

That's the way I understood your post... as examples. And, it was a good first post!

jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

thanks. Geez, I really did miss the first wife!!!

She hasn't been identified as his first wife, but that's the assumption based on when RH was married to his first wife. Witness 3 surfaced during the last superseding bail application.

 

[sunspun]

I recall seeing a recent interview with two people who worked with RH previously, and one of them stated RH was not prone to misspelling words, particularly in documents (associated with his work). She suggested he had used some sort of speech to text just as you mentioned. I believe this is the correct link to that interview:

Welcome to WS

Well, to me, that makes no sense. I watched the video. I heard his former employee say he can spell, he wouldn't write anything like this, and it was a speech-to-text or other software that made it come out so bad.

No software (spellchecker, speech-to-text, speech recognition, etc.) is going to end up with this many spelling errors that are this bad! IMO. If you're talking out a text, and software is "typing" it out, if it doesn't recognize a word you have said, it won't output a non-word or a jumble of letters that aren't any real word. It will do its best and put a REAL word that is the closest it comes up with to what you said, and the real word will not be misspelled. It won't even use a phonetically-spelled non-word, but even if it did, that would mean RH THOROUGHLY MISPRONOUNCED the words we see that are misspelled. I do NOT think he pronounced disorganized as "disoriginizazized" or however he mangled that word! But even if he did pronounce it like that (impossible, imo) as I said, the software wouldn't take what he said and output a phonetically-spelled non-word that is its best representation of the word he said. In fact, if he said it like that, it would probably just put "disorganized". But he wasn't badly mispronouncing his words anyway imo, so that's moot.

It seems obvious to me that he was NOT using speech-to-text, as this former employee of his thinks. I see no way that that would produce a text that looks like this one, with all the misspellings and non-words that it has in it. I think if she thought about it, she would agree too. They just don't work like that, and they didn't even way back then. She was so sure of herself too that he could never have written this doc in this way that we're seeing it, so I think it's obvious she just didn't think that opinion through enough!

So I don't agree with her that it looks like such a mess due to him using speech recognition software or anything like that. I don't think, as she does, that it's the fault of ANY software at all. Because even if he was typing it in himself, not speaking it, and he misspelled it even that badly, spellcheck or autocorrect-type software would look for a REAL word that is closest to whatever he typed, and would either suggest that as a correction, or autocorrect it to a REAL correctly-spelled word. It may give the WRONG word, but it will be a correctly-spelled recognizable word, not a misspelled word. Not a non-word. And there are a lot of non-words in this document.

I think it's obvious that what that means is that he really was this bad of a speller, at least when writing something where spelling didn't matter! Something that either was unimportant or trivial, say like a shopping list, or something that only he would be reading, like (he hoped) this document. He might very well have known the correct spelling of the word "plastic" and "evidence", for example, but when he typed in "platic" and "evindice", he just left it because that was good enough. He knew what he meant. And so do we, in fact!

I think it just shows that at work, he used spellcheck and/or other editing software for documents that mattered, things people other than him would be reading. Or perhaps, he did manage without software help, by just taking his time, checking his work, correcting errors, and editing so that mistakes were minimal so that others would have no problem when reading it. And so that he looked professional. Which is all this lady in the video must have ever seen. Nothing she'd seen him do at work had these kinds of misspellings and so many of them! So that made her say he doesn't write like this, he can spell better than this, it must have been software making these errors. Which I think is dumb. No software will leave these errors unless you have turned it off! Or changed your settings so that it doesn't correct things, which would make the software useless. And certainly no speech-to-text software will take something you SAY and output something like "dumster" or "tourture" or "originanized"! Which is what she said had happened. That's why I said that was a dumb thing to say and that she must not have given that enough thought before she said it. I think he just made sure it looked right when it mattered, and that's all she ever saw. Until she saw this "kill planner" thing. Where the errors didn't matter. IMO.

 

[Onlyguessing23]

Hi all. I wanted to post a few random thoughts that I’ve collected after reading along for a while, for what they’re worth:
1. People sometimes shave their sideburns if they wear wigs, perhaps as part of a more feminine getup for the evening, for example…
2. In my experience, spoken-to-written language apps may choose a Wrong word from a glossary/dictionary of available words, but will not choose a misspelled word.
3. In general, just having a social media account in someone’s name does not necessarily mean that’s the person who set up the account or accesses the account (unless it was clear that biometrics were used - and I have not seen this in the available information).

 

[fred&edna]

Well, to me, that makes no sense. I watched the video. I heard his former employee say he can spell, he wouldn't write anything like this, and it was a speech-to-text or other software that made it come out so bad.

No software (spellchecker, speech-to-text, speech recognition, etc.) is going to end up with this many spelling errors that are this bad! IMO. If you're talking out a text, and software is "typing" it out, if it doesn't recognize a word you have said, it won't output a non-word or a jumble of letters that aren't any real word. It will do its best and put a REAL word that is the closest it comes up with to what you said, and the real word will not be misspelled. It won't even use a phonetically-spelled non-word, but even if it did, that would mean RH THOROUGHLY MISPRONOUNCED the words we see that are misspelled. I do NOT think he pronounced disorganized as "disoriginizazized" or however he mangled that word! But even if he did pronounce it like that (impossible, imo) as I said, the software wouldn't take what he said and output a phonetically-spelled non-word that is its best representation of the word he said. In fact, if he said it like that, it would probably just put "disorganized". But he wasn't badly mispronouncing his words anyway imo, so that's moot.

It seems obvious to me that he was NOT using speech-to-text, as this former employee of his thinks. I see no way that that would produce a text that looks like this one, with all the misspellings and non-words that it has in it. I think if she thought about it, she would agree too. They just don't work like that, and they didn't even way back then. She was so sure of herself too that he could never have written this doc in this way that we're seeing it, so I think it's obvious she just didn't think that opinion through enough!

So I don't agree with her that it looks like such a mess due to him using speech recognition software or anything like that. I don't think, as she does, that it's the fault of ANY software at all. Because even if he was typing it in himself, not speaking it, and he misspelled it even that badly, spellcheck or autocorrect-type software would look for a REAL word that is closest to whatever he typed, and would either suggest that as a correction, or autocorrect it to a REAL correctly-spelled word. It may give the WRONG word, but it will be a correctly-spelled recognizable word, not a misspelled word. Not a non-word. And there are a lot of non-words in this document.

I think it's obvious that what that means is that he really was this bad of a speller, at least when writing something where spelling didn't matter! Something that either was unimportant or trivial, say like a shopping list, or something that only he would be reading, like (he hoped) this document. He might very well have known the correct spelling of the word "plastic" and "evidence", for example, but when he typed in "platic" and "evindice", he just left it because that was good enough. He knew what he meant. And so do we, in fact!

I think it just shows that at work, he used spellcheck and/or other editing software for documents that mattered, things people other than him would be reading. Or perhaps, he did manage without software help, by just taking his time, checking his work, correcting errors, and editing so that mistakes were minimal so that others would have no problem when reading it. And so that he looked professional. Which is all this lady in the video must have ever seen. Nothing she'd seen him do at work had these kinds of misspellings and so many of them! So that made her say he doesn't write like this, he can spell better than this, it must have been software making these errors. Which I think is dumb. No software will leave these errors unless you have turned it off! Or changed your settings so that it doesn't correct things, which would make the software useless. And certainly no speech-to-text software will take something you SAY and output something like "dumster" or "tourture" or "originanized"! Which is what she said had happened. That's why I said that was a dumb thing to say and that she must not have given that enough thought before she said it. I think he just made sure it looked right when it mattered, and that's all she ever saw. Until she saw this "kill planner" thing. Where the errors didn't matter. IMO.

You could be correct. Your explanation sounds plausible to me.

On a legal note... maybe his attorney will suggest he suffered a disorder similar to Jekyll/Hyde dual-personality and Mr Hyde wrote the evil misspelled documents? Assuming such a disorder does exist. Or maybe the defense will argue RH couldn't have written the documents with misspelled words because he's fastidious?

jmo

 

[sunspun]

Agree with you. I had a Palm Pilot just like the one HR used and where they found the macabre lists. That little device was the latest in technology at the time, and it was possible to hand write in its touchscreen display using a small stylo. Then it was possible to converted it into text. Of course, the text recognition technology of that time was not what it is today, it required to write each character certain way for it to be interpreted correctly. That’s why It was rather common to come across misspelled or changed words
Pretty sure said conversion caused the disorganizizing thing

Now here is one possible exception to what I was saying about software not outputting misspelled words. In this example, it's not speech-to-text or talk-to-type, but instead you write it on the screen yourself using a stylo, and the software prints out what you wrote in typed form. So it just prints out what it sees. In this example, it makes no effort to ensure it prints out a correctly-spelled word or any real recognizable word at all. Just whatever it looks like you wrote.

But if he were using this software, then it means he still misspelled all these words, and the software just put in what he wrote, misspellings and all. Either he misspelled them all (some horrendously), or his writing is very hard (for the software) to read. Or a combination of both. I think it means his handwriting is somewhat illegible, and he can't spell worth a darn (at least not on his first try.) (And he didn't give it a 2nd or 3rd or more try.) (Because in this document, it didn't matter to him.)