Here is a draft of my map of some the most infamous U.S. serial killers. Mainly using newspaper clips from each assault, I’ve been able to track where each killer was and when.
The few difficulties that I have run into, however, include having trouble finding images for a few of the victims, as well as having differing amounts of information on each crimes. However, I think this map does a good job of demonstrating the flaws of geographic profiling.
What remains to be done:
Place the page on a wordpress site. This would both support the map, as well as provide some definitions and analysis of geographic profiling.
If possible, given timing, I’d like to add one more serial killer to the map. I’m currently considering John Wayne Gacy
a platform that creates and hosts civics-oriented games to promote student
interest in history and government. Some of the current games highlighted on
the website are related to law, the founding fathers, journalism and
immigration. The platform strives to be nonpartisan, in order to foster
conversations around current events in the classroom.
Wars, the user plays as a lawyer in front of the Supreme Court. As such, you
choose your position in cases, including Bond v. United States, Brown v. Board
of Education, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Miranda v. Arizona, and make arguments
that support your stance.
choose your character and position, you decide which amendment the case relates
to. In this example, I’ll be arguing the United States’ side of Bond v. United
States, an issue of states’ rights relating to the Tenth Amendment.
the game, each player makes arguments support their position. Each player has
certain cards, which either support an argument, or may be unrelated at all.
You can click on each card to read more about what the argument would entail and
dismiss cards that are unrelated or would support the other side instead.
Once you choose the proper card,
the judge rules on whether the argument is valid. If the judge wants to hear
more, you match tiles to connect the supporting evidence or arguments with the
point at hand. You are given three rounds to do so.
whenever the opposing player makes their argument, you can choose to object.
However, be careful when objecting! An incorrect objection can result in a reduction
results of the case depends on how many points you earn throughout the game.
Points are given for correct arguments and support of those arguments.
Argument Wars, and the icivics platform in general, seems like a great way to
teach students about civics and how the legal system works. Although it does
little to teach about the structure of the court system, each round of the game
presents the main concepts of a Supreme Court case. Additionally, by arguing in
favor of one side, users are taught critical thinking skills, as well as why
the case was controversial or important at the time that it was argued. By
being a game, students are provided with an interactive way to learn about
cases, which otherwise is usually done by writing a case brief.
Furthermore, the game cannot be easily won. The player must read through what the judge and opposing side says in order to choose their argument. I think that this is especially important in games for students. I remember playing math games in elementary school that were fun, but failed to connect the curriculum to the activity. In addition to the games, icivics has a section on their website that lays out lesson plans for teachers based around the games. The platform, which provides evidence and methodology on research about the games’ impact on students, seems to be both engaging and thoughtful.
Little Narration” is a transcript on digital archives and presentation by
Dragan Espenschied, who defines himself as an “electronic musician and internet
In the transcript, Espenschied discusses the differences between performance and activity, with performance being the thing that the computer does, and the activity being what the user does. However, somewhere between the two, Espenschied highlights that there can often be a disconnect. In demonstrating this, the author uses a visualization of a globe that shows users popular search terms from a certain location at a certain date (At least I think that’s what it does? There site is now down). The visualization is comparable to automated search terms or Google Maps. However, when users try to make sense of the information, such as by determining why a term was popular at a certain point in time, they are relying on pure assumption, which can lead to inaccuracies.
this, archivists and researchers have to have a method of organization to their
database. There has to be a purpose or a point to displaying information in the
way that they do, rather than just posting it (not doing so would be like
spreading physical artifacts on a table and telling visitors to figure it out).
By doing so, users are better able to draw the lines between the “performance”
and the “activity.”
important to acknowledge that the internet is constantly evolving. The way that
websites look, for example, are extremely different than what they looked like
10 years ago. As such, digital collections can be reorganized in order to
provide users with more information. Espenschied gives the example of Artbase,
which originally was a crowdsourced website where users could post their own
art. Now, it is heavily curated, with introductions and categories, which
provide users with more information and room for new interpretations. I assume,
that this also means that someone had to go back to earlier posts and
interesting point that the author brings up is whether updating or republishing
artifacts that are native to the internet is a threat to the authenticity of
the artifacts. For example, if an artist makes a graphic for Windows 5, is it
right for curators or archivists to republish the graphic for Windows 10, even
if Windows 5 no longer works for the art? Is it the responsibility of curators
to find a Windows 5 computer to display the art properly? What if the artist
does not have a say in the matter, but not doing so would risk the preservation
of the graphic? What about historians or researchers republishing the artifact
online for a new interpretation? Is that a threat to the artifact’s
Lastly, Espenschied emphasizes the importance of context in preservation. You can’t simply say “follow this link for more information,” because what if that link stops working? Something that I think is always important to consider is that you can never expect users to click on that link in the first place.
Anchor is a website and app that allows users to create, host and distribute podcasts. Unlike most apps of its type, Anchor offers unlimited free hosting, distribution to major platforms, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and monetization.
I personally use Anchor for The Eagle’s podcast “Beyond the Byline.” I’ll use our account to demo this, since we already have episodes uploaded (and it’s a chance to shamelessly self-promote).
Step 1: Making the Podcast
challenge that many face when making a podcast is the editing process. Although
there are free and fairly straightforward apps that make editing easier (see the
post on Audacity), it’s easy to feel overwhelmed.
recording and editing, go to the “New Episode” button in the top right corner of
your account. Here you’ll find four buttons: record, messages, library and
transitions. By navigating these options, you can start putting together the recordings,
sound effects and transitions that will eventually make up your episode.
who edit with another software, you can upload an already edited audio file by
dragging the file into the “Your Episode” space.
put the finishing touches on your episode, you’re ready to upload! Click “Save
Changes,” add a title, description and choose when you’d like to publish (now,
or at a later date and time).
Step 2: Distribution
thing about Anchor is that your podcast does not only have to live on Anchor.
Most podcast-listeners have a go-to platform, where they listen to podcasts. For
many, this is Spotify or Apple, but there are also plenty of podcast-specific
platforms, such as Podbean, Google Podcasts and Pocket Casts.
To get your
podcast on more platforms, go to your settings and scroll down to “Where your
podcast can be heard.” Once you’ve chosen to distribute your podcast, Anchor
will do all the work of connecting your episodes with other platforms. Usually the
first distribution takes a couple of days, since your account must be verified
once you’ve chosen to distribute, and you’ve gone through the process once,
every time you post a new episode to Anchor, your episode will be posted on all
platforms without you having to manually post.
Step 3: Monetization
honestly, monetizing a podcast is what I know the least about (The Eagle does
not monetize due to bureaucratic reasons), but here’s what my research shows:
To start monetizing
go to the “Money” section in your settings, the same way you did for
distribution. Here, you can enter a message to encourage listeners to donate to
also connect you with potential sponsorships. These are companies that would
advertise during your episode. You can decide who can advertise in your
episodes, where in the episode you’d like to place the ad and which episode
will have ads. You can also record the ads yourself to make them more
interesting to your listeners.
start monetizing, go to the “Money” tab at the top of the website. This is
where your wallet lives. It shows how much money you’ve made from your podcasts
and allows you to cash out whenever you’d like.
Step 4: Analytics
accumulated a few episodes and have given your audience some time to actually
listen, you can check out your analytics. Analytics are the first thing that
come up on your dashboard when you open Anchor.
give you a few ways to looks at how your podcast is doing, what’s working for
your audience and what’s not. On the page you can see the total plays, plays
per episode, plays over time, comparisons of downloads per episode and on what
platforms your audience is listening to your podcast.
with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes,” Netflix follows the footsteps of serial
killer Ted Bundy, both before and after his crimes. At one point in the series,
Bundy’s murders are shown on a map, demonstrating Bundy’s movements across the
country. In addition, the victims’ names, faces and locations are shown in
chronological order, alongside those who Bundy confessed to killing, but whose
names are unknown.
profiling is a forensic technique that examines the locations of a series of crimes
to determine the location of the criminal. The technique relies on the idea
that a criminal will commit crimes outside of the neighborhoods that they live
in, but close enough to allow for a quick escape. The theory also states that
murderers must know the area to be able to successfully commit their crimes. Bundy’s
murders demonstrate the exact opposite to this theory, which is a basis for a
common method of investigation.
project would examine the paths of several prominent serial killers in order to
explore whether geographic profiling is an accurate method of investigation.
Furthermore, it would provide a look into the psych of serial killers. Questions
to ask are: Do murderers feel comfortable committing crimes in the area that
they live? Is having a home base necessary to commit a crime? Does escaping
from an area or state allow murderers to evade conviction?
In the case
of Ted Bundy, travelling from state to state prevented investigators from tying
crimes to him, in part due to police officers’ lack of communication. Although
he faced charges in Colorado, during his escape from prison, he committed three
more murders in Florida. Even then, Florida officers did not think of Bundy as
a suspect until the time he was found.
Audience: For this project, the audience would be forensic scientists, psychologists and historians.
Existing Projects:Texas State University has a similar project examining crimes committed to Jack the Ripper. On their site, researchers provide a map of the murders. Unlike this project, I hope that mine will follow several killers on an interactive site.
Plan for Outreach and Publicity: This project could be shared by researchers and forensic scientists in the field. Additionally, social media, such as Twitter, could be used the share the final project, especially due to public interest in serial killers.
Evaluation Plan: Success of this project would be based on how possible it is to find and spread information. Finding the specific location of murders, as well as whether they are confirmed to be tied to a certain killer may be difficult. Furthermore, the project may overlook crimes that may have been committed by an individual, but never successfully attributed to them. However, once this information is found and presented as best as possible, success would be measured by the number of clicks and amount of time individuals spend interacting with the map.