Sophieness your correction was not actually a correction. Based upon the numbers you cited, males are killed more often by an individual of undetermined association, 37%, with acquaintance murders occurring second to that at 35%.
As far as my reference to volitle relationships, you presumed that I meant intimate relationships. The only quality I ascribed to this risk factor was a relationship of any making that had potentially violent characteristics. This is not limited to romantic relationships but can include all types of relationsips, i.e. familial, business, recreational, social, etc.
With regards to the fatalities caused by coconuts, the rebuttal provided didn't compare apples to apples. It didn't address the statistical occurrence of fatalities attributed to serial killers vs. that of fatalities cause by dropping coconuts.
Your reference to "40%" of murders go unsolved is likely correct. I've been in attendance at training conferences where studies have been presented that reflect that approximately only 17-42% of all crime (property and violent) are solved and successfully prosecuted. However, with that being said, better training of investigators and advancements in technology should gradually start to improve the successful closure rate.
And lastly, the fact that taxi cab drivers are at greatest risk for homicide doesn't correct anything that I put forth in my post. If you were demonstrating that wealth or monetary reasons for possible homicide were invalid based upon the murder rate by occupation, that also isn't quite reflective of what I was stating.
Taxi drivers typically will have cash on hand, their career is transient in nature, they travel to high risk areas, they can have passengers who may have a high level of dangerousness or criminality, and taxi drivers work at all hours of the day and night. All of these factors would put taxi drivers at an elevated risk for opportunistic crimes, including murder.
When factoring money as a possible motive for homicide, SK cannot be compared to a taxi driver because he didn't have all of these same risk factors. He didn't have much money and wouldn't be expected to be carrying around large sums of cash, he didn't travel to high crime areas, he wasn't providing services to a possible criminal population, and he didn't work at all hours of the day and night. The other consideration for money driven murder is if someone would have benefitted monetarily from SK's death, which there wasn't or at least doesn't appear to be.
I stand by my original evaluation and assertions, though I do appreciate your willingness to utilize other resources and statistics. Research is almost always fruitful and beneficial in some way. One of the greatest mistakes that I have observed is when people are quick to come to conclusions or presumptions rather than objectively and carefully considering what is actually presented.
