was followed from the classroom or that the robber knew his schedule. Furthermore, Rosenbloom did not teach at UIC and was robbed after leaving his car with a mechanic. No evidence was presented that defendant knew his profession. Both victims were white males, but this is hardly a unique feature of the crime that earmarks it as the work of a single offender. Similarly, there is nothing unique about the location in which the crime occurred. Van Burén is a busy thoroughfare and it is not improbable that two robberies would occur within days of one another near that street. The location and choice of victim in this case do not sufficiently earmark these crimes as the handiwork of one individual. See Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d at 257; but cf. People v. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d 53, 65-66 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The similarities the State identifies between
holding that prior con victions are not related simply because the crimes used the same modus operandi were part of a crime spree or shared the same motive holding that rule 404b evidence is probative of intent only when the prior acts were part of the same scheme or involved a similar modus operandi as the present offense holding other crimes evidence was properly admitted to establish modus operandi when the defendant attacked older women as they exited their garages in the same area of chicago holding that admission of testimony which denominated appellants modus operandi in previously uncharged and charged crimes was not clearly erroneous holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless