Post by Agent99 aka Sandia on Jul 26, 2015 2:33:21 GMT
Here is a quote from Kona, a poster on this board, who lived next door to Glasby up the hill. I know who Kona is and he did live next door to Glasby; (Kona is too young to be the EAR) "the police dog who followed a scent up the creek to the back of the G's house, maybe it left the print"
I find that highly unlikely that LE would not notice the dog print and then call in a tracking dog and think the tracking dog's print was evidence BUT! I did not know that the tracking dog followed the scent up the creek to the back of Glasby's house! First of all a retired detective that I communicate with told me that she does not believe the department had tracking dogs back then. So could it be that the retired detective has a faulty memory? However, I've found her to have a great memory. Could this have just been gossip? Investigator Pool thinks the local sheriff at the time was too convinced it was Glasby that was the killer and I'm taking it that he was inferring without actually saying that he was trying to make the evidence fit Glasby? That last part is pure conjecture on my part.
Then I found this in my notes and I did not keep a reference from where it came, but I know it is something I read and was not told. Perhaps the Colleen Cason article? or some other news article I read.
"In 1981, neighbors saw a man and the dog running away from the Irvine home of a bludgeoning victim."
So that has to be from Manuella's. It seems I recall that it was early morning and the possibility is that it could have been a jogger out for morning exercise. I wish there were more details on this incident. What time? Was the jogger dressed as a jogger? Was he carrying something such as the things that were missing from Manuella's....the small crystal lamp for instance? Would the lamp have fit in a duffle bag? or a back pack? Did the jogger have a duffle bag? or a back pack? No paw prints or dog hair was reported found around Manuella's as far as I've ever heard but does that mean there was no dog?
I just do not agree with LE on dismissing the dog. I believe they are dismissing it for two reasons. Glasby has been cleared, and no dog reports have ever been reported in any other town other than Goleta. That does not seem sufficient to dismiss to me. It could indicate that he had relatives in Goleta although I doubt he would have used a relative's dog because the dog if caught could lead LE back to it's home.
Michelle McNamara says that Gene Tomas stating that he walked all around that area could explain the dog. No, Gene Tomas did not fit the description at all of the EAR/ONS.
In "Sudden Terror" pg. 446 "At 11:00 p.m. a mother and daughter were jogging in the area when they saw a white male standing on the sidewalk behind the Domingo residence. The man appeared to be in his twenties or early thirties, five foot ten inches tall, with neatly cut blond hair. The subject had a German Shepherd dog with him."
This description does fit with the EAR/ONS.
One of my favorite researchers on this board, Thejigisup, found a lot of activity in the local Goleta paper that I suspect strongly was the EAR/ONS.
Here is one: * A Berkeley Road resident reported that someone had been climbing into her backyard while she was at work and unleashing her German Shepherd early January 1980.
This might have been the EAR/ONS, actually I could bet money on it. The neighborhood! the year! Who else would do that? But why? Was it to make the dog friendly and she was a potential victim? Or was he taking the dog on walks as an excuse to be seen in the neighborhood? Notice it was a German Shepherd but the color is not mentioned nor does it mention if it had three toes. The dog of Gene Tomas was a Malamute/Shepherd mix.
I've always took the "red herring" reference to mean that ONS used the dog to appear as a dogwalker and/or as an excuse to leave the residence where he was staying, not that he brought the dog to crime scenes to intentionally throw off LE. I don't even know what the intent would be in the latter scenario.
zforce, No, when Inv. Pool said that to me it was understood by me to be in the context that LE no longer believes that the dog is connected. I have been told that now virtually no one in LE believes that the dog was connected and Michelle McNamara posted on this board why. But I do not agree with her because of the reasons I stated above. Gene Tomas cannot be the explanation for the sighting of the probable EAR/ONS standing behind Sanchez/Domingo at 11:00 p.m. with a German Shepherd because that person did fit the description. Also it doesn't explain why LE did think the dog was connected to O/M and now doesn't since nothing has changed.
Perhaps Inv. Pool should not have used the word red herring because I interpret the way he said that as not saying that EAR/ONS purposely used a dog as a red herring but rather that there was no dog or that if there was a dog it was not connected to the case.