Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 1:20:38 GMT
I actually looked into this a few weeks back just by cross referencing data. The whole story seemed a little too much like an urban legend and I was surprised to find that the attack on this man and his wife or girlfriend was actually mentioned in a couple places as being attack number 22, I believe. With this information, I looked into all the accounts I could of this attack and there was no mention in any book or newspaper article about the man being someone from any meeting. I cannot remember the details now, but I was pretty satisfied that if it was indeed number 22 or whatever number it is cited as being (I'll have to go back over my research materials to put the info back together and give exact numbers and links to the newspaper article(s) and page number from Sudden Terror), there was no hint whatsoever that this attack was different than the others, or linked to the meeting. I'm starting to think this is more coincidence or urban legend than actual fact.
I'm also starting to think that there was actually more than one EAR - there are just too many differences in some of the attacks for me to think its the same guy. We know that Sacramento had the misfortune of being preyed upon by plenty of sickos during that period and it seems likely that more than a couple of the EAR crimes (especially the early ones with lone female victims) were not committed by the same man who later attacked couples, then murdered people in Southern California. But that's for another thread.
You're right. I believe it was cited as being attack #21 in Del Dayo - I was off by one, and I stated quite clearly in my initial post that I wasn't quite sure if it was #22 or not. Now if it's earlier than this attack (#21) it would have had to have been one of the first four attacks on couples, since it was only attack #16 when EAR attacked his first couple and #17 was an attack on a lone female. So if it's not #21, and it certainly wasn't #16 (because that was the first one), then that would leave only three other attacks when this incident could have possibly occurred. Regardless, I went back and checked my research materials and I was mistaken about it being #22 - it was reported as being #21.
However, studying the online case files and newspaper articles of all these attacks (as well as the accounts in Sudden Terror) there is no actual information out there that proves this astonishing tale to be true other than people repeating the story over and over again, and you'd think there would be more information about this incident considering the implications. So the only proof that this actually happened is a cop saying it did in a documentary? And apparently another cop knows about this as well, and the story gets repeated over and over until it becomes written in stone. But I can find no corroborating information that this actually happened so I'll choose to not believe it in the mean time until someone can prove otherwise.
Other than a cop saying it happened, what proof is there that a man who stood up in a meeting and said what he was supposed to have said was then targeted in what one poster called a very "purposeful" attack by the EAR? Wouldn't the press have been rather eager to make this connection at some point over the years? Yet no where in any account of the attacks or in any timeline is a specific attack positively noted for being connected to a town hall meeting. Forgive my skepticism, but I need more than a cop saying "this happened," (and then people citing that cop over and over as "evidence") when this happens to be something quite remarkable. If anyone has any other evidence that proves this actually happened, I would be eager to see it.