Calling all victims! (John from Ione Call)
Sept 25, 2014 17:40:27 GMT
jigisup, tmacchallenger, and 2 more like this
Post by Agent99 aka Sandia on Sept 25, 2014 17:40:27 GMT
This thread is giving me a headache.
First, John in Ione could very well be the EAR/ONS. Then he couldn't be because some local fireman verifies John's shootout story. Then we move to a discussion about Ted Kisslkdfjlsdjlsdjflsjdl; oh no, not that topic again. And intermingled in all of this is a discussion about speech accents.
*sigh*
Sandia, you have done an exemplary job in research. But where has your research led us? What is the current status of this "John in Ione".
Is he still on the EAR/ONS radar? Or not?
Sandia, in the future, let's do research first ... then ... make conclusions, based on that research. Not the other way around as in this thread, where you draw the most provocative conclusions imaginable, only to retract them with a little research.
So, if you would be so kind, Sandia, please restate your final (is it really final?) conclusion about "John from Ione".
And please, posters, let's not get sidetracked on discussions of accents, or Ted whats-his-name.
Drifter
Jane Carson Sandler was a guest on a radio show and John called into the show.
1)At first I was one of serveral posters that thought he sounded too young.
(further in the discussion a poster pointed out that he can't be that young if he attended the subsequent trial that would have probably been in 1979 or 1980) -- again we have not been able to find a court record of such trial and I live in Santa Barbara county so perhaps another poster that has interest in this is going to follow up on that.
2) the caller got his own name wrong IF he was the EAR by calling himself the East Side Rapist
(another caller stated that the EAR was known to call himself the East Side Rapist on occasion -- I have to take his word at that because I didn't know that),
3) that I doubt the rapist would speak so long, which is still something I believe.
(But then the discussion led to that he was a known caller. His M.O. was lots of hang up calls and crank calls, and then we have the 3 recorded calls and other calls that we have not heard "It's me again" etc. He called and taunted the police and victims after the crimes. He wrote a poem, he may have written the Afraid letter to the police. He was a caller!)
4) Why would the EAR/ONS say he was killed in 1979 or 1980 when we all know he wasn't and if the EAR/ONS wanted us to think he is dead then why would he say that.
Then as the discussion progressed holes in his story were coming out and things that didn't seem to make sense,
1) first he said the map was under the motorcyclist's seat.
(But when questioned by the host he started getting flustered and said the map was found in the house and it seemed he indicated it was found by the "family of the DEFENDANTS" who were leaving no stone unturned to defend their relatives.
But how would the family of the DEFENDANTS be in the house of the victim? They were not the relatives of the victim
NEXT: F1guyus said "listen to the voice on the Is Ray There Call" When I heard that call, I felt it was the same voice.
(Many on the board were adding in that the voices sounded alike, where other said they did not think it did ....we were discussing this Drifter...discussion board!)
Relentless did a side by side comparison. Excellent work by her as usual.
I should do more research? I should know the answer and be able to discuss things as they arise enlisting the aid of other posters? I do believe I have done quite a bit of research. Here are the pro's and cons of each bit of research:
1) I called the radio show (the assistant said he did NOT leave his phone number as he stated on the show "would you like me to leave my phone number if you want to do any followup? and the host said yes and said I will pass you to "my assistant".
I talked to "the assistant" and she stated he did NOT leave his phone number but hung up. This makes him seem very suspicious and disingenuous
(I would ordinarily take her word for that but should I? In a matter this important? This is a rather hot lead. Was she just was busy and didn't want to bother? didn't have time to look it up, or didn't recall, or didn't want to say she threw the number away, or didn't want me to pressure her into giving me the number -- I would not have, all I want to know is if he was sincere or disingenuous.
2) I called the local, Ione, police department.
(The woman who answered the phone stated she was working there in 1979 and recalls no such incident.)
I called the downtown Ione fire department. The fireman would not answer the question, stated I had to call city hall and be transferred to the Chief's number.
I called the city hall, was transferred, and had to leave a message. I did so twice.
(The Chief has yet to call me back)
I called the assistant chief, no luck.
I called the Amador County newspaper. I spoke to the editor. He said nobody there worked at the paper during those years. He had not heard of the incident but he is not in Ione. It is a paper that covers the whole county though.
I called the Amador County Sheriff's office. The clerk looked up 1980 and there were no killings in Ione in 1980. She said she could not state that for 1979 because of how the records were kept.
She gave me the extension of a detective. I left him a message. I told him I was interested in a cold case in Ione and involving Sacramento too.
(No call back from the detective)
I called the sheriff's department again and asked for a different detective. Was connected to his voice mail, left a message.
(No call back from that detective either)
I called two local bars. One person said he was in Ione since 1965 and didn't recall that.
The second bar, the young woman who answered didn't know about it but said to call back in a few hours when some old timers might be in the bar and could possibly help. (I have not called back)
I called a fire department a few miles out of Ione and the chief was not in but the fire man who happened to answer the phone said he heard all about the legend. He proceeded to tell me there was a shoot out, the men on trial, acquitted, map with rapes, rapes stopped after killings (as far as locals knew they did not know he went on to become the ONS) urban legend was that the EAR was the one that was killed
There, that backed up John from Ione's story. He was not lying about the urban legend.
So why all the inconsistencies?
My conclusion is that he was reporting the urban legend and was filling in the gaps with what he had heard or surmised and that could lead to his not actually knowing where the map was found for instance.
Now this is a discussion board. We all were discussing and offering opionions.
I am really not happy having to go through this consuming trouble of restating what I already put up on the board. I am very busy at the moment. I feel really attacked by you and also in another thread, I felt belittled by you by stating "I have quite an imagination." I don't think my logical discussion of the pro's con's, theories/facts is my imagination. I am feeling very demoralized right now. We are not fighting, arguing, we are discussing the pro's and con's of what could have been a very hot lead. The only part where I am feeling animosity is this being chastised by you and my defending myself. This is upsetting.
Some people want to still pursue it. I am feeling somewhat satisfied that another local, a fireman, stated that yes there is an urban legend indicating that John was telling the truth.
I'll leave it up to others to decide what they think.
I think this whole thing is what this board is about. This could have broken this case wide open if it turns out that John was the EAR/ONS. His phone might have been able to be traced. If not we would have had a much better and longer voice recording and have the knowledge that he is alive.