New Book...Shelby

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2014 15:29:28 GMT drdoogie said:

Let's look at what Shelby said and place it in context:

"Remember that Janelle was an emotionally disturbed young woman who was committed for short periods to two hospitals. Her story about this former marine went from being raped, to being groped, to him groping himself."

I see this as Shelby evaluating a witness's reliability when it comes to details, not questioning whether an assault or some other sort of crime occurred. Every investigator needs to make this determination about a witness. He in no way saying "Janelle made it up", but is reporting that she told three different stories and offers his opinion as to why these variances occurrred. He is merely stating why he, as an investigator, doesn't believe that Marine lead has any relevence to EAR/ONS.

No. Don't gloss over that Shelby is misleading and victim shaming.

Again, because it's important:

He's not letting you know her response is very normal after a sexual assault and expected; even more so for a non-adult. It happened in EAR cases, too. He's not telling you about how she was harassed, intimidated, shamed, threatened, and told that she better not say the Marine raped her. He's not telling you about the Marine's family member's claim that he admitted to what amounted to a sexual assault. He's not telling you about whether there were claims by others about the Marine and his situation.

He's centering it on Janelle at fault. He's faulting Janelle for being emotionally troubled and hospitalized, but misleading by not telling you those hospitalizations were after what happened with the Marine.  His response is an arrogant and misogynistic response of victim blaming, which is a primary reason rape victims either don't report or don't follow through with LE. It is also along the same lines of what psychologists say EAR/ONS was doing - blaming the victim.

He's making it sound like he did something great by arranging for a DEA agent to get the Marine's DNA in another state, only to have the DEA agent back out of the arrangement. He's not telling you there was a much easier solution to checking for familial DNA at the least right there in OC with the Marine's identical twin brother.

He's not telling you that his and Oase's investigation of the Marine and Janelle was almost 30 years later. If the OC cold case detectives had thoroughly investigated for years like has been claimed by some, her allegations against the Marine and subsequent threats should have been known long ago by LE. Stopping at the Marine and his brothers is not a very thorough investigation anyway.

Shelby and Oase do not have a good track record in this case. EAR offended the most in Shelby's jurisdiction/one of the same jurisdictions in which Oase was and is involved, too. His misleading info along with his response is the typical info provided by some LE that gives a misleading picture of events and the investigations. Those same LE are often the source to other LE for info about the case, suspects, or victims and can be misleading or false, but the other LE will use that info regardless to base the avenue of their own investigations or clearings.

Some people will accept whatever some LE claim at face value (their words) without giving it any critical thought or checking that info. Sometimes, even when it is glaringly inaccurate info, some people will vehemently defend the info as accurate, simply because it came from LE and it suits what their agenda is.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2014 13:01:53 GMT portofleith said:

Oct 1, 2014 11:18:05 GMT @privatecitizen said:

Not true. There was quite the discussion on the old board by a "senior poster" whom claimed that Det. McGowen had arranged in 1976 to have the date on a VR suspect sketch to be altered/backdated to 1975 to fit his circumstances - that he also arranged the sketch to look like the suspect he already had. None of that was true.

There have also been so many claims that were adamantly defended and used that Det. McGowen said that the VR was just a kid and then he later came up with his VR suspect being a much older guy. Again, that was a twisting of facts and not true.

Claims that his VR suspect was not in records or on his list of suspects until 1977. That is not true and ironically conflicts anyway with the previous claims that he had a sketch in 1976 backdated to 1975 lol.

Claims that his suspect came under suspicion due to a tip from his ex-wife. That is not true.

Claims that McGowen changed whom his VR suspect was late in life. That is not true.  

Claims that his suspect was in SB and not available for the crimes in Visalia in which he was a suspect. That is not true.

Claims that McGowen thought one person did all of the ransackings on the lists posted on forums, his shooting, and the murder of Prof. Snelling. That is not true.

Claims that his description of his suspect didn't fit his suspect. That was not true and based on the erroneous assumption that he thought one person was responsible for all the crimes.

Those are just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more.

I have never said McGowen didn't have a 'list of POIs' - all of the Visalia LE that I'm aware of had lists of POIs they were assigned to investigate. It was very clear in his records, other LEO's records, and then active LE records that he and other LE had certain personal suspects emerge that they suspected for particular crimes. That was also claimed by senior posters for years and one person was referred to by them as "McGowen's suspect" despite the list he had of POIs he was responsible for investigating.

I have posted before that EAR likely would have been given a light sentence if he had been prosecuted for some of the rapes in the Sac area. People have speculated that may have played into the rumors in Sac and Stockton about LE knowing whom EAR was and letting him go.

A lot of info was given to LE by those you refer to as the conspiracy theorists and who you erroneously claim haven't given it to LE or done anything with the info.

I have repeatedly said I don't think the Marine is EAR/ONS, but that there may be a connection there and it's worthy of investigating outward from her rape allegations against the Marine.

There have been many not so nice claims by some "senior posters" about certain LEOs, including Shelby and how he had been working on a book for years. So why attempt to make it appear that "the conspiracy theorists" are at fault for speaking up and calling into question Shelby and his book?

There have been so many good LEOs that have been involved in this case. That doesn't mean that a few bad ones or a few higher up the chain can't cause significant and persistent problems and can't override the work of those good ones. It's a shame.

I think it's fabulous that some erroneous, but significant info about this case is coming to light and more people are exploring and researching what is claimed instead of just accepting what they have been told. The previous forums have tended to not be "open" forums and it seems like a huge attempt has been made to do the same here by a handful. There have been obvious and frantic efforts to discredit or oust people claiming anything but the then status quo of how great things are going with this case and that it is being investigated well and properly. Doing so isn't attempting to have an open forum - it's attempting to censor and have all who want to actively post in the forum toe the line of certain posters.

There were attempts to rationally discuss issues of false or misleading info both on and off the main forum and it vehemently split into factions; and it wasn't the case conspiracy theorists initiating that split.

PC- I agree with you about erroneous information coming to light.

It  is funny that I have never seen even a remote resemblance to Mr. Y in any of the composites coming out of Visalia.

Not only that, when Mr. Y was presented to me as a poi,I very quickly found something that made him not viable and I have never looked back on that one.  I still keep that information in my files, as a lesson to me to do my own research and to follow where that leads and it is  often to surprising places. 

However, all of the ransacker comps look like the same person to me.  No one has ever posted a Ransacker comp that looks like a different person in my opinion, so I do not have a clue what you are talking about.  Do you have a comp that is different, because I see the same lips, cleft chin, almond eyes and nose.

Port, I have said that, imo, there is a strong resemblance with Ransacker composite #1 with one of the VR suspects (not Mr. Y) and that there is some resemblance to two of the VR suspects with the Ransacker Composite #2.

It was a "senior poster" that claimed the Ransacker #2 composite was the spitting image of Mr. Y, not me, and I don't agree with it being the spitting image of him. He claimed that Det. McGowen had that composite backdated to 1975 instead of 1976 to fit "his primary suspect." That poster also claimed that he had never seen a better fit than Mr. Y. for being VR/EAR/ONS.

You never spoke up to refute any of those things claimed by that senior poster.

[dengas]

Speaking ill of the deceased comes from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when the nurse is praising Tibult in grand terms. When in actual, Tibult was a troublemaker. I loved teaching R/J and miss the annual reading!

I could have edited Shelby's comment out, but I don't think censuring each other is a good for the board discussion. There are times I don't like what others say about my posts..."...makes me want to puke is just one example. " But, oh well. To each their own personality. As far as I was concerned, the comment was spiteful and it made me feel bad.

As far as which side of LE I am on...I have repeatedly questioned information that I got from Cody W. Here in Visalia, and as far as Salazar and Diaz...I think they were honestly doing what they could...up until the election and the changing of the guard. I think I know Russ well enough to know for certain that he would never ever be involved in any sort of coverup,, and Shelby will admit that he wasn't on the side of administration.

A couple of things have been posted that I will ask Russ and Shelby about. Like, was Russ involved in the EAR in an official capacity? I was under the assumption that his involvement was as a layperson. And, I know that Shelby isn't well-versed as far as VR, only EAR, so why would we expect him to know all about the ONS. Maybe he does...I just don't know, so I will ask him.

As far as buying/reading his book, I think the benefit will be understanding what it was like to be an investigator back in the 70's. LIFE WAS SO DIFFERENT BACK THEN. I made a call to a hot line, giving my current POI's name, simply because the guy was living as a hermit, in an abandoned house that some friends bought, and on the initial tour, before he moved out, there was a cardboard suitcase filled with odd pieces of jewelry. I think the call was made in 1975, a year after I saw the suitcase. Did LE do ANYTHING with that call? I doubt it, and now that I realize how his family was upper crust, big wigs...there may have been a way to easily excuse him as a POI.

There are those of us who remember and those who are learning about life in the 70's. Don't, even for a minute, think that either Russ or Shelby have lost their thinking capacity. .

I am NOT AMAZED that the VR got away with over 100 ransackings, but I am amazed that he got away with murder and continued to stalk in the Dollner/Kaweah area; so much so that they set up a stake out and he got away again. That is I simply incredulous.

My beliefs about LE are that with the OVERLOAD of gang activity I. CA, they simply don't have the resources. Maybe it is time they ask for help from us, who would gladly volunteer, for help.

[albion]

Oct 1, 2014 15:29:28 GMT drdoogie said:

Let's look at what Shelby said and place it in context:

"Remember that Janelle was an emotionally disturbed young woman who was committed for short periods to two hospitals. Her story about this former marine went from being raped, to being groped, to him groping himself."

I see this as Shelby evaluating a witness's reliability when it comes to details, not questioning whether an assault or some other sort of crime occurred. Every investigator needs to make this determination about a witness. He in no way saying "Janelle made it up", but is reporting that she told three different stories and offers his opinion as to why these variances occurrred. He is merely stating why he, as an investigator, doesn't believe that Marine lead has any relevence to EAR/ONS.

Wasn't Janelle a victim? By the time Shelby became involved Janelle was dead. Why would he have been evaluating her reliability as a witness?

Regardless of what story was true, the accusations had been made. And because of her death we will never be able to find out the truth. Please don't forget that the connection to the earons wasn't made until 2001. Why wasn't this pursued in detail and in depth, and to the satisfaction of the family, prior to Shelby's involvement as a private investigator, who in his own words did not have access to police records? It doesn't matter what actually happened between the marine and Janelle, as far as the earons investigation. Only that she was considering bringing charges and then she was murdered. Its ironic how much info Shelby and the IPD have produced on Janelle's emotional troubles and I haven't read a damn thing about the marine and his family posted on this board. Have any other alleged rapes been attributed to this marine? Who bought the alcohol that they were drinking that night? Was he a control freak? Were the daughters promiscuous? Did they do drugs? Did he escape justice for his alleged crimes against Janelle? Was Janelle the only one?

With all the BS that David Withuhn went through after Manuella's murder, and he had an alibi, the IPD couldn't muster the strength and determination to follow up on the marine and his family? Wasn't David harassed and accused for the rest of his life? Did he even have the hint of motive? And yet the Marine gets a free pass. Moves out of the state. Doesn't even get his DNA tested?

It doesn't matter if he raped her or not, only that Janelle said he did. Even if she did have emotional troubles, it doesn't take away from her rights as a citizen. She should have had the opportunity to present her side of the case in court. But she didn't. Because she was murdered.

[dengas]

What would be the response, on the board, if we were to learn that the girls were promiscuous? I refer to recent comments about speaking Ill of the deceased. It am NOT SUGGESTING that they were, but would we want it shared if they were? We can't have it both ways.

[drdoogie]

The question of the credibility of Janelle's claims is a valid line of investigation in relation to any possibility that the rape was connected to her later murder.  But remember, Shelby is looking for GSK, not necessarily the perp in an earlier rape.  If he feels that the two events are unrelated and he bases the that partially on Janelle's conflicting reports of the rape, then his statement about Janelle's mental issues makes sense.  He is not "blaming the victim" for either event, but is not sticking his head in the sand either when making evaluations based on available info.  You may disagree with his conclusion, but to assign malicious intent to his statement seems to be based on facts not in evidence.

Let me use an example for comparison:  the late Kathleen Johns made the claim that she and her child was abducted by the Zodiac Killer.  I do believe that she and her baby were abducted by some nutcase, but John's mental instability and constantly changing stories make me believe that her identification of the perp as Zodiac sketchy at best.  As a result, I do not use any info about her claims in my investigation into the Zodiac crimes.  I don't "blame the victim" for what happened to her, but I do consider all the factors, including her mental issues, when considering the validity of her claims in relation to the Zodiac case.  I merely see Shelby doing the same thing above.

[albion]

Oct 1, 2014 19:32:18 GMT dengas said:

What would be the response, on the board, if we were to learn that the girls were promiscuous? I refer to recent comments about speaking Ill of the deceased. It am NOT SUGGESTING that they were, but would we want it shared if they were? We can't have it both ways.

I am sorry Dengas. That was meant to be a small part of my post. Just a subpoint to emphasize that it seems LE knows nothing about the marine's family compared to the BS that has been posted about Janelle. It seems people have been interested in her promiscuity, so why not ask those questions of those around her? If one of her friends had some bad habits that she dragged Janelle into, wouldn't that be important? If one of her friends had access to drugs and a bad crowd of people, wouldn't that be important? Wouldn't it be even more important if one of her enemies had access to a bad crowd of people? I think so.

Why is Shelby so satisfied that IPD and OCSD did such a good job of investigating Janelle's murder when he doesn't even have access to their files? Did Officer Jerry have access to their files? Shouldn't Shelby be the least bit interested in Officer Jerry?

This is the connection....Janelle who was murdered. The marine's daughters who had motive against Janelle and connection to Kenji Gallo. Kenji Gallo, who wrote a book describing his violent crimes and his illegal connection to a crooked IPD officer, SWAT member, and trainee of Quantico.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2014 20:02:04 GMT drdoogie said:

The question of the credibility of Janelle's claims is a valid line of investigation in relation to any possibility that the rape was connected to her later murder.  But remember, Shelby is looking for GSK, not necessarily the perp in an earlier rape.  If he feels that the two events are unrelated and he bases the that partially on Janelle's conflicting reports of the rape, then his statement about Janelle's mental issues makes sense.  He is not "blaming the victim" for either event, but is not sticking his head in the sand either when making evaluations based on available info.  You may disagree with his conclusion, but to assign malicious intent to his statement seems to be based on facts not in evidence.

Let me use an example for comparison:  the late Kathleen Johns made the claim that she and her child was abducted by the Zodiac Killer.  I do believe that she and her baby were abducted by some nutcase, but John's mental instability and constantly changing stories make me believe that her identification of the perp as Zodiac sketchy at best.  As a result, I do not use any info about her claims in my investigation into the Zodiac crimes.  I don't "blame the victim" for what happened to her, but I do consider all the factors, including her mental issues, when considering the validity of her claims in relation to the Zodiac case.  I merely see Shelby doing the same thing above.

Janelle wasn't there for him to do a good job of determining her reliability. However, his reasons that she had emotional problems and was hospitalized after her alleged rape, means that she was unreliable and her claim was never credible? No, it doesn't. Nor does her changing her story at times as relayed by people who knew her, because that is a very common thing for a victim to do under her circumstances. There's more to her changing her story and the events and people surrounding that.

Albion's right that it doesn't matter whether her claim that the Marine raped her is true or not. What matters more is that she did claim he did and it caused a lot of people to retaliate and have reason to want her to stay quiet and not want her to pursue it legally.

Yep, Shelby is looking for GSK and stopping at the Marine and his brothers isn't very thorough in that regard. I realize he doesn't have the exact means and power as the active OC investigators, but it doesn't mean that her alleged rape did not play into her being a GSK victim.

[albion]

Was Kathleen Johns murdered before she was able to bring charges against her attacker? As I see it, two crimes were committed against Janelle. Since the emotional instability occurred after the alleged rape, does it take away from her claim? Or is it a result that might show that something indeed happened. The fact that Janelle had been hospitalized two times afterward according to Shelby might be important in that maybe she encountered gsk there but I don't see how it affects the outcome of her being murdered? We aren't talking about suicide.

I know you aren't saying that because Janelle might have been emotionally unstable after the first alleged rape, that her claims should not have been taken seriously and investigated. And I know you aren't saying that because of her possible emotional instability that she somehow was responsible for her murder. So why does Shelby mention it? And if he does mention it, why not discuss it about the marines daughters as well? If it is important for the discussion of the VICTIM, is it not even more important for those that had motive?

[lepke]

Many victims of abuse develop emotional issues that may cause them to spend some time in hospital, and those issues should in no way detract from any allegations that they make about their abuser. Whatever Janelle's personal life was like, and for whatever reasons, she did not deserve to be killed by EAR/ONS, and if her friend's father did do something inappropriate with her, she did not deserve that either. Before anyone gets too judgemental it is also worth remembering that Janelle was just a teenager when she died.

[drdoogie]

I think it would be wise to let Shelby speak for himself and defend his statements if he chooses to. My efforts to clarify have only served to feed the faction that wants to believe what they want to believe. I give up.

[slumbergirl]

Yes, let's allow Detective Shelby to clarify his statement - if we have not driven him off. I would welcome him continuing to post on the board. I think it would create a vibrant dialogue. We do not all have to agree with him, but I would like to hear what he has to say. He has a unique perspective on the investigation beyond our usual speculation.

I am unclear as to whether Janelle was troubled before her alleged rape - but, she definitely would have been after. It would be the normal, human reaction to sexual assault. Either way, she would fit the profile of a vulnerable young girl who might be targeted by a sexual predator. These creatures have a radar for naive and vulnerable victims.

[Deleted]

In my 50 plus year working life I had very little interaction with law enforcement but a lot with other public employees. Very few of them were other than process oriented, they had to go by the book. The rest of us had to get results and put something on the bottom line. So when Carol Daly said "All the good police work has been done. Now we need some luck" what she meant was we've done all the stuff that catches a lot of crooks. If what I said is critical of law enforcement I'm sorry but a guy who raped and killed at will remains unidentified. That's a result. And it's the only one that counts.

[artemisia1]

Oct 1, 2014 14:53:58 GMT f1guyus said:

Re: The comments about Janelle and her "character" or character flaws. My dad taught me not to speak ill of the dead. People who do don't gain credibility in my eyes.

Yes, particularly of a young woman who was raped and brutally murdered...

[artemisia1]

Oct 1, 2014 22:38:09 GMT drdoogie said:

I think it would be wise to let Shelby speak for himself and defend his statements if he chooses to. My efforts to clarify have only served to feed the faction that wants to believe what they want to believe. I give up.

No, I think that you have done a good job of making a case that he did not intend malice towards Janelle. Nevertheless, as an investigator, he has to know that emotional trauma often manifests itself in after incident behavior and emotional distress. His words, such as I have seen them, didn't mention this, and his writing does seem to come off as -- at a minimum -- insensitive. Nevertheless, I thank you for your clarifications and I may yet consider purchasing his book, though probably not.