Parolees + the Visalia connection ....

[rocker]

Sept 18, 2013 0:11:46 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Sept 17, 2013 23:01:54 GMT dancartell said:

Agent99 I have also been puzzled and intrigued by the cars possibly used by EAR as they seemed to be old models and some were said to be dirty  - another idea that popped into my head was that maybe he stole them , kind of like Bundy, maybe older cars and scrappy ones could be easier to steal .....

Regarding him using throw away cars I have also wondered if EAR stole money from his victims for the purpose of using some it for the cars , masks etc   ....

Hey Dan, The only thing that is that driving a stolen car would have been a BIG mistake as LE would be on the look out for it.  I'm shocked to hear that Bundy did that.     He drove a car that had been purchased from a dead drug dealer and the father "can't remember" who he sold it to. Didn't he fill out paperwork to report the car as sold to the DMV.  The seller has to submit a "release of Liability Form REG 138" to the DMV and there is a place for the new owners name and address to be filled out, so maybe GSK gave the wrong name and address to the dad?  Or did they not have those forms back then?  I think he bought cars for cash and if he had to give the seller a name, he probably gave false info. and didn't register it.  Then if he had to run and abandon the car, no problem.  If someone turned in a license number, it wouldn't come back registered to him either.

As to stealing money for buying the cars, I guess that could be, but in one house I believe he left a Thousand Dollars that he found hidden in a refrigerator, if I recall correctly.  He didn't steal valuables, he stole momentos, so it seems like he was doing pretty good for himself and didn't need the money.  Again the poem Excitement's Crave comes to mind "Achieving while others lifting" makes it sound like he was the boss and others did the grunt work, and my guess is that he was spoiled and was the son of the boss.   "Leisure tempts excitement seeking"  again sounds like a spoiled person that thinks he is better than everyone else BUT ISN'T.
These last ideas regarding being the son of the boss are pure conjecture on my part, not saying I'm right.

Your conjecture about a relative is the same as the direction I have pondered since the new lead. We may be wrong, we may be right, but it just may be the lunatic we`re looking for...

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Sept 18, 2013 1:43:00 GMT rocker said:

Sept 18, 2013 0:11:46 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Hey Dan, The only thing that is that driving a stolen car would have been a BIG mistake as LE would be on the look out for it.  I'm shocked to hear that Bundy did that.     He drove a car that had been purchased from a dead drug dealer and the father "can't remember" who he sold it to. Didn't he fill out paperwork to report the car as sold to the DMV.  The seller has to submit a "release of Liability Form REG 138" to the DMV and there is a place for the new owners name and address to be filled out, so maybe GSK gave the wrong name and address to the dad?  Or did they not have those forms back then?  I think he bought cars for cash and if he had to give the seller a name, he probably gave false info. and didn't register it.  Then if he had to run and abandon the car, no problem.  If someone turned in a license number, it wouldn't come back registered to him either.

As to stealing money for buying the cars, I guess that could be, but in one house I believe he left a Thousand Dollars that he found hidden in a refrigerator, if I recall correctly.  He didn't steal valuables, he stole momentos, so it seems like he was doing pretty good for himself and didn't need the money.  Again the poem Excitement's Crave comes to mind "Achieving while others lifting" makes it sound like he was the boss and others did the grunt work, and my guess is that he was spoiled and was the son of the boss.   "Leisure tempts excitement seeking"  again sounds like a spoiled person that thinks he is better than everyone else BUT ISN'T.
These last ideas regarding being the son of the boss are pure conjecture on my part, not saying I'm right.

Your conjecture about a relative is the same as the direction I have pondered since the new lead. We may be wrong, we may be right, but it just may be the lunatic we`re looking for...

I was only having fun, Wasn't hurting anyone, If I'm crazy then it's true, That it's all because of.......a lunatic all right. This case is driving me bonkers, LOL (I love that Billy Joel song!)

[Drifter]

Sept 17, 2013 22:55:01 GMT dancartell said:

Sept 17, 2013 6:51:47 GMT Drifter said:

.

My idea that he lived in a van has never been popular with posters here.  Which is fine.  But, I can see him living in a van, a vehicle that would contain all his worldly possessions (including mementos from victims and pages of text about his sixth grade teacher).

Drifter regarding this idea I just want to encourage you to spit it out ... . I want to hear this idea because in some of the rapes the victims said EAR had BO maybe this might have a connection  and there was also an instant were that man who got up early saw a strange van near his house across from a school or something .....

I have also wondered about EAR`s living conditions especially after he left Sacramento (e.g. when he was hitting Stovkton, Modesto,Davis) and EAR also stole small amounts of cash as well as large amounts at certain points in his crime spree I believe this has some significance but I havent figured out the exact significance hence additional theories and ideas like yours could be of importance...


I would really like to hear your idea, there is no harm in spitting it out here , thats what the board is about 
At the end of the day I believe if we can throw in all possible ideas about EAR and then analyze them each to destruction then we might eventually narrow things down regarding this whole case and every time we narrow down possibilities it means we are making progress ........

Hey there Dan ...

On the old A&E board I speculated that the guy could have lived in a van.  He was obviously mobile.  I just can't see him owing a home in suburbia or elsewhere.

That leaves motels, apartments, and other possibilities including a van.  LE apparently researched motels thoroughly and came up empty. 

Most readers lambasted my idea that the guy could have lived in a van, mostly I think because EAR told victims he had a van.  Naturally, posters want to believe the exact opposite from what EAR said.  Posters interpret his talk as a well-rehearsed script meant to deceive. 

But the East Area Rapist didn't just talk about vans.  He also talked about apartments.  He refers to his "apartment" no fewer than four times: ST, pages 249, 264, 273, and 291.  So was he also lying about living in an apartment?  To be consistent regarding what he said, then we need to eliminate apartments as well as vans.  Motels were checked by LE.  So what's left?

Owing a home, college dorm rooms, cheap YMCA rooms, living with relatives or friends ... any other possibilities?

One might reference the fact that several known serial killers owned homes.  But were they as mobile as the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker?  If the guy owned a home, that would have created a paper trail that LE surely would have found by now.  A home plants a person in one location, making it difficult to be gone for too long.  It also implies continued payments and upkeep on a home.  Do you really see that as plausible with the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker, whom most posters believe to be under the age of 30?

College dorm rooms and cheap YMCA rooms would have created a paper trail, no less than living in a motel.  Staying with relatives or friends is even more bizarre.  Are we supposed to believe that he chums around with family/friends in daytime, then cleverly sneaks out at night to pursue his "hobby", then just as cleverly sneaks back in before anyone in house wakes up; and if anyone should inquire ... Oh, I couldn't sleep, so just went out of the house for a five hour walk ...

In Sudden Terror, we can discount all the paragraphs wherein the East Area Rapist talks about a van.  Does that then eliminate all references to a van?  No it does not.  There are no fewer than five (5) references to a witness/neighbor having seen or reported a van: ST, pages: 51, 183, 297, 318, and 400.  These van sightings are in association more or less with attack number: 13, 30, 42, and 46.  We "might" could discount attack 13, since the van could have been a commercial vehicle.  But it's hard to discount the other three attacks.  Further, we don't have all the police records for every attack, so all we can do is note those attacks wherein the author chooses to mention the word "van".

We need to keep in mind that his reign of terror spanned some ten years.  It's reasonable to conclude that he changed vehicles from time to time, as he could have changed weapons, hair style, and other factors visible to others.  One of the dreadful assumptions we all make is that the guy never changed any of these things.  We're looking for patterns and consistency, and when we see contradictions, we assume some element is wrong.  But it's just as likely that the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker changed his visible outer self during those ten years, as all of will from time to time.

Consequently, I think it is likely that the guy did indeed live in a van ... during some part of those ten years, more likely during the period from attack 30 onward; that is, from 1978 onward to the end including especially southern California and Goleta.  Prior to the 13th attack ST does not mention a van.  Instead it lists other vehicles.  So I envision East Area Rapist having one car at time 1, a different car at time 2, and so on.  At some point, particularly later on, I think he did drive a van, not as a stolen vehicle, but as a vehicle that he lived out of.

The main advantage of the "living in a van" idea is that it is consistent with his being a ghost ... no paper trail, no friends or family to question his whereabouts, no commitments, no hassle ... a nomadic offender, free as the wind.

[lepke]

Some interesting points there. I would agree that EAR/ONS could have undergone changes in appearance and lifestyle during the time he was committing known crimes, although rather than look at an evolution over ten years, it might be more pertinent to look over the course of five years (1976-1981), and then look at the Cruz murder as a one off in 1986, because it would be quite hard to know much about his appearance and lifestyle from 1981-1986.

The van idea is interesting relation to British serial killer Robert Black, who liked to abduct, molest and murder little girls. Of all known British serial killers, his crimes possibly took place over the largest area, and that was made possible by his lifestyle.

He worked for a company, delivering things in his van to destinations all over the UK. He worked alone and unsupervised for most of the time, and took opportunities when he saw young girls out walking alone.

Although his company knew that he may have been driving from one place to another place hundreds of miles away, he was free to avoid the motorways and dual carriageways if he chose, and drive along quiet country lanes, keeping his eyes peeled for possible victims to abduct.

He would have no particular association with the place where the abduction took place, nor would there be any record of him definitely having been there, as it was usually quite randomly located a long way from where he picked things up and dropped them off.

[dancartell]

Sept 18, 2013 5:36:17 GMT Drifter said:

Sept 17, 2013 22:55:01 GMT dancartell said:

Hey there Dan ...

On the old A&E board I speculated that the guy could have lived in a van.  He was obviously mobile.  I just can't see him owing a home in suburbia or elsewhere.

That leaves motels, apartments, and other possibilities including a van.  LE apparently researched motels thoroughly and came up empty. 

Most readers lambasted my idea that the guy could have lived in a van, mostly I think because EAR told victims he had a van.  Naturally, posters want to believe the exact opposite from what EAR said.  Posters interpret his talk as a well-rehearsed script meant to deceive. 

But the East Area Rapist didn't just talk about vans.  He also talked about apartments.  He refers to his "apartment" no fewer than four times: ST, pages 249, 264, 273, and 291.  So was he also lying about living in an apartment?  To be consistent regarding what he said, then we need to eliminate apartments as well as vans.  Motels were checked by LE.  So what's left?

Owing a home, college dorm rooms, cheap YMCA rooms, living with relatives or friends ... any other possibilities?

One might reference the fact that several known serial killers owned homes.  But were they as mobile as the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker?  If the guy owned a home, that would have created a paper trail that LE surely would have found by now.  A home plants a person in one location, making it difficult to be gone for too long.  It also implies continued payments and upkeep on a home.  Do you really see that as plausible with the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker, whom most posters believe to be under the age of 30?

College dorm rooms and cheap YMCA rooms would have created a paper trail, no less than living in a motel.  Staying with relatives or friends is even more bizarre.  Are we supposed to believe that he chums around with family/friends in daytime, then cleverly sneaks out at night to pursue his "hobby", then just as cleverly sneaks back in before anyone in house wakes up; and if anyone should inquire ... Oh, I couldn't sleep, so just went out of the house for a five hour walk ...

In Sudden Terror, we can discount all the paragraphs wherein the East Area Rapist talks about a van.  Does that then eliminate all references to a van?  No it does not.  There are no fewer than five (5) references to a witness/neighbor having seen or reported a van: ST, pages: 51, 183, 297, 318, and 400.  These van sightings are in association more or less with attack number: 13, 30, 42, and 46.  We "might" could discount attack 13, since the van could have been a commercial vehicle.  But it's hard to discount the other three attacks.  Further, we don't have all the police records for every attack, so all we can do is note those attacks wherein the author chooses to mention the word "van".

We need to keep in mind that his reign of terror spanned some ten years.  It's reasonable to conclude that he changed vehicles from time to time, as he could have changed weapons, hair style, and other factors visible to others.  One of the dreadful assumptions we all make is that the guy never changed any of these things.  We're looking for patterns and consistency, and when we see contradictions, we assume some element is wrong.  But it's just as likely that the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker changed his visible outer self during those ten years, as all of will from time to time.

Consequently, I think it is likely that the guy did indeed live in a van ... during some part of those ten years, more likely during the period from attack 30 onward; that is, from 1978 onward to the end including especially southern California and Goleta.  Prior to the 13th attack ST does not mention a van.  Instead it lists other vehicles.  So I envision East Area Rapist having one car at time 1, a different car at time 2, and so on.  At some point, particularly later on, I think he did drive a van, not as a stolen vehicle, but as a vehicle that he lived out of.

The main advantage of the "living in a van" idea is that it is consistent with his being a ghost ... no paper trail, no friends or family to question his whereabouts, no commitments, no hassle ... a nomadic offender, free as the wind.

Wow , that is a very interesting analysis !

Brilliant logic, now we are talking - I have also wondered about the whole issue of EAR mentioning apartments and a van.
One thought that popped into my head is maybe he mentioned his apartment when he was living in a van and vice versa ....
The whole issue of apartments also brings me round to the attack in Stockton were he stole household stuff , and were ST mentions if detectives thought maybe he was setting up an apartment - was the stealing of household items meant to give the impression that he was living in an apartment/house when in fact he was camping in his van ?

I find it interesting that the in the sightings of the van you note 2 were outside the Sacramento area .... since he was most likely driving there then your logic of living in a van starts to make sense ...... living in a van makes sense during part of that crime spree.


I would also concur that given the time span of the attacks changes to his appearance are very likely , I also think his finances somehow fluctuated which is why I have been harping on about the $1.500 he stole from the couple in Modesto  .....

EAR also stole a large haul of expensive stuff in an attack in Concord in Oct `78 .... clearly this guy was short of cash and stuff at various points and this might tie in with your van idea .....

[dancartell]

A lady said EAR smelled like he had BO was in Jan 1977 in Citrus Heights and its interesting that he ate food and drank beer in that attack ...... , I find it also interesting that in the other Citrus Heights attack in Nov 1976 the victim mentions BO or bad breath ....all this stuff makes me wonder about EAR`s living conditions .....

[lepke]

Sept 18, 2013 22:49:10 GMT dancartell said:

Sept 18, 2013 5:36:17 GMT Drifter said:

Hey there Dan ...

On the old A&E board I speculated that the guy could have lived in a van.  He was obviously mobile.  I just can't see him owing a home in suburbia or elsewhere.

That leaves motels, apartments, and other possibilities including a van.  LE apparently researched motels thoroughly and came up empty. 

Most readers lambasted my idea that the guy could have lived in a van, mostly I think because EAR told victims he had a van.  Naturally, posters want to believe the exact opposite from what EAR said.  Posters interpret his talk as a well-rehearsed script meant to deceive. 

But the East Area Rapist didn't just talk about vans.  He also talked about apartments.  He refers to his "apartment" no fewer than four times: ST, pages 249, 264, 273, and 291.  So was he also lying about living in an apartment?  To be consistent regarding what he said, then we need to eliminate apartments as well as vans.  Motels were checked by LE.  So what's left?

Owing a home, college dorm rooms, cheap YMCA rooms, living with relatives or friends ... any other possibilities?

One might reference the fact that several known serial killers owned homes.  But were they as mobile as the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker?  If the guy owned a home, that would have created a paper trail that LE surely would have found by now.  A home plants a person in one location, making it difficult to be gone for too long.  It also implies continued payments and upkeep on a home.  Do you really see that as plausible with the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker, whom most posters believe to be under the age of 30?

College dorm rooms and cheap YMCA rooms would have created a paper trail, no less than living in a motel.  Staying with relatives or friends is even more bizarre.  Are we supposed to believe that he chums around with family/friends in daytime, then cleverly sneaks out at night to pursue his "hobby", then just as cleverly sneaks back in before anyone in house wakes up; and if anyone should inquire ... Oh, I couldn't sleep, so just went out of the house for a five hour walk ...

In Sudden Terror, we can discount all the paragraphs wherein the East Area Rapist talks about a van.  Does that then eliminate all references to a van?  No it does not.  There are no fewer than five (5) references to a witness/neighbor having seen or reported a van: ST, pages: 51, 183, 297, 318, and 400.  These van sightings are in association more or less with attack number: 13, 30, 42, and 46.  We "might" could discount attack 13, since the van could have been a commercial vehicle.  But it's hard to discount the other three attacks.  Further, we don't have all the police records for every attack, so all we can do is note those attacks wherein the author chooses to mention the word "van".

We need to keep in mind that his reign of terror spanned some ten years.  It's reasonable to conclude that he changed vehicles from time to time, as he could have changed weapons, hair style, and other factors visible to others.  One of the dreadful assumptions we all make is that the guy never changed any of these things.  We're looking for patterns and consistency, and when we see contradictions, we assume some element is wrong.  But it's just as likely that the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker changed his visible outer self during those ten years, as all of will from time to time.

Consequently, I think it is likely that the guy did indeed live in a van ... during some part of those ten years, more likely during the period from attack 30 onward; that is, from 1978 onward to the end including especially southern California and Goleta.  Prior to the 13th attack ST does not mention a van.  Instead it lists other vehicles.  So I envision East Area Rapist having one car at time 1, a different car at time 2, and so on.  At some point, particularly later on, I think he did drive a van, not as a stolen vehicle, but as a vehicle that he lived out of.

The main advantage of the "living in a van" idea is that it is consistent with his being a ghost ... no paper trail, no friends or family to question his whereabouts, no commitments, no hassle ... a nomadic offender, free as the wind.

Wow , that is a very interesting analysis !

Brilliant logic, now we are talking - I have also wondered about the whole issue of EAR mentioning apartments and a van.
One thought that popped into my head is maybe he mentioned his apartment when he was living in a van and vice versa ....
The whole issue of apartments also brings me round to the attack in Stockton were he stole household stuff , and were ST mentions if detectives thought maybe he was setting up an apartment - was the stealing of household items meant to give the impression that he was living in an apartment/house when in fact he was camping in his van ?

I find it interesting that the in the sightings of the van you note 2 were outside the Sacramento area .... since he was most likely driving there then your logic of living in a van starts to make sense ...... living in a van makes sense during part of that crime spree.


I would also concur that given the time span of the attacks changes to his appearance are very likely , I also think his finances somehow fluctuated which is why I have been harping on about the $1.500 he stole from the couple in Modesto  .....

EAR also stole a large haul of expensive stuff in an attack in Concord in Oct `78 .... clearly this guy was short of cash and stuff at various points and this might tie in with your van idea .....

Being short of cash, assuming he was a workman of some kind, would lend itself to the idea that he did not have regular employment with one company, but took work as he could find it, maybe got paid cash in hand and so on...

[dancartell]

Sept 18, 2013 23:07:03 GMT lepke said:

Sept 18, 2013 22:49:10 GMT dancartell said:

Wow , that is a very interesting analysis !

Brilliant logic, now we are talking - I have also wondered about the whole issue of EAR mentioning apartments and a van.
One thought that popped into my head is maybe he mentioned his apartment when he was living in a van and vice versa ....
The whole issue of apartments also brings me round to the attack in Stockton were he stole household stuff , and were ST mentions if detectives thought maybe he was setting up an apartment - was the stealing of household items meant to give the impression that he was living in an apartment/house when in fact he was camping in his van ?

I find it interesting that the in the sightings of the van you note 2 were outside the Sacramento area .... since he was most likely driving there then your logic of living in a van starts to make sense ...... living in a van makes sense during part of that crime spree.


I would also concur that given the time span of the attacks changes to his appearance are very likely , I also think his finances somehow fluctuated which is why I have been harping on about the $1.500 he stole from the couple in Modesto  .....

EAR also stole a large haul of expensive stuff in an attack in Concord in Oct `78 .... clearly this guy was short of cash and stuff at various points and this might tie in with your van idea .....

Being short of cash, assuming he was a workman of some kind, would lend itself to the idea that he did not have regular employment with one company, but took work as he could find it, maybe got paid cash in hand and so on...

Yeah , thats another idea to take into consideration

[portofleith]

Does anyone think that he may have deliberately used disguises like wigs?

[lepke]

In which context - attacks, recon or outside activities of that nature?

[portofleith]

Recon and evasion.

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Sept 21, 2013 3:44:12 GMT @privatecitizen said:

Sept 20, 2013 23:49:44 GMT portofleith said:

Does anyone think that he may have deliberately used disguises like wigs?

I used to think the possibility of his wearing disguises was such a long shot, but now I don't lol. 

I can't put my finger on it right now but I do recall a couple of instances in Sudden Terror where a strange person was seen riding a bike near a group of people (wasn't it at a street party or a 4th of July party? and he circled around them?) and am I mistaken?  wasn't it mentioned that someone thought he was wearing a wig.  And there was another instance, I believe, where someone thought a poi was disguised as an old woman. 

Now I am thinking of one of those sketches that a poster enhanced and brought to life and were posted on the a&e board under "enhanced sketches" and also I believe Arch has them posted on www.ear-ons.com   One of them has very bushy, curly? hair.  I always wondered if that could have been a wig.

[lepke]

Peter Cook, a famous British serial rapist, used to disguise himself as a woman and ride a bicycle; he was XXY, like I have speculated EAR/ONS may have been...

[dancartell]

Sept 21, 2013 21:04:48 GMT lepke said:

Peter Cook, a famous British serial rapist, used to disguise himself as a woman and ride a bicycle; he was XXY, like I have speculated EAR/ONS may have been...

Its interesting you bring up the issue of XXY individuals -why do you think EAR had XXY chromosomes ? 

[dancartell]

Sept 20, 2013 23:49:44 GMT portofleith said:

Does anyone think that he may have deliberately used disguises like wigs?

I sure do    One incident that was described that really screwed me up was the one were a resident saw someone who looked like an old man on a walking stick who didnt look quite right and he called LE and by the time they arrived the "old man"  had vanished   . I think during daytime recon there is a good likelihood he did ...........