Attack #9 Info

[portofleith]

May 7, 2015 15:49:10 GMT cityofchill said:

I don't know if anyone has commented on this point, but I'll give it a try and hope I can articulate my point decently....

I've read the account of this attack multiple times, and there always something about it that stood out to me as being pretty strange. As I learned more about this aborted attack and the fact that the neighbour was probably the intended target, the sense that something was off only grew. However, it was the renewed possibility that the offender may have been a teenager at the time that finally made me realize what it was that I had always found so strange.

When the EAR has the victim from #9 seated in the place where he presumably intended to rape her, he seems to realize he has made an error. He brings his face up close to hers and asks her,

"I know you, don't I?"

I think this could potentially be a revealing question and a slip on the EAR's part. While he seemed genuinely flummoxed by the whole situation, this question stands out. Unlike so much of what the EAR says to his victims, this seems to be a serious question asked by someone who had just realized they had abducted the wrong girl. After studying her face closely he suddenly asks her, as though stunned himself, "I know you, don't I?" He then goes on about American River College, etc., but it is this question that stands out for me. I wonder if the EAR did actually know the girl, and only realized it when he had her in his chosen spot with time to scrutinize her more closely. Why else would he ask such a strange question, seemingly without guile, and obviously in a situation where he is confused and much more likely to let something slip?

I've started to wonder if this wasn't a question that slipped out of the EAR's mouth as he came to a sudden awareness that he did know this girl — perhaps from school or through school friends, or from some other venue — and only realized it after he took a moment to scrutinize her face closely. He asks her about American River College, and when she replies that she does not attend the school, he seems to understand that this definitely is not his intended victim. But his confused state pits him off his game. He says something else that is possibly revealing when he mentions having to wait for his parents to leave before he can go home. As Q has pointed out, EAR never would have even thought to say this if he didn't think the victim would see him as someone younger. Or perhaps there was some truth to it and it slipped out because of the confused state he was in. Either way, I think that when Q labels this aborted attack a "Revealing Mistake," he is correct, and the more we can learn about what exactly the EAR said and did after he realized he had the wrong girl, the more likely it is that we can glean even more details from this mistake.

Anyways, I've said my piece. What do others think about this strange question? Do you think he might have actually known the girl after all? He seemed more than willing to rape alternate victims in other instances when his first choice was unavailable for some reason. He always had "substitutes" set up in case his victim of choice was unavailable when he went to atack her. Why the sudden reluctance to rape this victim? I realize that he had a tendency to sort of shut down when things didn't go exactly according to plan, but could there be another reason why he chose not to rape her? Did the fact that he knew her somehow make her less appealing as a victim? Of course, I don't know the answers to any of these questions; I'm just probing. Do others think it is a possibility?

One factor in his inability to rape this victim is that he was having great difficulty in trying to cut her clothes off with a knife.  Her levis challenged his knife.  

[Deleted]

May 7, 2015 15:53:09 GMT portofleith said:

May 7, 2015 15:49:10 GMT cityofchill said:

I don't know if anyone has commented on this point, but I'll give it a try and hope I can articulate my point decently....

I've read the account of this attack multiple times, and there always something about it that stood out to me as being pretty strange. As I learned more about this aborted attack and the fact that the neighbour was probably the intended target, the sense that something was off only grew. However, it was the renewed possibility that the offender may have been a teenager at the time that finally made me realize what it was that I had always found so strange.

When the EAR has the victim from #9 seated in the place where he presumably intended to rape her, he seems to realize he has made an error. He brings his face up close to hers and asks her,

"I know you, don't I?"

I think this could potentially be a revealing question and a slip on the EAR's part. While he seemed genuinely flummoxed by the whole situation, this question stands out. Unlike so much of what the EAR says to his victims, this seems to be a serious question asked by someone who had just realized they had abducted the wrong girl. After studying her face closely he suddenly asks her, as though stunned himself, "I know you, don't I?" He then goes on about American River College, etc., but it is this question that stands out for me. I wonder if the EAR did actually know the girl, and only realized it when he had her in his chosen spot with time to scrutinize her more closely. Why else would he ask such a strange question, seemingly without guile, and obviously in a situation where he is confused and much more likely to let something slip?

I've started to wonder if this wasn't a question that slipped out of the EAR's mouth as he came to a sudden awareness that he did know this girl — perhaps from school or through school friends, or from some other venue — and only realized it after he took a moment to scrutinize her face closely. He asks her about American River College, and when she replies that she does not attend the school, he seems to understand that this definitely is not his intended victim. But his confused state pits him off his game. He says something else that is possibly revealing when he mentions having to wait for his parents to leave before he can go home. As Q has pointed out, EAR never would have even thought to say this if he didn't think the victim would see him as someone younger. Or perhaps there was some truth to it and it slipped out because of the confused state he was in. Either way, I think that when Q labels this aborted attack a "Revealing Mistake," he is correct, and the more we can learn about what exactly the EAR said and did after he realized he had the wrong girl, the more likely it is that we can glean even more details from this mistake.

Anyways, I've said my piece. What do others think about this strange question? Do you think he might have actually known the girl after all? He seemed more than willing to rape alternate victims in other instances when his first choice was unavailable for some reason. He always had "substitutes" set up in case his victim of choice was unavailable when he went to atack her. Why the sudden reluctance to rape this victim? I realize that he had a tendency to sort of shut down when things didn't go exactly according to plan, but could there be another reason why he chose not to rape her? Did the fact that he knew her somehow make her less appealing as a victim? Of course, I don't know the answers to any of these questions; I'm just probing. Do others think it is a possibility?

One factor in his inability to rape this victim is that he was having great difficulty in trying to cut her clothes off with a knife.  Her levis challenged his knife.  

This is a good point. But he could have simply removed her jeans with his hands if he really wanted to rape her. He's not exactly the type to let an especially durable pair of jeans get in his way, IMO.

But what do you think about my other point? Do you think it's possible that he actually did know her?

[portofleith]

It is possible that he knew her, but her more than passing resemblance to her neighbor who attended American River College, is also a consideration.  He most likely had been inside several homes on Greenleaf- there was a nearby home for sale.  

This victim had received hang up calls and he asked the question about knowing her with the tip of his knife at her throat.   She told him which high school she attended, but gave a false name and he did not react to that.

I doubt that he was waiting for his parents to leave nor do I think he was planning to leave in his car.  His footprints showed he entered the yard via the canal and he could have had a bicycle stashed some ways down.  The canal had locking gates that prevented vehicle access.


He ended the attack by saying "this isn't working" while cutting her jeans.  Several times he used his "I will stab you and be gone in the dark of the night."

The jeans frustration was most likely just a ruse for him not being able to masturbate himself to erection or arousal- certainly off his game completely.

It is interesting that he reminded her of two different teachers she knew.

[dbw]

May 7, 2015 15:49:10 GMT cityofchill said:

I don't know if anyone has commented on this point, but I'll give it a try and hope I can articulate my point decently....

I've read the account of this attack multiple times, and there always something about it that stood out to me as being pretty strange. As I learned more about this aborted attack and the fact that the neighbour was probably the intended target, the sense that something was off only grew. However, it was the renewed possibility that the offender may have been a teenager at the time that finally made me realize what it was that I had always found so strange.

When the EAR has the victim from #9 seated in the place where he presumably intended to rape her, he seems to realize he has made an error. He brings his face up close to hers and asks her,

"I know you, don't I?"

I think this could potentially be a revealing question and a slip on the EAR's part. While he seemed genuinely flummoxed by the whole situation, this question stands out. Unlike so much of what the EAR says to his victims, this seems to be a serious question asked by someone who had just realized they had abducted the wrong girl. After studying her face closely he suddenly asks her, as though stunned himself, "I know you, don't I?" He then goes on about American River College, etc., but it is this question that stands out for me. I wonder if the EAR did actually know the girl, and only realized it when he had her in his chosen spot with time to scrutinize her more closely. Why else would he ask such a strange question, seemingly without guile, and obviously in a situation where he is confused and much more likely to let something slip?

I've started to wonder if this wasn't a question that slipped out of the EAR's mouth as he came to a sudden awareness that he did know this girl — perhaps from school or through school friends, or from some other venue — and only realized it after he took a moment to scrutinize her face closely. He asks her about American River College, and when she replies that she does not attend the school, he seems to understand that this definitely is not his intended victim. But his confused state pits him off his game. He says something else that is possibly revealing when he mentions having to wait for his parents to leave before he can go home. As Q has pointed out, EAR never would have even thought to say this if he didn't think the victim would see him as someone younger. Or perhaps there was some truth to it and it slipped out because of the confused state he was in. Either way, I think that when Q labels this aborted attack a "Revealing Mistake," he is correct, and the more we can learn about what exactly the EAR said and did after he realized he had the wrong girl, the more likely it is that we can glean even more details from this mistake.

Anyways, I've said my piece. What do others think about this strange question? Do you think he might have actually known the girl after all? He seemed more than willing to rape alternate victims in other instances when his first choice was unavailable for some reason. He always had "substitutes" set up in case his victim of choice was unavailable when he went to atack her. Why the sudden reluctance to rape this victim? I realize that he had a tendency to sort of shut down when things didn't go exactly according to plan, but could there be another reason why he chose not to rape her? Did the fact that he knew her somehow make her less appealing as a victim? Of course, I don't know the answers to any of these questions; I'm just probing. Do others think it is a possibility?

EAR throughout his attacks had an awkward way of phrasing things.  I'm not sure how to read a number of statements he made that were kind of "off", never mind if he wasn't manipulating or outright telling lies.  The opposite could be true. It could be he realized he may have the girl He DIDN'T know or targetted.  Or the one he hadn't intended to attack.  Maybe he was talking nonsense to confuse the investigation.  The victim's mother inisisted to my mother that EAR asked the victim if she was (my girlfriend's name). However, this is not in any of the accounts in various books, nor, I've been told, was it in the LE reports. So was this actually said?  And can we believe what EAR was saying?   I once thought it was said, but I'm willing to say "I really don't know" at this point.  Remember, too, these two girls were literally similar enough in appearance to be sisters, if not twins.  Who knows what kind of confusion or frustration EAR may have been experiencing or what finally led him to abandon the rape? I think this particular attack turned into a complete mess for EAR for any number of reasons, and he bailed.

Maybe that's the important thing about this attack - maybe the questions raised about this abortive attack are of equal merit to EAR's attacks that "followed the script."

[dbw]

The house next door, my girlfriend, had been receiving hang-up calls, too. I think he got his wires crossed, somehow confused the girls, or their houses, or both. There are a lot of variables here that could have easily gotten turned around in EAR's head - any one of which could have confused him to the point of lack of ability to pull off the rape.

The two teachers are a good point, too. I know at least one was way too old to be EAR. The other I was unaware of. 


EAR eventually was able to get the jeans off, as evidenced that the victim made her way back to a neighbor's house nude. 

[portofleith]

May 7, 2015 16:31:30 GMT dbw said:

The house next door, my girlfriend, had been receiving hang-up calls, too. I think he got his wires crossed, somehow confused the girls, or their houses, or both. There are a lot of variables here that could have easily gotten turned around in EAR's head - any one of which could have confused him to the point of lack of ability to pull off the rape.

The two teachers are a good point, too. I know at least one was way too old to be EAR. The other I was unaware of. 


EAR eventually was able to get the jeans off, as evidenced that the victim made her way back to a neighbor's house nude. 

DBW- Yes, I think the jeans challenge was the easy out for him being totally off his game.  I do not think he led any victim outside as far as he did her and frankly, I do not think he had thought through what he planned to do with her.

Taking the younger victims outside has several different facets to consider.  One is that he did not know when the parents would return home and that could be a security precaution.  Another aspect could be that he had some elaborate kidnapping fantasies that he never brought to fruition.

[northernjustice]

There were several instances where the EAR tried to make the victims believe he knew them from somewhere and it seems pretty likely to me that he was trying to do something similar in his comments to this victim. Just like he wanted other victims to believe he knew them from the military base, the lake, etc. he wanted this one to believe he knew her from the college, which of course was not possible as this girl didn't go to the college.

He seems to have been in a particularly strange headspace for this attack, given that he took her a significant distance from her house, seemingly had the wrong facts about the girl, and left without committing any sexual assault. Maybe the constant prowling finally caught up to him and he was exhausted.

[dbw]

Attack #8, the one prior to this attack had no rape, either. Maybe EAR was in a particularly strange headspace during this time. The media blackout of the EAR crimes ended just before Attack #9, as well.

[dbw]

I'm adding some recent posts from another file about Attack #9


dbw
Hasta la vista, baby
******
Posts: 1,548Male
Member is Online
yesterday at 8:27am fixintogo likes this.

Post by dbw on yesterday at 8:27am

I have heard back from two sources in regard to the attack on Victim #9, one of which was present when investigators walked the canal with the victim and her father. It turns out EAR took the victim UNDER the bridge on Dewey Drive to the east side of the street. The distance he took her down the canal was to an area fairly close to home of his earlier victim (I know her real name, but cannot remember the fictitious name given in the books) in the area.

Although it is difficult to see in on maps, it actually makes sense. By going under the bridge EAR was visible to traffic on Dewey Drive for a shorter period of time than going some distance in the canal parallel to and along Dewey Drive of the east side. There was, at the time of the attack, much more tree and brush cover along the canal on the west side of Dewey than the east side. It also makes sense that EAR may have made for an area he was familiar with, where he had attacked before.

However, it was also a huge risk to have gone outside and down into the canal at all. One can only assume, as was his pattern in "home alone" attacks when he didn't know when parents might return, he wanted the victim outside so he wouldn't get "trapped" in the house. Since the backyard of victim#9 was essentially visible from two, possibly three sides, including Dewey Drive, the next door neighbors, and anyone passing by on Shell Court (it was, as I know the house and yard, as it was then, well) EAR decided to risk going into the canal.

It's not a risk I would have taken, but he was a risk taker. Eventually, of course, he abandoned the attack without raping. Perhaps he was unnerved at the risk, among other factors.

One other fact, not well known. The father of my girlfriend (next door neighbour to the victim) observed a person matching EAR description coming out of the canal into his back yard and walking onto Green Leaf in the early morning hours two nights after the attack. The father called LE but the person was long gone before deputies arrived. Apparently there was a search and the person was not found in the area. IF it was EAR - and there is no way to prove it one way or the other - he was once again taking a huge risk.


Last Edit: yesterday at 10:30am by dbw




dbw
Posts: 1,548Male
Member is Online
10 hours ago via mobile
Post by dbw on 10 hours ago

This is my most recent post on this issue.





richporce
Hot On the Trail
**
9 hours ago
Post by richporce on 9 hours ago

That clears things up. EAR really was brazen, wasn't he.. This attack occurred at around 8pm, admittedly it was in the winter so that would reduce the amount of people out on the street, but still.. What a huge risk. I calculated on google earth that he must have walked her about 400 metres down the canal. That's incredibly brazen even by EAR's standards





dbw
Hasta la vista, baby
******
Posts: 1,548Male
Member is Online
4 hours ago via mobile
Post by dbw on 4 hours ago

Indeed, a huge risk, and then he abandons the attack without raping. This particular attack is interesting because he goes way off script, may have attacked the wrong target (this is not certain), grows agitated when cutting off the victims jeans with a knife doesn't work well, finds she is menstruating (although this didn't bother him in other attacks), seems to have come unraveled, and walks away.

It an example of how essential it was to EAR to stick to the plan and how rattled he became when things didn't go his way.


Perhaps he was moving the victim closer to his escape route/vehicle?



Last Edit: 4 hours ago by dbw




mitchell
Manhunter
*
3 hours ago via mobile
Post by mitchell on 3 hours ago

"One other fact, not well known. The father of my girlfriend (next door neighbour to the victim) observed a person matching EAR description coming out of the cnal into his back yard and walking onto Green Leaf in the early morning hours two nights after the attack. The father called LE but the person was long gone before deputies arrived. Apparently there was a search and the person was not found in the area. IF it was EAR - and there is no way to prove it one way or the other - he was once again taking a huge risk. "

Returning home, maybe?

He waited till his parents went to bed before he could leave and engage in his work. Forced to return home before they awoke and found him missing. Spoiling his alibi. Those must have been long painful days for him. Wantoness. The anticipation building.

He had to satisfy his urges during the day with drawing, writing, and making his phone calls. And masturbation. Always. When night finally came and darkness spread across his haunts like a disease, he was sometimes already spent. Unable to perform. He struggled to maintain his erection.

He hated weaing the masks, balaclavas, helmets. They made it so hot. Too hot to perform. But some of them knew him. Would recognize him.

It was all about making memories anyway. Fantasies he could explore later when alone. In comfort and safety.

dbw
Hasta la vista, baby
******
Posts: 1,548Male
Member is Online
3 hours ago
Post by dbw on 3 hours ago

Can not prove it was EAR that was observed that night or, if it was, what he was doing. Removing something he left (rape kit, etc.?) who knows?

Not so sure he was living with his parents - most suspected sightings place EAR's age in his mid to late twenties. Possible. No way to know if he hated wearing the masks, or what he did during the day - perhaps work, because he wasn't working nights or swing shift. Not must indication he may have known his victims - the masks may have been simply a precaution, as EAR was very cautious about evidence and concealing his face, wearing disguises, etc. There is some indication of reconnaissance during the day. It is suspected he had some means of supporting himself as he was usually pretty well dressed (at least enough to not stand out in middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods) and had money to keep himself in running vehicles.

[dbw]

Victim #9's family had lived there a long time - not sure how many years, but years.

My girlfriend's family had also lived there for years.

If you could resend (PM) me the photo and last name I could probably tell you if I knew the brothers you refer to.

[Mitchell]

May 7, 2015 14:43:02 GMT dbw said:

Can not prove it was EAR that was observed that night or, if it was, what he was doing. Removing something he left (rape kit, etc.?) who knows?

Not so sure he was living with his parents - most suspected sightings place EAR's age in his mid to late twenties. Possible. No way to know if he hated wearing the masks, or what he did during the day - perhaps work, because he wasn't working nights or swing shift. Not must indication he may have known his victims - the masks may have been simply a precaution, as EAR was very cautious about evidence and concealing his face, wearing disguises, etc. There is some indication of reconnaissance during the day. It is suspected he had some means of supporting himself as he was usually pretty well dressed (at least enough to not stand out in middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods) and had money to keep himself in running vehicles.

There is no evidence to counter my previous suppositions either. Anyone who traffics in absolutes in regard to this case is a fool.

[dbw]

"He was ____ " is much more authoritative if supported with "because ____". In many cases, "what we think" is not as important as "why we we think".

[Mitchell]

[Source] dbw said:

"He was ____ " is much more auhoritative if supported with "because ____". In many cases, "what we think" is not as important as "why we we think".

My post was not an evidentiary hearing or a legal brief. It was an intellectual exploration of a single eventuality which can not be proven or disproven.

I would suggest you cut the "weewee" talk. Trying to keep it clean around here.

[dbw]

May 9, 2015 3:04:58 GMT Mitchell said:

[Source] dbw said:

"He was ____ " is much more auhoritative if supported with "because ____". In many cases, "what we think" is not as important as "why we we think".

My post was not an evidentiary hearing or a legal brief. It was an intellectual exploration of a single eventuality which can not be proven or disproven.

I would suggest you cut the "weewee" talk. Trying to keep it clean around here.

As you wish. I was hoping your opinion was based on supportive facts.

[Mitchell]

Supportive facts are in short supply.
Even those we accept as gospel(based on witness statements, etc...) could eventually be proven false.

It is all flat earth dogma.

Even if he Is still alive and we catch him there are things we will never know with certainty. Barring a full verifiable confession, we will have only his word. We will always wonder.