People need to accept that EAR might never get caught

[Brad]

IF there was DNA on the shoe string found:
You would have to prove that no one else touched it in the chain of custody on and after February of 1978. I gave the date because the date is critical. No one touched it... Not a witness who innocently handed it to LE. Not a patrolmen, responding officer, crime scene investigator, etc. In 1978.

Any attorney on the planet can take the protocols for evidence handling to preserve DNA integrity used in 1978 (re: none) and get that evidence thrown out as unreliable. Not only inadmissible, but unusable to even steer investigation. So, to be direct, I will state this in a simple sentence:

Although no one has ever provided documentation that there was DNA on the shoelaces, if there was it means nothing and cannot be used to prove anything or convict anyone. Please stop providing that "fact" as evidence of any kind. 

So, if you remove the shoelace as tying directly to an individual (through DNA identification or similar means), the the viability of the shoelaces becomes its tie to the MO of the EAR at the time. 1) EAR struck repeatedly in east Sacramento, particularly the RC area. 2) EAR had used shoelaces as ligatures. 3) EAR had a known MO to bring pre-tied shoelaces to crime scenes. 4) EAR was known to prowl. 

Therefore, your Sacramento case against the EAR (and particularly the Maggiores) hinges on an MO thread. Working backward, something like this (as an example)

San Ramon: DNA ties to DeAngelo. MO ties extensively to previous EAR series. ------> Attacks 1-38: MO is clearly defined, has unique signatures (including bringing pre-tied ligatures that were often shoelaces and often brandishing a handgun) ties a large series together in a fairly specific geography ------> Maggiore: Shooting occurred in hot spot of EAR activity during the center of the of the EAR activity. The suspect clearly brought a gun, was most likely prowling, and apparently dropped pre-tied shoelaces that could be used as ligatures. The challenges here are proving that the killer was prowling necessarily, and proving that the shoelaces were dropped by him and not someone else. It's clear in both cases, but that is where the defense would challenge. 

So, DNA on shoelaces is a moot point and useless. Using just San Ramon as an example (there are 2 other CCC EAR cases with DeAngelo DNA), it is as simple as San Ramon - EAR east Sac attack series - Maggiore murders. 

For the record, I have no idea if EAR actually killed the Maggiores, much less DeAngelo. Clearly it is the weakest of the DeAngelo murder cases. But please stop trying to use the shoelaces as some sort of exculpatory evidence. Any DNA would be irrelevant, both as inculpatory evidence and in court. 

Also for the record, I do not know if all the canonical attacks were DeAngelo. There may have been copycats, and it's possible (if not unlikely) that he had some type of assistance at some point. It's something I am looking at on a case-by-case basis right now. I am just saying that people need to stop throwing out "facts" that don't mean anything, and saying things without any documentation. If you cannot provide your source, provide any documentation of any kind, just keep it to yourself. If you cannot do that and you want to share rumors and undocumented theories, there is a thread for that. 

[jckbqwk]

When this talk started about left hand, right hand shooter did bother me. I went back to one of the books I’ve read. Probably Sudden Terror since it was last one I read and most handy. I believe virtually all said gun in right hand, flashlight left hand. I can’t be sure but did any victim say gun in left hand Ever ? 
 I wish Bassman would have been a little more forthcoming. Theoretically he would know for sure?
 

[kg]

May 8, 2020 12:51:01 GMT bassman3232 said:

I don't know. Some people can shoot with right and left hand. Not saying JJD was able to do this. Just a thought.

Do you know if he used his right hand to shoot with?

[Brad]

Consider this:

When menacing someone, the gun is a SHOW of force. In the first 50 canonical EAR attacks, EAR killed no one. He never used the gun. He did beat people - with his fist and otherwise. 

So if you think through attacks 1-48-ish, he never killed nor fired the gun during a home invasion. He just waved it around and made threats with it. His go-to method of compliance was fear and beating/physical violence. He could have fired the gun in nearly 50 attacks and didn't, he could have killed someone in those attacks and didn't. I would submit his did not intend to kill during his home invasions at that point in time. 

Therefore, if you are using the gun as a show of force to provide fear and not intending to kill anyone unless pushed to absolutely have to, wouldn't you hold the flashlight - a tool for beating and pain compliance (especially in the 70s by cops) - in your dominant hand and the gun used for threat of force in your non-dominant hand?

[kg]

I think we are talking about the Maggiores here wherein he intentionally chased them down and blasted away. I am thinking he was probably using his dominant hand to do this.

[Brad]

May 8, 2020 17:40:50 GMT kg said:

I think we are talking about the Maggiores here wherein he intentionally chased them down and blasted away. I am thinking he was probably using his dominant hand to do this.

I was responding to this quote, from jckbqwk

"When this talk started about left hand, right hand shooter did bother me. I went back to one of the books I’ve read. Probably Sudden Terror since it was last one I read and most handy. I believe virtually all said gun in right hand, flashlight left hand. I can’t be sure but did any victim say gun in left hand Ever ?
I wish Bassman would have been a little more forthcoming. Theoretically he would know for sure?"

[Brad]

May 8, 2020 17:40:50 GMT kg said:

I think we are talking about the Maggiores here wherein he intentionally chased them down and blasted away. I am thinking he was probably using his dominant hand to do this.

Also, which witnesses said he used his right hand to shoot the Maggiores? Genuinely curious for my own notes. 

[kg]

May 8, 2020 17:47:56 GMT Brad said:

May 8, 2020 17:40:50 GMT kg said:

I think we are talking about the Maggiores here wherein he intentionally chased them down and blasted away. I am thinking he was probably using his dominant hand to do this.

Also, which witnesses said he used his right hand to shoot the Maggiores? Genuinely curious for my own notes. 

He placed the gun in his back right pocket after the shooting so by inference it is believed he is right handed.

[Brad]

May 8, 2020 18:58:23 GMT kg said:

May 8, 2020 17:47:56 GMT Brad said:

Also, which witnesses said he used his right hand to shoot the Maggiores? Genuinely curious for my own notes. 

He placed the gun in his back right pocket after the shooting so by inference it is believed he is right handed.

That did not answer my question. That's an anecdote. 

I'll repeat it:

Which witnesses said he used his right hand to shoot the Maggiores? Genuinely curious for my own notes.

Or, restated:

Which witnesses said he put his gun into his right pocket?

[paulienyc84]

This might be slightly off topic but during the EAR series, did newspapers and TV publish his very distinctive MO? I know there were some town meetings but were they specific about what JJD did during the home invasions? If you read information about the EAR attacks in sequence, it seems like every crime scene was the same with the waking up while the woman/man were asleep, shining the flashlight in their eyes, telling them to "shut up", demanding money and food, using the pre-tied shoelaces, speaking through clenched teeth, putting a towel over the TV; was the public made aware of all of this as the EAR attacks were occurring?

[jckbqwk]

 It’s so hard to remember. As we all know there was a news black T the time. I was a good ways into his attacks when they finally said there was a serial rapist. Honestly between the time he left sac area and his arrest I think the only MO item told to us was tied up and dishes on the Man. I don’t think a word was said about phone calls ,pre prowling,pre break ins. It was a pretty consistent program he ran and some details to the public could have certainly helped.
 I can just see a detective ask a victim did any of A,B,C,DE,,or F happen to you recently? 
Victim... Yes! Abcdef all happened over the last month.
Detective... ok that means he has been targeting you for about a month now. Keep this under your hat we want to catch him.

[cherylh]

I have a little of that information. The tie-ins between prowling and break-in reports, and the EAR attacks, took a while for investigators to notice. And when it finally became apparent, the decision was made to keep some of that information confidential, in hopes that law enforcement could use it to try to anticipate attacks and catch the EAR.

Later in the series, that information was released. And some victims felt betrayed by the timing of the decision to release the information about the pre-attack activities, because if they'd known, they would have been able to recognize that they were about to become victims. Many had experienced prowling and break-ins before being attacked.

But it is possible that if law enforcement has released that information to the public, JJD might have curbed those activities but continued his attacks. It's hard to know now what releasing the information earlier would have done.

Today most experts, inside and outside law enforcement, believe withholding information from the public was a mistake in this case. The police can only be in so many places at any one time. But when you put out the information across a wide area, you empower thousands of people to be on the lookout, to report suspicious activity, to call in tips. Modern law enforcement theory encourages exactly this type of public participation. Smart police chiefs have whole departments devoted to increasing public participation and involvement in the effort to keep neighborhoods and people safe. When police work with the community to make people feel included in their own safety, people tend to respond with more tips and witness reports.

Of course back in the 1970s and '80, these ideas weren't widespread among police agencies, especially those in smaller areas. They are still not well understood, or practiced, in many less competent police agencies today.

And many agencies aren't run by law enforcement professionals. Instead, they're headed by elected or appointed people who know little or nothing about law enforcement. They might just be a local businessman, or a relative or buddy of a town official. These types of problems are a big issue is certain regions of the country, and in small jurisdictions everywhere.

And to work well with the police, the public needs to trust the police. In many communities, that trust has not been earned.

[jckbqwk]

May 10, 2020 1:20:34 GMT cherylh said:

I have a little of that information. The tie-ins between prowling and break-in reports, and the EAR attacks, took a while for investigators to notice. And when it finally became apparent, the decision was made to keep some of that information confidential, in hopes that law enforcement could use it to try to anticipate attacks and catch the EAR.

Later in the series, that information was released. And some victims felt betrayed by the timing of the decision to release the information about the pre-attack activities, because if they'd known, they would have been able to recognize that they were about to become victims. Many had experienced prowling and break-ins before being attacked.

But it is possible that if law enforcement has released that information to the public, JJD might have curbed those activities but continued his attacks. It's hard to know now what releasing the information earlier would have done.

Today most experts, inside and outside law enforcement, believe withholding information from the public was a mistake in this case. The police can only be in so many places at any one time. But when you put out the information across a wide area, you empower thousands of people to be on the lookout, to report suspicious activity, to call in tips. Modern law enforcement theory encourages exactly this type of public participation. Smart police chiefs have whole departments devoted to increasing public participation and involvement in the effort to keep neighborhoods and people safe. When police work with the community to make people feel included in their own safety, people tend to respond with more tips and witness reports.

Of course back in the 1970s and '80, these ideas weren't widespread among police agencies, especially those in smaller areas. They are still not well understood, or practiced, in many less competent police agencies today.

And many agencies aren't run by law enforcement professionals. Instead, they're headed by elected or appointed people who know little or nothing about law enforcement. They might just be a local businessman, or a relative or buddy of a town official. These types of problems are a big issue is certain regions of the country, and in small jurisdictions everywhere.

And to work well with the police, the public needs to trust the police. In many communities, that trust has not been earned. V

 Could not have been stated better. Hindsight is 20/20. 

[murderinc]

May 10, 2020 1:20:34 GMT cherylh said:

I have a little of that information. The tie-ins between prowling and break-in reports, and the EAR attacks, took a while for investigators to notice. And when it finally became apparent, the decision was made to keep some of that information confidential, in hopes that law enforcement could use it to try to anticipate attacks and catch the EAR.

Later in the series, that information was released. And some victims felt betrayed by the timing of the decision to release the information about the pre-attack activities, because if they'd known, they would have been able to recognize that they were about to become victims. Many had experienced prowling and break-ins before being attacked.

But it is possible that if law enforcement has released that information to the public, JJD might have curbed those activities but continued his attacks. It's hard to know now what releasing the information earlier would have done.

Today most experts, inside and outside law enforcement, believe withholding information from the public was a mistake in this case. The police can only be in so many places at any one time. But when you put out the information across a wide area, you empower thousands of people to be on the lookout, to report suspicious activity, to call in tips. Modern law enforcement theory encourages exactly this type of public participation. Smart police chiefs have whole departments devoted to increasing public participation and involvement in the effort to keep neighborhoods and people safe. When police work with the community to make people feel included in their own safety, people tend to respond with more tips and witness reports.

Of course back in the 1970s and '80, these ideas weren't widespread among police agencies, especially those in smaller areas. They are still not well understood, or practiced, in many less competent police agencies today.

And many agencies aren't run by law enforcement professionals. Instead, they're headed by elected or appointed people who know little or nothing about law enforcement. They might just be a local businessman, or a relative or buddy of a town official. These types of problems are a big issue is certain regions of the country, and in small jurisdictions everywhere.

And to work well with the police, the public needs to trust the police. In many communities, that trust has not been earned.

and yet LE is no different today. Take a recent case like Delphi and look how long they hid the second composite, something like two years? Police always release the bare minimum of information, the safety of the public is not their concern or liability

[Brad]

May 8, 2020 19:01:18 GMT Brad said:

May 8, 2020 18:58:23 GMT kg said:

He placed the gun in his back right pocket after the shooting so by inference it is believed he is right handed.

That did not answer my question. That's an anecdote. 

I'll repeat it:

Which witnesses said he used his right hand to shoot the Maggiores? Genuinely curious for my own notes.

Or, restated:

Which witnesses said he put his gun into his right pocket?

Let's see if I can make this easier. Without any other context or accompanying sentences,  KG said

"He placed the gun in his back right pocket after the shooting so by inference it is believed he is right handed."

I asked which witnesses said that, with no answer. So I will ask some questions and work this backwards.

kg   1) You stated this so you must have heard or read it somewhere. Where did you hear/read this?

2) If you heard this from someone, who told you this and what reference did they give you as a source? This could be a published newspaper article, one of the books written about the case, or some other source. 

3) If you read this somewhere, where did you read it? Book, newspaper article, blog, reddit?

We can discuss the veracity of the source at some later point. 

By the way, I am not saying it's not true, because I do not know whether it is true or not. I am only trying to document something so that it is clear where the info came from when it is stated openly on the board without any supporting information.