Post by ferguson on Jun 13, 2016 5:46:46 GMT
I'm not saying that I 100% believe that there was a signature, but it's really not beyond the realm of possibilities that there could be SOMETHING he did, perhaps something seemingly small and innocuous, that could be considered a signature. I have no idea what it could be. But I don't think it's fair to completely write it off.
It sounds to me that there was a whole lot of raping going on in Sacramento in the 70's. The fact that SCSD didn't really take this seriously until he did it 6 or 7 times should tell you that it really wasn't all that uncommon. Obviously there were multiple serial rapists all operating in the same area at the same time as well. The Early Morning Rapist and Early Bird Rapist get mentioned here a lot, and I'm sure there were others. However, it seems like the SCSD was pretty certain that the same guy was responsible for all 36 or so EAR rapes in Sacramento County, and that they were looking for 1 guy. Why is that? I understand that his MO was pretty unique, but didn't these crimes get reported pretty widely in the papers? There certainly is a possibility that a copycat could've been responsible for some, or that one of the other serial rapists could've taken on some of EAR's tactics to hide their own crimes, right? but SCSD has held steadfast that this wasn't the case. There had to be something else, something very unique, that hasn't been disclosed yet, and it was probably pretty damn important.
SCSD was also SO sure that EAR would move on to the Bay Area that they personally went down there and warned them that he was coming. Then EAR did exactly that, and struck nearly as prolifically in Contra Costa County as he did in Sacramento. There was seemingly no doubt from CCSD that their guy was the same EAR that SCSD had been chasing in Sacramento. Again, if there wasn't some kind of signature, and they had so DNA evidence or fingerprints to compare, then how could they be so sure?
I'd just have to say the unique m.o. It's possible some rapist could have copied it, and probably thought of it, but they probably would have blundered it up after the first try.
I would think that LE would have liked to have blamed it on multiple offenders if they could have. Having more then one EAR makes them look less bad then one man doing all those crimes and alluding them. Sorry, but where did you first read or hear about the signature again?
Again, I'm just skeptical that all these departments, that couldn't seem to agree on where to have a cup of coffee together at, could somehow not let word get slipped out, after all these years about a lone signature at all the crimes. I could be wrong.
I also just happen to think that it makes sense.