Offerman and the Janitor

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 9, 2013 14:46:15 GMT guessting said:

Oct 9, 2013 6:32:18 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

I don't want to be stubborn but just want to explore the framing angle and various different possibilities. I feel very bad for the Glasby family. Brett was a scoundrel but he was no killer. His family loved him and Brian and they were killed. The family has been hounded for over 30 years. My intention is not to harm Brett but to hopefully show he was framed and that he actually was a victim too. Who knew his connection to Offerman and knew about the dog. What does it hurt to explore this angle. Everyone is free to explore their own angle. I'm not going to tell anyone "don't look at the 6th grade classes" "don't look at the map" whatever. Everyone should pursue all angles. I used to believe in another poi who was cleared, it doesn't mean he shouldn't have been looked into. How are we going to solve the case unless we keep a reasonably open mind. I have no problem with what guessting says. I have so much respect for her and her work on this case. The main thing I would like is to clear up false information. Like Brett did not have a pot farm. He did not bring the dog to guard the pot farm etc. I just fervently wish that LE would clear up some things.

Here is a really big question. I was told that Russ Whitmeyer said that "the accomplice" in the Offerman break-in and beating of the janitor confessed and took a plea deal. I need to verify the plead deal part. Tonight is the first time I heard that.

Can anyone clarify if that is true or false. From what I have been reading on the board it is false but according to someone in the know it is what Russ Whitmeyer told him.

So can anyone weigh in on that one, guessting? Port? anyone?

That is not true in my records. I have never heard that. If there had been a plea deal there would be a public record of that. Not wanting to gossip or say anything bad about RW but I will say after doing my own research MANY things W told me were not what I found to be FACT. Happy digging! g

Hi g, That is what I suspected.  My conjecture is that sometimes investigators don't tell the truth while fishing for information.  "Maybe" that is what happened here?  It didn't make sense to me so I'll stick with what has been posted here on the board.  Thanks! 

UPDATE:  I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IT WAS ANOTHER PERSON POSING AS AN EMPLOYEE OF RUSS WHITMEYER THAT CONTACTED WG IN JAIL STATING THAT THE ACCOMPLICE HAD CONFESSED.  SO IT LOOKS LIKE RUSS WHITMEYER DID NOT TWIST FACTS BUT SOMEONE ELSE DID.  I DO NOT WANT TO POST THE NAME OF THAT INDIVIDUAL ON THE BOARD.  SO AGAIN, NOT WHITMEYER SOMEONE WHO WAS APPARENTLY LYING THAT HE WAS WHITMEYER'S EMPLOYEE.

[redding]

Oct 9, 2013 5:04:27 GMT Drifter said:

quote from redding:
"Why keep searching if all the connections [between Brett Glasby and the Original Night Stalker] have proven to be false?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated in another thread, the only certainties about this case relate to names, dates, locations, and a few specific pieces of evidence. Almost nothing else is certain.

You are free to believe there is no connection between Glasby and the Original Night Stalker.  Other posters may not share your belief.

And to say that the stated connection has "proven to be false" is not correct. 


What I was saying appears to be false are some of the connections that have been alleged to exist between Glasby and the GSK. My point is if the original information that seemed to be the underpinnings of a theory are found to be in doubt then it is probably wise to take a step back and see if there is any reason to still hold a theory up as viable. I never said that anything could prove that the GSK didn't frame Glasby.  You can't prove a negative.  Although usually when someone frames someone they plant evidence that would directly implicate another party.  There is no indication of this in any of the known information regarding Goleta.  Hopefully by talking these things through we can rate beliefs on how probable or improbable they are.  This is what juries do everyday.  When you are in a jury room your ideas and beliefs about a case are scrutinized.  If you can not support your belief with information that validates it then the rest of the jury usually discounts your theory.  I don't see why we shouldn't do the same thing here.   

[guessting]

Oct 9, 2013 16:11:28 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Oct 9, 2013 14:46:15 GMT guessting said:

That is not true in my records. I have never heard that. If there had been a plea deal there would be a public record of that. Not wanting to gossip or say anything bad about RW but I will say after doing my own research MANY things W told me were not what I found to be FACT. Happy digging! g

Hi g, That is what I suspected.  My conjecture is that sometimes investigators don't tell the truth while fishing for information.  "Maybe" that is what happened here?  It didn't make sense to me so I'll stick with what has been posted here on the board.  Thanks!

[guessting]

Oct 9, 2013 16:15:21 GMT redding said:

Oct 9, 2013 5:04:27 GMT Drifter said:

quote from redding:
"Why keep searching if all the connections [between Brett Glasby and the Original Night Stalker] have proven to be false?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated in another thread, the only certainties about this case relate to names, dates, locations, and a few specific pieces of evidence. Almost nothing else is certain.

You are free to believe there is no connection between Glasby and the Original Night Stalker.  Other posters may not share your belief.

And to say that the stated connection has "proven to be false" is not correct. 


What I was saying appears to be false are some of the connections that have been alleged to exist between Glasby and the GSK. My point is if the original information that seemed to be the underpinnings of a theory are found to be in doubt then it is probably wise to take a step back and see if there is any reason to still hold a theory up as viable. I never said that anything could prove that the GSK didn't frame Glasby.  You can't prove a negative.  Although usually when someone frames someone they plant evidence that would directly implicate another party.  There is no indication of this in any of the known information regarding Goleta.  Hopefully by talking these things through we can rate beliefs on how probable or improbable they are.  This is what juries do everyday.  When you are in a jury room your ideas and beliefs about a case are scrutinized.  If you can not support your belief with information that validates it then the rest of the jury usually discounts your theory.  I don't see why we shouldn't do the same thing here.   


Redding, the difference here is the jury is usually given what they need to make a decision. This board obviously does not have all the information. We are not a jury so I don't think we should behave as such. The board provides a format to banter ideas back and forth. We have a choice about what we banter about...g

[redding]

Guessting,

Actually juries often have conflicting theories to resolve. It is the job of the defense to present alternatives to the prosecutions theory. Then the jury has to decide the strength of various information. This seems very similar to what we are trying to do here. Afterall we are trying to solve a case. Would it help solve the case to tell Sandia that I think she is on the right track when there is no reason to believe that she is? How does that move things forward? The truth is the idea that the GSK knew Glasby was a long shot when she decided to look into it. Now that she has looked into it and has determined that many of the connections appear to be invalid it is no longer a credible theory. IMO.

          On the old board I went through a similar process regarding the lace(s) found at the Maggiore crime scene.  I asked for any explanation for how the lace(s) came to be there.  There were many theories put forward from the wind, to honey badgers, to police conspiracies etc.  Each time someone put forward a theory I would ask them how likely they thought it was.  In the end it was plain to see that the only likely way for the lace(s) to show up at that murder scene was if the EAR dropped them there.  This helped the board as a whole to reach the conclusion that in all probability that the EAR killed the Maggiore's.   If we aren't going to try and consider how likely a given scenario is then we will never get anywhere.  IMO.  

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

UPDATE: To be sure everyone see's my edited post above I will repeat it here. I have a correction. Russ Whitmeyer is not the one that said that "the accomplice" confessed and plead. It was person that was apparently lying and saying he was an employee of Russ Whitmeyer, when actually he was the son of someone involved in the periphery of the crimes who was trying to do some sleuthing on his own and contacted W. Glasby with this info. So just to clear Russ Whitmeyer, he did not state that the accomplice plead guilty.

[Drifter]

"You found people from the board lying about 'facts'? You dont say! "
------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? Where does Sandia state that someone from the board was lying?

She explicitly says "It didn't make sense to me so I'll stick with what has been posted here on the board".

[Drifter]

quote from cerulean:
"One of the things this thread also proves is, that if someone from the board states a fact that cant be verified by any of the information that has been made public by LE, it shouldn't be taken as one. You dont know where that information came from. If it isnt open to public scrutiny and it cant be vetted, then it isnt any good to take it as fact".
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go again, trusting LE to the max.

Actually what you have said about people on the board can apply equally to LE, as you tacitly admit when you state:

"If LE who worked the cases can be wrong ..."

Yes indeed. So true.

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 10, 2013 5:32:47 GMT Drifter said:

"You found people from the board lying about 'facts'? You dont say! "
------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? Where does Sandia state that someone from the board was lying?

She explicitly says "It didn't make sense to me so I'll stick with what has been posted here on the board".

Thank you Drifter.  That is right.  I always appreciate your defending me when you see fit. 

I have been communicating with an ex-Haskull's local.  I know who he is and I know a lot about him.  He has been so nice to me and so cooperative and helpful, he wants to see this killer caught too.  He has bought Sudden Terror and is reading it and is going to give it to Greg Glasby to read, which Greg hasn't done.  It actually is my hope that other Haskull's Locals might get interested and read the book too.  Some important information could come out of this if they recognize something in the book that rings a bell with them.  A lot of them have gone into construction for instance, it might make them start thinking back and remember something or someone.

My contact has been my liaison with Greg Glasby who is reluctant to talk about this case.  He is sick to death of it and has been bugged and harassed for over 30 years by members of the board as well as LE etc.  My approach to Greg is to help Greg with my "FRAMING THEORY, THEORY, THEORY"  I want him to help me help him.  I have run the names of certain poi's that I have found and some that I was given clearance to mention to him.  He knew some of them and does not think they would be GSK at all and others he has not heard of.  I was hoping that he would but have stuck out on that aspect. 

 I always try to keep fact from conjecture in what I write.  Others have posted things as fact on the board and I have made the mistake of accepting them as fact.  For instance the dog being used to guard Brett's pot farm. 

So cerulean's point is VERY WELL TAKEN, we have to be so careful not to state things as fact, but as opinion and we have to be careful to read these things carefully to not take one members opinion as fact. 

I have cleared that up I think once and for all through my Haskull's contact.  Brett did not own the pot farm, he raided it.  He did not bring the dog to guard a pot farm he did not own.  So those were things I had previously accepted  from other posters and that I cleared that up recently. 

My appeal is to other posters and LE to please step up and clear out other misinformation too.  Again LE can have theories that are not factual too.  They might believe the VR is or is not GSK.  They might have a theory the dog is not connected but I'd like to hear more as to why, because that is a theory on their part too. Have they really considered that the dog was used to frame and that is why it was not connected to any other crimes outside of Goleta?  That is my big question to LE.

Now regarding my "framing theory"  again my THEORY.  There are many theories.  We should all be free to explore these theories without others telling us not to.  I am not going to tell anyone, "don't explore your theory."  Who am I to tell anyone what to do.  So to those who keep harping on my theory, not just cerulean, but redding and others, please explore your own theory if you don't like my theory and LEAVE ME ALONE!  It's starting to chafe my hide.  Temper temper, Sandia.

Cerulean you have stated things as fact and you have been so wrong.  It actually was funny when you first came on the other board under you other name which I will not out you for on here.  But some of the things you stated as fact were so wrong and such old news.  Look in the mirror, woman!

Now I was on a 3 way instant message set up two nights ago with my contact and Greg Glasby.  I told my contact I will not share anything on this board without his permission.  I asked his permission and he told me it was fine to mention that it was Greg that I was talking with in the 3 way IM.

Greg was upset with a person that I will call Mr. X that is involved in this case on the periphery.  Mr. X contacted Greg's brother, WG, in prison.  He told WG that he was an employee of Russ Whitmeyer.  He told WG that "the accomplice" in the Offerman break-in/beating had plead guilty.  Now those are the things that were told to me by Greg Glasby.  Greg was very upset with this Mr. X for lying to his brother and for some other things. 

You can accept them or not, cerulean, but that is factual, that is what he said.  Now here is some CONJECTURE on my part.  Why would he lie to WG? -- I'm thinking to trick WG into admitting that his brother was part of the break-in because if the accomplice plead guilty WG would think that the accomplice was going to throw Brett under the bus and say something.  Pure conjecture as to why Mr. X would do that. 

So I tried to come on and clarify that I don't believe Mr. X was actually working for Russ Whitmeyer, although I don't know that for sure.  I think he lied about that and I wanted to clear Russ Whitmeyer's name.

I clarified that for Greg, because Greg had blamed Whitmeyer and I told him through my friend that Mr. X was probably lying and Whitmeyer probably had nothing to do with it PROBABLY.  I don't know that for a fact.

[guessting]

Just a THOUGHT Sandia, What if and I say if.. this guy was working with RW and this is the scenario. The "accomplice" did turn states evidence in another homicide case that is a fact and is public record. Anything to save his own arse! He was freed very shortly after the conviction (a few years) not a life sentence like others. Maybe "the accomplice" did admit things about the other case, admitting it with the hope of satisfying other detectives who were investigating this other case. "the accomplice" may of received good time for more than the immediate homicide they were investigating at "the acomplice" trial at that time. God I hope this makes sense. It does to me and that might be the problem lol.

[redding]

Sandia,

       I think that your efforts have helped clear up several issues about the Goleta crimes.  I apologize if my opinions about your theory have annoyed you. 

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 10, 2013 20:10:15 GMT redding said:

Sandia,

       I think that your efforts have helped clear up several issues about the Goleta crimes.  I apologize if my opinions about your theory have annoyed you. 

Sorry redding, I was a little cranky!  All is forgiven.  You're my bud.  99

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 10, 2013 20:00:12 GMT guessting said:

Just a THOUGHT Sandia, What if and I say if.. this guy was working with RW and this is the scenario. The "accomplice" did turn states evidence in another homicide case that is a fact and is public record. Anything to save his own arse! He was freed very shortly after the conviction (a few years) not a life sentence like others. Maybe "the accomplice" did admit things about the other case, admitting it with the hope of satisfying other detectives who were investigating this other case. "the accomplice" may of received good time for more than the immediate homicide they were investigating at "the acomplice" trial at that time. God I hope this makes sense. It does to me and that might be the problem lol.

To paraphrase Port:  "According to the detective that worked the case "The Accomplice" fled town.  I would NOT characterize that as a plea deal.

So that is an interesting observation.  First it looks like a "consciousness of guilt" and it does lead one to believe he did not plead guilty.  If he had pled guilty you know they would have leaned on him to implicate his partner.  So since they are BOTH free, it seems like he did not plead guilty.

G.  I really like thinking out of the box though.  The case hasn't been solved for over 30 years and it is that type of looking at evidence again and with fresh eyes and an open mind that could be successful.

I do agree that it is possible Mr. X as I call him really could have been working with Russ W.  I kind of doubt it though going by my interaction with Russ.  Remember when I gave Russ that POI that I was all excited about and Russ was too and I gave Russ the contact info for the ex-wife that I had located and spoke too.  Well, Russ cut me right out of the picture and took over.  Had the ex wife speak only to him.  I really didn't care.  I just want the case solved and if he could take the ball and run with it, great.  When the poi was cleared he told me the status, was rather upset with me I suspect, (not sure), even though I tried to tell him over and over there were certain things pointing AWAY from the poi.  So judging on how he took over that is what makes me kind of doubt he would allow someone else to contact WG.  But maybe there is a reason he would allow it.  Just don't know for sure of course.

BIG question:  I know and have read the trial transcript for what I believe was the first murder "the accomplice" took part in up in Sacramento, kind of a gang type thing.  Nothing like GSK.  And again for everyone reading "the accomplice" is definitely NOT GSK.  I believe "he said" who knows if that is true, that he was just the driver and testified against "his friends" and got a slap on the wrist.  So is it that trial that you are referring to?  I understand he was involved in a second murder (that is mind boggling that if true he is still free).  So can you clarify if he was involved in a second murder, it that is the one you think he could have used the plea for? Somehow, that doesn't really make sense to me though. 

So to repeat:  1)  Was he involved in two murders?
                     2) If so, how is it he is still walking around free
                      3)  Which one do you think he might have plead guilty to the robbery for?  

Thanks g,  99
            

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 9, 2013 13:22:52 GMT portofleith said:

Oct 9, 2013 7:37:02 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Hi Drifter, Thanks for your points and I agree with you completely.  I can clarify what I was told.  I looked at my notes and I was definitely told by someone in the know that Russ Whitmeyer said (not sure but I wonder if Russ Whitmeyer was being deliberately misleading for investigative purposes, so repeat Russ "SAID" THAT "the accomplice" confessed to the Offerman robbery/beating and plead to a deal in court.  We should know this if it was factual, and BG would have been charged then, ergo I am questioning what Russ W. apparently said."

So again a plea to guessting, port, or whoever might know the facts to clarify.

According to a detective who worked the janitor beating, the suspected accomplice fled town.  I would not characterize that as a plea deal.  The janitor beating should be re-visited.  It is possible that the two POI's were not the actual perps, as was commonly believed.

I am cutting and pasting PortofLeith's statement from a post above on this thread:

"According to a detective who worked the janitor beating, the suspected accomplice fled town. I would not characterize that as a plea deal. The janitor beating should be re-visited. It is possible that the two POI's were not the actual perps, as was commonly believed."

It's me 99 now: I have been thinking more about this Offerman office robbery/janitor beating:

What if Brett Glasby was NOT involved, what if it was "The Accomplice" and someone else? AND maybe it wasn't even "The Accomplice". The accomplice was part black and the janitor gave some details to the description. I wonder if he said that it was an African American (he doesn't even look black to me, he looks more latin to me, he has one of those looks you really can't tell what he is from the pictures I have seen of him but perhaps in person he looks different?) But what if the janitor said it was someone who looked mixed race and part African American of such and such height and weight and a blond dude. What if the blond dude was not Glasby, but GSK?

What is making me wonder is because it seems SB LE had Glasby in their sights and wanted it to be him. Did they have blinders on, could it be that it was not Glasby. His brother Greg claims he doesn't know about that robbery and if Glasby was in trouble it seems he would have discussed it with his brother? It looks like he didn't from what I understood him to say. I'd like to get that clarified to be sure, but that is the way I understood it.

It would be good to take a second look at that robbery/beating.

[portofleith]

Sandia-

What if there was something involved with the janitor beating that made LE associate it with the Offerman Manning murders?  I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say that some people in LE may have wanted to find a local solution to their crime, but Glasby was not that solution.

If you or anyone is in Santa Barbara, could you please get a news clipping on the the janitor beating?  It would have occurred shortly before the Offerman Manning murders and it was not just a beating.  I don't know if shortly means weeks or a month or two.  It seems that trouble came to town in the Fall of 1979.

The individual you refer to as accomplice, is in prison in Arizona, if that is any consolation.

I'm not convinced that he or Glasby had any involvement in the janitor beating.