Overlooked Connection on Attack 45? A Different Perspective.
Aug 18, 2017 23:26:02 GMT
Jay7777, winters, and 3 more like this
Post by Nerdfather on Aug 18, 2017 23:26:02 GMT
In my last few posts I have been heavily focusing on attack 45 in Walnut Creek, California on June 2, 1979. I'm going to continue with that trend but from a different perspective, because there are a few instances where the small details in this crime can potentially be pivotal evidence if given the right exposure.
The aftermath of events from the attack on the seventeen-year-old babysitter produced three separate occurrences with three different male figures that happened *almost* simultaneously. I'll detail these accounts and hopefully provide a new angle to study the case.
The drunk driver. A particularly young man who had a striking resemblance to the numerous descriptions given for The East Area Rapist was weaving in and out of traffic. The police -- on their way to the crime scene of the babysitter -- pulled him over in the process. Inside his vehicle was a large hunting knife in its sheath, along with a pair of suede gloves. The police investigators took him to Walnut Creek Police Station and questioned him further. The driver was very cooperative and told investigators he had left a party with friends shortly before being stopped. The authorities followed up on his statement and his alibi checked out. He was cleared of having any involvement in the sexual assault case.
The pantless prowler. The police received a phone call from a concerned resident in the proximity of the crime scene. She had told them a person was wandering around the vicinity without any pants. The authorities made note of the situation and was able to apprehend the suspect. The prowler told the investigators he lived in Pleasant Hill and recently ended his shift from being a janitor at 7:00 p.m. and was searching for his missing cat. Inside of his vehicle were photographs of several women that were taken by a camera with a zoomed lens. It's unknown what happened after his apprehension.
The second drunk driver. Shortly after the sexual assault on victim 45, an individual driving a 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass was pulled over for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Along with the previous drunk driver, the suspect matched the similarities to The East Area Rapist. While the police were questioning the man in his vehicle, another officer arrived to the scene with his K-9. The dog began sniffing inside the vehicle, picking up a foul odor before being alerted to the driver. The man was arrested and charged with drunk driving and sexual assault; police believing he was The East Area Rapist. A short time thereafter, the police had to let the suspect go because of a conduction error. Since the K-9 sniffed the inside of the perpetrator's vehicle first rather than the driver, that is why the dog acted strangely. The odor could have been anything.
The first drunk driver is someone I'd like to discuss further. My last few posts focused on the pantless prowler, and for good reason from my perspective. I have yet to find any valuable information pertaining to what happened to him after his apprehension.
According to the victim of attack 45, her attacker came from the hallway. Prior to this, she had put the young child she was babysitting down to sleep. Afterward, she went to the kitchen to finish up her homework while waiting for the child's parents to arrive back home. In the midst of this, a loud sound echoed from the hallway. As she was getting up to check on the commotion, that's when a masked intruder surprised her. He was wearing a white mask, and had a pair of gloves on while holding a large rectangular object in his hand. Moreover, attached to his hip was hunting knife in its sheath.
Could this be a possible connection? The alleged drunk driver had a hunting knife in its sheath in his vehicle, along with suede gloves. Since the suspect was ultimately let go due to being cooperative with police and having his alibi confirmed, I am curious if law enforcement thoroughly investigated his alibi story. His alibi may have checked out, but another question worth considering is the time because of the general context. Could he have left the party way earlier than the suggested time? Though the description states the driver left the party shortly before being pulled over, that timeframe can be interpreted to many options. Was it five - ten minutes, or thirty to an hour? Many people have their own opinions in regards to "a short time."
Additionally, it would have been intuitive to ask the rape victim if the knife/sheath used by her assailant was the same from this individual driving. Unfortunately, there is no specific detail regarding what material the gloves the babysitter's attacker had on. Could they have been suede?
Furthermore, there's nothing necessarily suggesting the driver was genuinely drunk. He was pulled over for mere suspicion due to his driving. In what ways did the police believe he was drunk throughout their conversation with him? Did they issue a breathalyzer? Did they ask him to walk in a straight line? Was his speech altered in anyway, such as slurring his words?
Another thing to consider is the timing. While Walnut Creek has a semi-large population, the sheer fact this supposed drunk driver -- as well two other suspicious men -- was pulled over in the vicinity shortly after the sexual assault took place is hard to simply rule as a coincidence. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty.
Likewise, this drunk driver matched the numerous descriptions people had given as to what The East Area Rapist *may* have looked like. Regrettably, that certain aspect can't be one-hundred percent conclusive, but it's still compelling nonetheless.
In a bizarre fashion, the victim claimed her rapist was carrying a large rectangle object, but she was unable to figure out what the item was. This is where the theories begin. What could this mysterious item be? Once again, a lack of information makes this a roadblock in the case. There is no mention of the size other than the word "large," so figuring out its measurements is unlikely. Secondly, was this particular item brought to the crime scene by the assailant or was it a personal belonging to the household and he was stealing the item? From the reports, it sounds as if the criminal brought this item with him.
For the sake of speculation, let's assume this large rectangular object belonged to the family members of the household The East Area Rapist attacked. What could it possibly be? Perhaps a jewelry and/or cigar box? It's hard to fathom and guess, especially given the decade this occurred (70's - transitioning in the 80's).
However, if the perpetrator brought the object with him, that makes things easier to judge. The East Area Rapist always came prepared. He traveled light. When preparing for his assault, he only brought items that he would use and nothing more. A mask, gun/knife, shoestrings (although he did take shoestrings from some of the victim's shoes), baby lotion (he used the victim's lotion as well) and other small necessities that wouldn't be a detriment for him while making his escape. To me, that suggests this item he had was something that helped personify his modus operandi -- a pleasure of his that helped fulfill his fantasy.
Could this object have been a camera? I've mentioned it in my previous post, but law enforcement held a press conference in 2016 stating there are two pieces of EAR/ONS' modus operandi that they haven't disclosed to the public. If he did photograph his victims, that would make sense in some formality. It'd give him an even clearer picture to fantasize and remember his attack(s). Also, many women (and men) who were attacked were blindfolded. How would the victim's know they were being photographed (if this particular theory is correct) if they were unable to see? The sound, perhaps?
Moreover, according to what I read on the details given for attack 45 on the [ColdCase-EARONS](https://www.coldcase-earons.com/45.php) website, the perpetrator had also brought along this same -- or at least, very similar -- object to attack 43 (I haven't been able to find any corroborating evidence this happened). This particular attack itself is very strange. One could easily dismiss this from being linked to The East Area Rapist. If you're interested, I discussed the case in [part ten](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6eqnz3/the_east_area_rapist_part_10/) of my twelve part series. If this rectangular object was a camera, that could explain why the criminal was standing over the victim for minutes without saying a word.
Understandably, I could be entirely wrong. However, if we focus specifically on attack 45, I find it very coincidental that three people were pulled over and arrested in the general area where the attack occurred. When you put together the puzzle pieces, you get a sense that *maybe* one of those individuals was the notorious East Area Rapist. The first drunk driver had his alibi checked out, so he was cleared of all charges, although he had a large hunting knife in its sheath, along with suede gloves (granted, the gloves may not have been suede), stored in his vehicle. The pantless prowler had very suspicious intentions, but no subsequent information can be found after his initial arrest. The second drunk driver had to be let go due to a police error, yet he too fit the description for The East Area Rapist.
With all of that being said, though the drunk driver was released due to a corroboration of his supposed whereabouts, the police surely obtained the driver's name, correct? Whether or not they followed up on the suspect afterwards, I cannot say. This also applies to the driver in the 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass. Regardless, their name should be on file unless the records have been thrown out, which from what I understand, a list of suspects and evidence had been trashed by Sacramento officials (I'm unclear of what year this happened). The evidence may be circumstantial at best, but in terms of the specific attack itself and the details provided, it's certainly an intriguing lead. What are your thoughts?
Edit and Important Update: I may have confused the facts on accident. While there were three people in the area - two drunk drivers and the pantless prowler, apparently the drunk driver who had his alibi confirmed (being at the party) was the individual who had the knife/sheath, and not the other driver who was let go on a police conduction error. This error comes from my own mistake of course, and the two different sources I've read (Richard Shelby's "Hunting a Psychopath" and Larry Crompton's, "Sudden Terror"). Nevertheless, I think some of the details remain relevant, such as following up on the pantless prowler and whether or not the knife/sheath (and possibly gloves) matched the same from the attack on the babysitter moments prior. While the police let the suspect go due to him being cooperative and his story checking out, I'd still like to know how thorough they were with the investigation.
The aftermath of events from the attack on the seventeen-year-old babysitter produced three separate occurrences with three different male figures that happened *almost* simultaneously. I'll detail these accounts and hopefully provide a new angle to study the case.
The drunk driver. A particularly young man who had a striking resemblance to the numerous descriptions given for The East Area Rapist was weaving in and out of traffic. The police -- on their way to the crime scene of the babysitter -- pulled him over in the process. Inside his vehicle was a large hunting knife in its sheath, along with a pair of suede gloves. The police investigators took him to Walnut Creek Police Station and questioned him further. The driver was very cooperative and told investigators he had left a party with friends shortly before being stopped. The authorities followed up on his statement and his alibi checked out. He was cleared of having any involvement in the sexual assault case.
The pantless prowler. The police received a phone call from a concerned resident in the proximity of the crime scene. She had told them a person was wandering around the vicinity without any pants. The authorities made note of the situation and was able to apprehend the suspect. The prowler told the investigators he lived in Pleasant Hill and recently ended his shift from being a janitor at 7:00 p.m. and was searching for his missing cat. Inside of his vehicle were photographs of several women that were taken by a camera with a zoomed lens. It's unknown what happened after his apprehension.
The second drunk driver. Shortly after the sexual assault on victim 45, an individual driving a 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass was pulled over for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Along with the previous drunk driver, the suspect matched the similarities to The East Area Rapist. While the police were questioning the man in his vehicle, another officer arrived to the scene with his K-9. The dog began sniffing inside the vehicle, picking up a foul odor before being alerted to the driver. The man was arrested and charged with drunk driving and sexual assault; police believing he was The East Area Rapist. A short time thereafter, the police had to let the suspect go because of a conduction error. Since the K-9 sniffed the inside of the perpetrator's vehicle first rather than the driver, that is why the dog acted strangely. The odor could have been anything.
The first drunk driver is someone I'd like to discuss further. My last few posts focused on the pantless prowler, and for good reason from my perspective. I have yet to find any valuable information pertaining to what happened to him after his apprehension.
According to the victim of attack 45, her attacker came from the hallway. Prior to this, she had put the young child she was babysitting down to sleep. Afterward, she went to the kitchen to finish up her homework while waiting for the child's parents to arrive back home. In the midst of this, a loud sound echoed from the hallway. As she was getting up to check on the commotion, that's when a masked intruder surprised her. He was wearing a white mask, and had a pair of gloves on while holding a large rectangular object in his hand. Moreover, attached to his hip was hunting knife in its sheath.
Could this be a possible connection? The alleged drunk driver had a hunting knife in its sheath in his vehicle, along with suede gloves. Since the suspect was ultimately let go due to being cooperative with police and having his alibi confirmed, I am curious if law enforcement thoroughly investigated his alibi story. His alibi may have checked out, but another question worth considering is the time because of the general context. Could he have left the party way earlier than the suggested time? Though the description states the driver left the party shortly before being pulled over, that timeframe can be interpreted to many options. Was it five - ten minutes, or thirty to an hour? Many people have their own opinions in regards to "a short time."
Additionally, it would have been intuitive to ask the rape victim if the knife/sheath used by her assailant was the same from this individual driving. Unfortunately, there is no specific detail regarding what material the gloves the babysitter's attacker had on. Could they have been suede?
Furthermore, there's nothing necessarily suggesting the driver was genuinely drunk. He was pulled over for mere suspicion due to his driving. In what ways did the police believe he was drunk throughout their conversation with him? Did they issue a breathalyzer? Did they ask him to walk in a straight line? Was his speech altered in anyway, such as slurring his words?
Another thing to consider is the timing. While Walnut Creek has a semi-large population, the sheer fact this supposed drunk driver -- as well two other suspicious men -- was pulled over in the vicinity shortly after the sexual assault took place is hard to simply rule as a coincidence. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty.
Likewise, this drunk driver matched the numerous descriptions people had given as to what The East Area Rapist *may* have looked like. Regrettably, that certain aspect can't be one-hundred percent conclusive, but it's still compelling nonetheless.
In a bizarre fashion, the victim claimed her rapist was carrying a large rectangle object, but she was unable to figure out what the item was. This is where the theories begin. What could this mysterious item be? Once again, a lack of information makes this a roadblock in the case. There is no mention of the size other than the word "large," so figuring out its measurements is unlikely. Secondly, was this particular item brought to the crime scene by the assailant or was it a personal belonging to the household and he was stealing the item? From the reports, it sounds as if the criminal brought this item with him.
For the sake of speculation, let's assume this large rectangular object belonged to the family members of the household The East Area Rapist attacked. What could it possibly be? Perhaps a jewelry and/or cigar box? It's hard to fathom and guess, especially given the decade this occurred (70's - transitioning in the 80's).
However, if the perpetrator brought the object with him, that makes things easier to judge. The East Area Rapist always came prepared. He traveled light. When preparing for his assault, he only brought items that he would use and nothing more. A mask, gun/knife, shoestrings (although he did take shoestrings from some of the victim's shoes), baby lotion (he used the victim's lotion as well) and other small necessities that wouldn't be a detriment for him while making his escape. To me, that suggests this item he had was something that helped personify his modus operandi -- a pleasure of his that helped fulfill his fantasy.
Could this object have been a camera? I've mentioned it in my previous post, but law enforcement held a press conference in 2016 stating there are two pieces of EAR/ONS' modus operandi that they haven't disclosed to the public. If he did photograph his victims, that would make sense in some formality. It'd give him an even clearer picture to fantasize and remember his attack(s). Also, many women (and men) who were attacked were blindfolded. How would the victim's know they were being photographed (if this particular theory is correct) if they were unable to see? The sound, perhaps?
Moreover, according to what I read on the details given for attack 45 on the [ColdCase-EARONS](https://www.coldcase-earons.com/45.php) website, the perpetrator had also brought along this same -- or at least, very similar -- object to attack 43 (I haven't been able to find any corroborating evidence this happened). This particular attack itself is very strange. One could easily dismiss this from being linked to The East Area Rapist. If you're interested, I discussed the case in [part ten](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6eqnz3/the_east_area_rapist_part_10/) of my twelve part series. If this rectangular object was a camera, that could explain why the criminal was standing over the victim for minutes without saying a word.
Understandably, I could be entirely wrong. However, if we focus specifically on attack 45, I find it very coincidental that three people were pulled over and arrested in the general area where the attack occurred. When you put together the puzzle pieces, you get a sense that *maybe* one of those individuals was the notorious East Area Rapist. The first drunk driver had his alibi checked out, so he was cleared of all charges, although he had a large hunting knife in its sheath, along with suede gloves (granted, the gloves may not have been suede), stored in his vehicle. The pantless prowler had very suspicious intentions, but no subsequent information can be found after his initial arrest. The second drunk driver had to be let go due to a police error, yet he too fit the description for The East Area Rapist.
With all of that being said, though the drunk driver was released due to a corroboration of his supposed whereabouts, the police surely obtained the driver's name, correct? Whether or not they followed up on the suspect afterwards, I cannot say. This also applies to the driver in the 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass. Regardless, their name should be on file unless the records have been thrown out, which from what I understand, a list of suspects and evidence had been trashed by Sacramento officials (I'm unclear of what year this happened). The evidence may be circumstantial at best, but in terms of the specific attack itself and the details provided, it's certainly an intriguing lead. What are your thoughts?
Edit and Important Update: I may have confused the facts on accident. While there were three people in the area - two drunk drivers and the pantless prowler, apparently the drunk driver who had his alibi confirmed (being at the party) was the individual who had the knife/sheath, and not the other driver who was let go on a police conduction error. This error comes from my own mistake of course, and the two different sources I've read (Richard Shelby's "Hunting a Psychopath" and Larry Crompton's, "Sudden Terror"). Nevertheless, I think some of the details remain relevant, such as following up on the pantless prowler and whether or not the knife/sheath (and possibly gloves) matched the same from the attack on the babysitter moments prior. While the police let the suspect go due to him being cooperative and his story checking out, I'd still like to know how thorough they were with the investigation.