Is VR and EAR the same person, by GoBears

[clandestineclementin]

Oct 21, 2013 19:35:51 GMT redding said:

Oct 20, 2013 2:27:30 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Hi redding,  I'll answer that as Port requested that I do.  When I told Inv. Pool about the Eva Taylor case on Parejo in 1974 (sleeping woman, bludgeoned to death, only a locket and wedding ring set of very little value taken while a very expensive Diamond dinner ring was left.  A youth was seen jumping over her rear fence earlier in the evening.  Investigator Pool was very interested in that case.  I gave him the information on Eva's daughter and how to contact her.  He interviewed the daughter for over an hour by phone.  The daughter told me that the next morning after her mother's murder she was standing in the front bedroom of the house while the police were inside.  She did not go into the room where her mother was found. (This is so sick and tragic!!!)  A big chunk of the wooden head board was missing, blood all over the room, ceiling walls etc.  While the daughter was in the front bedroom a VW came down the street and did a very fast turn around in front of the house.  The daughter wanted to say the VW was white but thought better of it and is not sure what color the VW was.  She does not think it was a dune buggy,  She is not sure if the tires screeched yet it stood out to her as very odd and remembers it as a strange occurance to this day.  At some point the daughter became a psychologist.  They started getting hang up calls.  They were buying and selling houses and moving frequently withing Goleta/Santa Barbara/Montecito and the calls continued whereever they went.  Nothing was said, just listening and hang up.  She had always thought it was probably one of her disturbed patients.  Even her husband got hang up calls at his work.  I think after she read Sudden Terror, she wondered it those calls were from a patient of hers of not.  She just doesn't know.

Well Inv. Pool told me when I questioned it it could be an EAR/ONS crime and what about the "progression of violence" he said that the progression of violence does not always hold true.  He said sometimes a person who commits his first murder might choose an easy victim and not murder again for years.  So he does not hold fast to the progression of violence theory.  He said something to the effect that it is logical to think the Eva Taylor case "may" be connected and his main point was because she lived in that neighborhood.  (There may be other reasons he believes that also, possibly because she was a sleeping woman, she was bludgeoned, nothing of value was taken)  I agree! that was not a high crime neighborhood.  It was a very nice low crime neighborhood in the low crime town of Goleta.  Ms. Taylor was in her 70's but apparently was very attractive but she was NOT raped.  Could that be because he thought he had spotted her daughter entering the house and thought the daughter lived there?  Could it be because, as Inv. Pool said, she was an easy victim?  By the way the method of break in was by use of a screwdriver from Raytheon Corp. to pry open the sliding glass door in the living room.

Then remember the murders started once he left No. Cal and landed in Goleta.  What about Goleta allowed him to indulge his desire to murder?  Could it be that he was far enough away from where his mother or some other relative lived?    He changed his m.o. when he landed in Goleta and didn't want credit for the murders like he seemingly wanted credit for the rapes in No. Cal by way of the poem and the phone calls to the press and LE etc.  So is that why he did not murder in No. Cal. unless someone pursued him? (Officer McGowen, Professor Snelling, Rodney Miller, or in the case of the Maggiori's, did Brian Maggiori confront him?  When I think of the Maggiori's I think of the couple in Goleta that was walking and being followed by a young blond man just 5 to 10' feet behind them, was he egging them on to confront him?  was he itching for a fight, for a reason to kill them, is that what happened to the Maggiori's)  O.K. I'm getting off track.

Recently,  I spoke to Detective Kitzmann and he definitely believes strongly in the "progression of violence".  Yesterday, I got a communication from a S.B.S.O. retired detective that said she agrees with Inv. Pool and that LE needs to think outside the box.

Anyway, we won't know until the case is solved, but as you can see there is a difference of opinion within LE.  I am suspecting that Inv. Pool is right and I admire his open mindedness about the subject.  I don't want to say that Inv. Pool believes there is a connection, he thinks it is logical to think there "might be" a connection.  99

I don't disagree that this early murder could of been done by the GSK. There are some things that fit, however there are a lot of things that don't. It would seem unlikely to me that the GSK would be in Goleta on April 4, 1974 and bludgeon a sleeping 73 year old woman to death and then show up in Visalia on April 6th ransacking unoccupied homes just two days later on April 6th.  If he was already killing people in their sleep at that point then I would of expected his crimes in Visalia to have escalated much quicker than they did.  There are exceptions of course and it is worth looking at it just seems that the GSK started as a peeping tom, moved on to ransacking, then to rape, and finally to murder.  Except of course when someone confronted him.   Also after each murder there was a long cooling off period
before there was another attack.  And he was not known to attack senior citizens.  Larry Pool is saying that it is possible, that is a long way from saying that he thinks that the GSK is responsible for this early murder.

I think that Eva Taylor connection is VERY interesting.  I agree with Pool, he seems to be the expert, Santa Barbara sticking with old thoughts that didn't solve the case.  Pool doesn't hold to the progression of violence.  Speaks volumes to me.

[agatha]

Oct 21, 2013 10:34:35 GMT lepke said:

Oct 21, 2013 2:51:19 GMT agatha said:

Pathological fear or mistrust of modern urban development, aversion to technology, preference for four legged transportation, questionable fashion sense. Does that sound like your mother, lepke? Are you Geordies?

I wasn't talking about my own mother, and my comment was tongue in cheek...

Just teasing. Sorry if I offended....I have six brothers....it's a defense mechanism! You can leave your tongue in your cheek. I'll take my foot out of my mouth. Peace.

[redding]

Oct 21, 2013 19:39:07 GMT clandestineclementin said:

Oct 21, 2013 19:35:51 GMT redding said:

I don't disagree that this early murder could of been done by the GSK. There are some things that fit, however there are a lot of things that don't. It would seem unlikely to me that the GSK would be in Goleta on April 4, 1974 and bludgeon a sleeping 73 year old woman to death and then show up in Visalia on April 6th ransacking unoccupied homes just two days later on April 6th.  If he was already killing people in their sleep at that point then I would of expected his crimes in Visalia to have escalated much quicker than they did.  There are exceptions of course and it is worth looking at it just seems that the GSK started as a peeping tom, moved on to ransacking, then to rape, and finally to murder.  Except of course when someone confronted him.   Also after each murder there was a long cooling off period
before there was another attack.  And he was not known to attack senior citizens.  Larry Pool is saying that it is possible, that is a long way from saying that he thinks that the GSK is responsible for this early murder.

I think that Eva Taylor connection is VERY interesting.  I agree with Pool, he seems to be the expert, Santa Barbara sticking with old thoughts that didn't solve the case.  Pool doesn't hold to the progression of violence.  Speaks volumes to me.

Larry Pool does hold to the progression of violence.  He just said that there are exceptions and that the Eva Taylor murder could be a GSK crime.  He didn't say that he felt it was likely.  We should be careful to avoid mistating what Pool said.  IMO.

[clandestineclementin]

Oct 21, 2013 20:15:58 GMT redding said:

Oct 21, 2013 19:39:07 GMT clandestineclementin said:

I think that Eva Taylor connection is VERY interesting.  I agree with Pool, he seems to be the expert, Santa Barbara sticking with old thoughts that didn't solve the case.  Pool doesn't hold to the progression of violence.  Speaks volumes to me.

Larry Pool does hold to the progression of violence.  He just said that there are exceptions and that the Eva Taylor murder could be a GSK crime.  He didn't say that he felt it was likely.  We should be careful to avoid mistating what Pool said.  IMO.

That is right and that is what I said.  He doesn't hold with the progression of violence, meaning it isn't something he holds on to hard and fast and won't let go of as opposed to SBSO who do hold onto it hard and fast.

[redding]

Oct 21, 2013 20:32:21 GMT clandestineclementin said:

Oct 21, 2013 20:15:58 GMT redding said:

Larry Pool does hold to the progression of violence.  He just said that there are exceptions and that the Eva Taylor murder could be a GSK crime.  He didn't say that he felt it was likely.  We should be careful to avoid mistating what Pool said.  IMO.

That is right and that is what I said.  He doesn't hold with the progression of violence, meaning it isn't something he holds on to hard and fast and won't let go of as opposed to SBSO who do hold onto it hard and fast.

Sorry to be a stickler.  If we aren't clear then six months from now people will be posting that Larry Pool believes the GSK killed Eva Taylor. When in fact he is just saying that it is possible.

[clandestineclementin]

Oct 21, 2013 20:36:16 GMT redding said:

Oct 21, 2013 20:32:21 GMT clandestineclementin said:

That is right and that is what I said.  He doesn't hold with the progression of violence, meaning it isn't something he holds on to hard and fast and won't let go of as opposed to SBSO who do hold onto it hard and fast.

Sorry to be a stickler.  If we aren't clear then six months from now people will be posting that Larry Pool believes the GSK killed Eva Taylor. When in fact he is just saying that it is possible.

It's O.K., stickel away!  I understand.

[dengas]

Oct 21, 2013 19:36:29 GMT clandestineclementin said:

Oct 21, 2013 19:24:51 GMT @dengas said:

When my retired life calms down and I find time to go to the library, I will see how fog, rain line up with the VR. I personally believe that there wasn't activity during the summer months because the ditches were full of water! I have checked out full moons and new moons, but couldn't find a connection. As far as a tie in the college...seems just a bit too easy. I think Hot Prowl clearly explains movement when the trail got too hot, and I have to agree with the author.

I just finished the book and there is quite a bit of repetition, but overall (for someone who doesn't want to spend their life going through the old posts, one by one) it is a good resource.

Thanks for the review, I'll read it then.  Do you think he left town in the summer for a summer "construction" job?

[dengas]

No, I think he just stopped when the ditches had water in them or there was bad weather. personally, I don't think he worked. It believe that he had monied parent(s) who supported him totally and covered his ass when necessary. I picture him a mama's boy with anger issues as well. Hot Prowl has a pretty good explanation of a love hate relationship with mommie dearest.

[guessting]

Oct 21, 2013 20:36:16 GMT redding said:

Oct 21, 2013 20:32:21 GMT clandestineclementin said:

That is right and that is what I said.  He doesn't hold with the progression of violence, meaning it isn't something he holds on to hard and fast and won't let go of as opposed to SBSO who do hold onto it hard and fast.

Sorry to be a stickler.  If we aren't clear then six months from now people will be posting that Larry Pool believes the GSK killed Eva Taylor. When in fact he is just saying that it is possible.

Even if we are here in 6 months we may see those posts. I agree we need to be clear. It's unfortunately not possible to control others posting. Regardless, we will see things that need to be clarified. Good idea to point that out. When new to the board many believe everything they read. It takes awhile to determine reality here. Many years later I still find things that I need to edit or push cancel and delete in my mind!

[danmiami]

His murders do follow a peculiar pattern. Each time he commits murder he leaves the area. The only exception I can think of is the Snelling murder and when the youth is shot pursuing him with the father. I think VR was a person of interest at the time but not considered a prime suspect in the Snelling case. You have the McGowen incident where he shoots at McGowen and jumps a fence. A person described with a "high pitched voice" in the newspaper by McGowen. The same type of voice used in the GSK profile. Subsequent to the McGowen incident this is the last time anyone hears from the VR. Assume same person takes a 3.5 hr drive north to the Sacramento area. Rapes repeatedly but no homicides. Then the Maggiores are shot and killed. Last time the people of Sacramento hear from EAR. Goes to Goleta. Couple aborts the attack and he flees. No homicide as of yet at least for now. A month later he murders Dr Offerman and Dr Manning less than a mile away from the aborted attack. Leaves for Ventura and Murders The Smiths. Leaves again for Dana Point and Murders The Harringtons. Goes to Irvine and kills Manuela Witthuhn. Goes back to Goleta (he assumed the heat died down from Offerman/Manning case) and kills Domingo and Sanchez. Then finally 5 years later the Cruz girl back in Irvine. My point is in each homicide our guy did not stick around after the murders or at least the trail seems to indicate this. He did go back some time later to commit murder again in Goleta and Irvine. However years had elapsed in the interim I believe. It appears the reason is he did everything to avoid detection. He knew that the heat following a homicide case would be substantial. It is safe to assume LE places more emphasis on murder than rape and ransacking cases. That would appear to be logical. So once again he flees in each case outside of the Snelling murder and the shooting of the boy. I am not sure of the time lapse between Snelling, the shooting of the boy (who survived) and other VR activities?

My point is he begins in the early 70s in Visalia ransacking. Could he follow a similar pattern and leave for Goleta and bludgeon Ms Taylor to death? How many murders by bludgeoning occur in safe neighborhoods unprovoked in a town where we know he in fact frequented? Also the killer of Ms Taylor took some mementos but left more expensive jewelry behind. A witness sees a young youth leaping a fence in her yard. Sound familiar? We cannot say for certain just like I am assuming VR and EAR are one in the same. Also that EAR killed the Maggiores.

The sequence of events are pretty random yet consistent and therefore fit his pattern of operation.

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Oct 22, 2013 4:44:48 GMT danmiami said:

His murders do follow a peculiar pattern. Each time he commits murder he leaves the area. The only exception I can think of is the Snelling murder and when the youth is shot pursuing him with the father. I think VR was a person of interest at the time but not considered a prime suspect in the Snelling case. You have the McGowen incident where he shoots at McGowen and jumps a fence. A person described with a "high pitched voice" in the newspaper by McGowen. The same type of voice used in the GSK profile. Subsequent to the McGowen incident this is the last time anyone hears from the VR. Assume same person takes a 3.5 hr drive north to the Sacramento area. Rapes repeatedly but no homicides. Then the Maggiores are shot and killed. Last time the people of Sacramento hear from EAR. Goes to Goleta. Couple aborts the attack and he flees. No homicide as of yet at least for now. A month later he murders Dr Offerman and Dr Manning less than a mile away from the aborted attack. Leaves for Ventura and Murders The Smiths. Leaves again for Dana Point and Murders The Harringtons. Goes to Irvine and kills Manuela Witthuhn. Goes back to Goleta (he assumed the heat died down from Offerman/Manning case) and kills Domingo and Sanchez. Then finally 5 years later the Cruz girl back in Irvine. My point is in each homicide our guy did not stick around after the murders or at least the trail seems to indicate this. He did go back some time later to commit murder again in Goleta and Irvine. However years had elapsed in the interim I believe. It appears the reason is he did everything to avoid detection. He knew that the heat following a homicide case would be substantial. It is safe to assume LE places more emphasis on murder than rape and ransacking cases. That would appear to be logical. So once again he flees in each case outside of the Snelling murder and the shooting of the boy. I am not sure of the time lapse between Snelling, the shooting of the boy (who survived) and other VR activities?

My point is he begins in the early 70s in Visalia ransacking. Could he follow a similar pattern and leave for Goleta and bludgeon Ms Taylor to death? How many murders by bludgeoning occur in safe neighborhoods unprovoked in a town where we know he in fact frequented? Also the killer of Ms Taylor took some mementos but left more expensive jewelry behind. A witness sees a young youth leaping a fence in her yard. Sound familiar? We cannot say for certain just like I am assuming VR and EAR are one in the same. Also that EAR killed the Maggiores.

The sequence of events are pretty random yet consistent and therefore fit his pattern of operation.

I like your reasoning Dan.  Makes sense to me.  I also wonder "IF" Eva Taylor was the first or an early murder victim of EAR/ONS, did he know he would be leaving for Visalia in the next day or two?

[jkearns]

i thought VR disappeared not after snelling but after he shot at the cop he was almost apprehended ...then as EAR He went south after couple escapes, loos gives chase, another close call

[ezraeda]

Oct 22, 2013 7:31:17 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

Oct 22, 2013 4:44:48 GMT danmiami said:

His murders do follow a peculiar pattern. Each time he commits murder he leaves the area. The only exception I can think of is the Snelling murder and when the youth is shot pursuing him with the father. I think VR was a person of interest at the time but not considered a prime suspect in the Snelling case. You have the McGowen incident where he shoots at McGowen and jumps a fence. A person described with a "high pitched voice" in the newspaper by McGowen. The same type of voice used in the GSK profile. Subsequent to the McGowen incident this is the last time anyone hears from the VR. Assume same person takes a 3.5 hr drive north to the Sacramento area. Rapes repeatedly but no homicides. Then the Maggiores are shot and killed. Last time the people of Sacramento hear from EAR. Goes to Goleta. Couple aborts the attack and he flees. No homicide as of yet at least for now. A month later he murders Dr Offerman and Dr Manning less than a mile away from the aborted attack. Leaves for Ventura and Murders The Smiths. Leaves again for Dana Point and Murders The Harringtons. Goes to Irvine and kills Manuela Witthuhn. Goes back to Goleta (he assumed the heat died down from Offerman/Manning case) and kills Domingo and Sanchez. Then finally 5 years later the Cruz girl back in Irvine. My point is in each homicide our guy did not stick around after the murders or at least the trail seems to indicate this. He did go back some time later to commit murder again in Goleta and Irvine. However years had elapsed in the interim I believe. It appears the reason is he did everything to avoid detection. He knew that the heat following a homicide case would be substantial. It is safe to assume LE places more emphasis on murder than rape and ransacking cases. That would appear to be logical. So once again he flees in each case outside of the Snelling murder and the shooting of the boy. I am not sure of the time lapse between Snelling, the shooting of the boy (who survived) and other VR activities?

My point is he begins in the early 70s in Visalia ransacking. Could he follow a similar pattern and leave for Goleta and bludgeon Ms Taylor to death? How many murders by bludgeoning occur in safe neighborhoods unprovoked in a town where we know he in fact frequented? Also the killer of Ms Taylor took some mementos but left more expensive jewelry behind. A witness sees a young youth leaping a fence in her yard. Sound familiar? We cannot say for certain just like I am assuming VR and EAR are one in the same. Also that EAR killed the Maggiores.

The sequence of events are pretty random yet consistent and therefore fit his pattern of operation.

I like your reasoning Dan.  Makes sense to me.  I also wonder "IF" Eva Taylor was the first or an early murder victim of EAR/ONS, did he know he would be leaving for Visalia in the next day or two?

I think is a pretty good summation of his escalation. And I share your speculation, 99. I'm also more than a little convinced that he was active during the years between Domingo/Sanchez, and Cruz, and after Cruz, as well. I realize serials can and do stop for extended periods of time, but this guy was just so prolific AND so increasingly out of control, and mobile. If he'd been incarcerated, wouldn't they have his DNA, or am I being naive? 

[danmiami]

Hi Sandia,

If he does in fact have a job that makes him mobile such as a contractor or a painter it is possible he then leaves Visalia for Goleta for a job site and then finds a victim of opportunity?Soon after the job is complete and he goes back to Visalia. Gets a very big job or switches jobs to "have a more stable lifestyle" in Sacramento. Knows he can't kill or is less inclined to because "He is going to be there for a while". Remember his violence escalated with each attack in Sacramento. He probably wanted to kill to "fuel his fantasy". Then leaves because maybe he quits his job or the job or it ends in Sacramento. Therefore he is on the move again after the Maggiores?

The thing that is different about our guy is he is such a mobile killing machine. Serial Killers are usually very intimate with the area of choice. But he is all over the state. This man knows how to secure and use surveillance to his advantage like no other perpetuator that I have seen?

[danmiami]

Oct 22, 2013 9:02:14 GMT ezraeda said:

Oct 22, 2013 7:31:17 GMT Agent99 aka Sandia said:

I like your reasoning Dan.  Makes sense to me.  I also wonder "IF" Eva Taylor was the first or an early murder victim of EAR/ONS, did he know he would be leaving for Visalia in the next day or two?

I think is a pretty good summation of his escalation. And I share your speculation, 99. I'm also more than a little convinced that he was active during the years between Domingo/Sanchez, and Cruz, and after Cruz, as well. I realize serials can and do stop for extended periods of time, but this guy was just so prolific AND so increasingly out of control, and mobile. If he'd been incarcerated, wouldn't they have his DNA, or am I being naive? 

You are correct this man wouldn't stop. There is no way he stops unless he dies or is incapacitated for some reason? Or is incarcerated? LE looked into other hot prowl burglaries with involved murder subsequent to 1986. I would also look into any rapes where the intruder broke into the home and raped the occupant.

The problem is with our guy he could have moved to Canada and did the same thing and we would not know. Also his type of work would let him do this. This killer did not seek attention or at least not that we are sure of? There is only the poem and a few phone calls to LE which may or may not be him? Yes he would call his victims for sure to strike fear in them. But he also went to great lengths to stay under the rader. Cunning, calculating and evil personified. He is unlike BTK whose ego got him caught. This guy probably just looks at LE and the blogs from afar and laughs. Enjoys the attention but keeps to himself.