Empty bottles of beer and beer packs

[rocker]

Jan 20, 2014 2:40:19 GMT guessting said:

Jan 17, 2014 12:18:36 GMT @playinem121 said:

Very good points and questions. I think it is possible that on some occasions as VR/EAR/ONS this guy had a crime partner. Possible but not proven so far as we know. I believe that port and guessting both maintain that the EAR did guzzle beer at many of his crime scenes. I have found them to be more consistently accurate than Mr. Crompton's book.

I do not believe EAR had a partner. It is difficult enough for one to keep a life long secret. But two..nearly impossible that one or the other would of blown it somewhere!

I agree, Guessting. what you stated is right, It would be problematic in itself and add to the complexity just by the nature of people. And I would expect to find more evidence of an accomplice than is evident in this case. For instance, in separate attacks where the victims escaped his clutches; only one perpetrator was seen by any and all witnesses. FBI agent chasing after one guy, one guy standing half naked outside, reports of lone individual prowling, etc. Perhaps I missed something but where is any tangible evidence that points to an accomplice?

I'm not factoring in the Maggiore shooting because there has been no confirmation that I'm aware of at this time that it was indeed an EAR crime. What's puzzling about the Maggiore case to me is, if it is an EAR crime; two individuals were spotted running at some point but the witness who saw the actual shooting from his upstairs room only reports in a documentary of seeing one perpetrator and then another witness (long curly/wavy hair and glasses) is filmed showing where he saw a single individual advance toward him then change course. I've considered possibilities but don't know whether they synchronize with actual events. I would be most appreciative if anyone can give me any insight into this matter.

[leviathan]

Jan 19, 2014 15:21:03 GMT batman said:

Ear ons drinking the beer doesn't falsify there being additional accomplices at some crimes. It is an explanation for where the beer went. However are accomplices unheard of? I think california has quite a few well known serial murders and rapists that went in pairs or more. However the main reason I think there isnt a pair is because there is only one set of footprints size 9.5 if I remember correctly.

I think there are a couple compelling reasons why we can be 99.999% sure EAR worked alone;

1) The sheer number of crimes where 0 evidence of a second perpetrator being present.  A single witness may not be completely trusted or miss something, but 50+ witness all missing a second individual? What about fingerprints, semen, DNA, anything? the odds are against it.

2) If there was a second guy- what was he doing during the crimes. In all the CA cases of paired killers, it was never "one guy does everything and the other stays hidden in the shadows every single time."  A complete lack of involvement with the victim by a "second" perpetrator flies in the face of everything we know about paired serial killers.

3) The likelihood that one would turn on the other in order to gain favorable advantage when apprehended for an unrelated crime.  Killers who work together, also turn on each other in a heartbeat.  We're already in an incredible area here with one killer having eluded capture despite the number of crimes. Two of them working together and evading detection while never ratting the other out is beyond implausible.

[Drifter]

I cannot fathom the East Area Rapist having a partner. To my knowledge there were never two perps seen together. As the Original Night Stalker the guy was truly a loner.

At the A&E board it was understood that there were two men that participated in the Maggiore murders, because two perps were seen together. Given that the EAR appeared to be such a loner, I can't see how he could have been either of the two men associated with the killing of the Maggiores.

Lech

[tongue]

no way do i believe Ear had a partner..if he had he would have been brought to justice by now imo..Gsk was a loner and i cannot imagine him risking bring someone else into his reign of terror...way too risky for him to do this and what would be gained from doing this?

[Drifter]

Jan 20, 2014 6:08:44 GMT tongue said:

no way do i believe Ear had a partner..if he had he would have been brought to justice by now imo..Gsk was a loner and i cannot imagine him risking bring someone else into his reign of terror...way too risky for him to do this and what would be gained from doing this?

i cannot imagine him risking bring someone else into his reign of terror...way too risky...

Which is precisely why that damn dog is such a contradiction and mystery.

[guessting]

Jan 20, 2014 5:59:48 GMT leviathan said:

Jan 19, 2014 15:21:03 GMT batman said:

Ear ons drinking the beer doesn't falsify there being additional accomplices at some crimes. It is an explanation for where the beer went. However are accomplices unheard of? I think california has quite a few well known serial murders and rapists that went in pairs or more. However the main reason I think there isnt a pair is because there is only one set of footprints size 9.5 if I remember correctly.

I think there are a couple compelling reasons why we can be 99.999% sure EAR worked alone;

1) The sheer number of crimes where 0 evidence of a second perpetrator being present.  A single witness may not be completely trusted or miss something, but 50+ witness all missing a second individual? What about fingerprints, semen, DNA, anything? the odds are against it.

2) If there was a second guy- what was he doing during the crimes. In all the CA cases of paired killers, it was never "one guy does everything and the other stays hidden in the shadows every single time."  A complete lack of involvement with the victim by a "second" perpetrator flies in the face of everything we know about paired serial killers.

3) The likelihood that one would turn on the other in order to gain favorable advantage when apprehended for an unrelated crime.  Killers who work together, also turn on each other in a heartbeat.  We're already in an incredible area here with one killer having eluded capture despite the number of crimes. Two of them working together and evading detection while never ratting the other out is beyond implausible.

Hi Levi,

The consideration of two partners was based on a victims statement that she believed two men had sexually assaulted her during the crime. I NEVER want to debate or speculate on the statement of any victim. They were there, I was not. It was thought that possibly EAR used something to penetrate this victim.

In EAR #1, EAR attempts to have a conversation with an "imaginary partner" by disguising his voice. Off the top of my head these are the the only type of happenings that made some at the time consider a partner. G

[tongue]

Jan 20, 2014 6:20:52 GMT Drifter said:

Jan 20, 2014 6:08:44 GMT tongue said:

no way do i believe Ear had a partner..if he had he would have been brought to justice by now imo..Gsk was a loner and i cannot imagine him risking bring someone else into his reign of terror...way too risky for him to do this and what would be gained from doing this?

i cannot imagine him risking bring someone else into his reign of terror...way too risky...

Which is precisely why that damn dog is such a contradiction and mystery.

  yes it makes no sense to bring a dog along..i can completely understand during the 'recon' phase to have a dog but during the actual attack?completely baffles me but i wonder what LE thinks of this?has Pool or Crompton given their opinion on the dog?

[leviathan]

Jan 20, 2014 14:49:26 GMT guessting said:

Jan 20, 2014 5:59:48 GMT leviathan said:

I think there are a couple compelling reasons why we can be 99.999% sure EAR worked alone;

1) The sheer number of crimes where 0 evidence of a second perpetrator being present.  A single witness may not be completely trusted or miss something, but 50+ witness all missing a second individual? What about fingerprints, semen, DNA, anything? the odds are against it.

2) If there was a second guy- what was he doing during the crimes. In all the CA cases of paired killers, it was never "one guy does everything and the other stays hidden in the shadows every single time."  A complete lack of involvement with the victim by a "second" perpetrator flies in the face of everything we know about paired serial killers.

3) The likelihood that one would turn on the other in order to gain favorable advantage when apprehended for an unrelated crime.  Killers who work together, also turn on each other in a heartbeat.  We're already in an incredible area here with one killer having eluded capture despite the number of crimes. Two of them working together and evading detection while never ratting the other out is beyond implausible.

Hi Levi,

The consideration of two partners was based on a victims statement that she believed two men had sexually assaulted her during the crime. I NEVER want to debate or speculate on the statement of any victim. They were there, I was not. It was thought that possibly EAR used something to penetrate this victim.

In EAR #1, EAR attempts to have a conversation with an "imaginary partner" by disguising his voice. Off the top of my head these are the the only type of happenings that made some at the time consider a partner. G

Thank you I stand corrected on my assertion that there was "0 evidence." However, despite that witness statement and amending my initial comment to allow for that reality, I believe my point still holds.

[Deleted]

Above all, EAR ONS’ aim (for both personal gratification as well as self-preservation) was to control. I think this stretched beyond the tie-up stage. If he told them that he was living in his van, rummaging through the cupboards for food and making exaggerated eating noises was a logical follow through. He saw his ruse through from entry to exit, in large part because it lowered the risk of escape attempts; it also brought him a level of comfort. The neighborhoods were comfort. His script was comfort. He was methodical.
Leading the victim to believe that another violator was present served the same need. To control.

[guessting]

Jan 20, 2014 17:59:49 GMT leviathan said:

Jan 20, 2014 14:49:26 GMT guessting said:

Hi Levi,

The consideration of two partners was based on a victims statement that she believed two men had sexually assaulted her during the crime. I NEVER want to debate or speculate on the statement of any victim. They were there, I was not. It was thought that possibly EAR used something to penetrate this victim.

In EAR #1, EAR attempts to have a conversation with an "imaginary partner" by disguising his voice. Off the top of my head these are the the only type of happenings that made some at the time consider a partner. G

Thank you I stand corrected on my assertion that there was "0 evidence." However, despite that witness statement and amending my initial comment to allow for that reality, I believe my point still holds.

I hope you did not think I was being contentious. I just wanted to be informative and yes your point still holds. G

[leviathan]

Jan 20, 2014 18:04:19 GMT guessting said:

Jan 20, 2014 17:59:49 GMT leviathan said:

Thank you I stand corrected on my assertion that there was "0 evidence." However, despite that witness statement and amending my initial comment to allow for that reality, I believe my point still holds.

I hope you did not think I was being contentious. I just wanted to be informative and yes your point still holds. G

Not in the least bit... I was factually wrong in a statement I made and you correctly pointed the error.  In the interest of promoting the truth on here, you are pretty much obligated to point it out (Lord knows I would if I came across someone else making an incorrect statement)


If someone is going to be upset about something like this than they can go hang out on the AETV boards instead.

[clandestineclementin]

Jan 17, 2014 9:54:51 GMT batman said:

Hello,

In his book, Sudden Terror, Larry Crompton mentions how EAR raided people's fridges, ate their stuff, drank their beer and sometimes asked for drugs in the home. However it is uncertain if he drank the beer because no one could smell alcohol from him during the attacks. Crompton also mentions that many of EARs victims reported that he spoke/whispered to someone else (but also reported him talking to himself) while usually in the kitchen or away from his victims while tied up. He also talked about a girlfriend he had, a van and other things.

In several instances, several people, not just 1, are seen fleeing the scene of an attack. While in some cases it may be the victims it appears this is not always the case.

Crompton also says they lifted many different types of prints from different crime scenes that didn't belong to people known to the home owners. So they have prints and not just one kind.

This makes it seem like EARONS isn't always working alone. That sometimes someone else is in the homes too, drinking beers and eating food while EARONS performs an attack.

However I get that many in LE think EARONS is just one person, but I wonder how they come to that conclusion given the above information. 

I just started to read this topic and hope I am not responding too early and that this has already been addressed but I like that you are thinking about these things.  I am one that does believe he acted alone, but I had to stop and think twice about the one point you mentioned about consuming beer yet never having the smell of alcohol on his breath and how that could be explained away by someone else drinking the beer.  That possibility never occurred to me before.  

The other explanation for this could be that he was dumping it down the drain and not drinking it.  But why would he do that?  Just some odd compulsion?  Some routine  he had to do for some weirdo reason?  

What did somebody, PortofLeith?, say recently on the board, that he slurped loudly?  What was he slurping?  beer? water?  What if the slurping was from a dog?  Remember the raw meat (sausage?  was it pork sausage, he wouldn't eat raw meat? would he? and certainly not raw pork?  would he give it to a dog?) out on the patio and remember the turkey carcass at O/M?  Could it be he brought a dog on some other occassions?  Was he talking to the dog?  Did he give beer to the dog?  That sounds insane, but he was insane.

I love that when we discuss these things it makes me consider other possibilities that had never crossed my mind before, not that these possibilities are the facts, just worth thinking about.

I can't see him bringing another man with him to a rape and the other man not participating or at least not watching, and it would seem to me that the victim would be able to somehow pick up on some noise the other person would make or that there would be absolutely no talking between the two perps in the presence of the victim.  Yet again, it seems like the victim would pick up on the sound or smell of a dog too, but a dog could be made to wait outside in the patio.  My head is swimming.

Thanks batman for bringing this up.  Now I'll read the rest of the posts and probably see that this has already been addressed.  
O.K. I should have read more before I responded.  I see that he did smell of beer on several occassions yet he didn't smell of cigarette smoke/breath.  What is it with him not smelling of these things.  I really have no doubt he smoked, how is this possible?  Smoke sticks to everything.  When I get home from a relatives house that smokes, I bring the smell of smoke back with me to where I am staying and I smell strongly of smoke and I don't smoke, it's in my hair, and my clothes.  So strange he didn't smell of smoke.  Could it be that he only smoked outdoors, could that be the answer? 

[clandestineclementin]

Jan 17, 2014 12:30:52 GMT ice said:

If there were two offenders it is even more remarkable they have never been caught. I am also beginning to worry about the accuracy of ST as quite a few posters here have additional information that contradicts Crompton. He didn't seem to entertain the idea there were two offenders involved.

Going by ST, no victim mentioned being attacked AND hearing someone in the kitchen eating at the same time. If I recall correctly, they tracked down a print left on a lamp at one of the homes but the maker of that print was cleared.

This would be a good question for Port and guessting to answer.  I cannot believe they would know more than a detective that worked on the case??  No doubt they know a lot, but more than Detective Crompton?

[clandestineclementin]

Jan 18, 2014 23:14:49 GMT pooryorick said:

It's hard to account for witness reports of >1 fleeing perp and the unknown print angle, but I'd be a lot less shocked by inaccurate witnesses and forgotten house guests than the alternative explanation. Which is that the EAR/ONS had a friend willing to go along for the thrill of B&E and a stolen snack but not to participate in or even witness the assaults, nor to steal anything of value. And that someone capable of committing this volume of crime without capture would compromise everything by bringing along a companion for company.

If I had to guess, the demands for drugs/beer were an attempt to sell detectives on an incorrect suspect profile, as were the staged conversations.

Also, I think the only case of multiple fleeing people is the Maggiori case where it either was not connected and was not committed by the EAR/ONS or it was witnesses fleeing, am I wrong?

[clandestineclementin]

Batman said: "Insecticide, now there is a good explanation. This sort of thing is repeatable though. Sniffer dogs should be tested to see how they might react to this stuff. There are also herbicides that can do the same thing."

Thanks again Batman, (I have to laugh when I say that), Now there is a product called "Off" that I use anytime I think I might get bitten by mosquitoes. I can imagine the EAR/ONS hiding out in the bushes for hours, possibly even laying in ivy, now that you mention it, I think it unlikely he did not use some sort of mosquito/bug repellent. It would be good to know if that could throw off a dog's scent.

I'm so glad I've read this thread. Lots of really interesting information and ideas.