Newspaper Article suggests EAR/ONS was caught..then released

[Drifter]

Feb 14, 2014 18:19:06 GMT xiulan said:

Feb 14, 2014 17:03:10 GMT evaliant said:

Can someone provide a tangible explanation of how VIP someone would have to be for these things to happen in order to give some perspective on your claims?

Where on the VIP spectrum would he fall for LE, whether lone wolf or group conspired, to disappear and distort evidence in a serial rape/murder case?

This would be the million-dollar question, would it not? Unfortunately, there are examples of various agencies generally lumped under "law enforcement" have covered for people. To a point. I have great difficulty in believing a serial rapist/murderer this prolific would fall into the category of people protected by police, FBI, what have you. Not because I have any faith in all levels of government to be honest, necessarily, or from a naive perspective that corruption and back-scratching don't happen. But on the sheer magnitude of the crimes committed here. A single instance of murder? I don't find it impossible, sadly. A single rape? Maybe even two? It has probably happened somewhere, unfortunately. 50+ rapes? 10+ murders? Not even if it were Ronnie's son. I believe that's giving far too much credit to multiple government agencies to work in collusion in some form and keep such a thing an absolute secret.

This thing about DNA being tested multiple times for one person is also bizarre. Either that's an exaggeration of a point by posters, or there is something really, really wrong going on in that situation. I'm sorry. I know there are many here who believe that question is settled by 'clearance' of that POI; but I could understand the unwillingness to let it go when someone hears 4 DNA tests on one person for comparison...that's a highly suspect situation.

Keep in mind that local jurisdictions may have felt pressure from a higher authority ... for the Sacramento rapes only.  We're talking about the late 70s and early 80s.

The ten murders were not even connected to the EAR until decades later.  So any "protection" the guy may have received back in the late 70s pertained to rapes only ... not murders.

Drifter

[Drifter]

evaliant, I know you have asked a valid question, expecting a valid response. I, too, have some comments on recent postings that I could make, as well.

But in the interest of sanity, I'm going to lock this thread, temporarily. I'll unlock it later on. Let's all back off and try to cool our heels for awhile, shall we.

Drifter

[xiulan]

Feb 15, 2014 3:36:22 GMT Drifter said:

Feb 14, 2014 18:19:06 GMT xiulan said:

Keep in mind that local jurisdictions may have felt pressure from a higher authority ... for the Sacramento rapes only.  We're talking about the late 70s and early 80s.

The ten murders were not even connected to the EAR until decades later.  So any "protection" the guy may have received back in the late 70s pertained to rapes only ... not murders.

Drifter

Yes, sir. This is always in the front of my mind. For some of the ideas asserted, it would seem that we would have to operate under the premise that a) EAR and ONS are the same person and that b) there would have to be more than one 'conspiracy' operating over the whole of this case to have kept the offender from being identified both as the murderer and as the rapist; but separately. Also keeping in mind that the murders in Goleta weren't linked to the other murders now attributed to ONS until after DNA linked D/S. Multiple separate conspiracies seem far less likely even than just the one massive one that would have covered the entire body of crimes. But, again, that's just how I see it.

If you were to treat the VR/EAR crimes and the ONS crimes separately, that would be an entirely different animal altogether.

[Drifter]

Thread is hereby locked, temporarily.

[t]

Feb 13, 2014 16:22:34 GMT f1guyus said:

Point is if there was some influence wielded on behalf of someone in 1974 it probably wouldn't require even a phone call from an important person. In two cases I know about in Stockton everybody involved knew their part without being told. No names in the newspaper, no felony charges, minimal "community service" and the story buried as deep as it could be buried.

       This is a fascinating thread with speculation that recurs again and again (is that redundant?) -- that GSK somehow was connected to someone

       who had enormous political clout -- was picked up and released. . .take the time to read the article that CityofChill found. . .

    

       

[t]

  LOL -- yikes you make the prospect of him having been "covered for" seem so insane (?) -- when it fact it isn't simply that teeny article
  i hoping to steer towards consideration (AGAIN!) rather, ALL the possibilites of rich boy, super influence, political clout, etc. 

  Maybe you'd better run for the hills. . .if you only KNEW. . . 

[sammyt]

Read up on the Sir Jimmy Savile case if you don't believe that serial rapists who are VIPs would be protected.

I've studied this case for a decade now... and although nothing is ever certain with this damn case, I'm starting to think the VIP angle is as likely as any.

In the 1970s serial rapists who were captured were only serving a couple of years of jail time - the powers that be did not view serial rape as too serious an offence, so 'protecting' a powerful person from serving any jail time wouldn't be a huge conflict of conscience for the average big decision maker IMHO.

Why would any suspect be cleared FOUR times by DNA?? - that stinks of 'protesting too much' if that's true...

As F1 says, why did EAR offend so often in Sac?? - did he have a 'get out a jail card' there even if he got caught red handed?

Why was EAR so careful to try and hide that he was the ONS?? - had he used up all his favours but continuing to offend as EAR for so long, and did he known that his 'protection' wouldn't cover murder as well as rape?

[t]

Mar 26, 2014 17:26:21 GMT sammyt said:

Read up on the Sir Jimmy Savile case if you don't believe that serial rapists who are VIPs would be protected.

I've studied this case for a decade now... and although nothing is ever certain with this damn case, I'm starting to think the VIP angle is as likely as any.

In the 1970s serial rapists who were captured were only serving a couple of years of jail time - the powers that be did not view serial rape as too serious an offence, so 'protecting' a powerful person from serving any jail time wouldn't be a huge conflict of conscience for the average big decision maker IMHO.

Why would any suspect be cleared FOUR times by DNA?? - that stinks of 'protesting too much' if that's true...

As F1 says, why did EAR offend so often in Sac?? - did he have a 'get out a jail card' there even if he got caught red handed?

Why was EAR so careful to try and hide that he was the ONS?? - had he used up all his favours but continuing to offend as EAR for so long, and did he known that his 'protection' wouldn't cover murder as well as rape?

       might as well check out Dr. George Hodel -- prominent wealthy doctor suspected in The Black Dahlia case and later by his own son. . .i'd put my money
       on this being common in the annals of crime! THANKS for your post SammyT in general and esp. re: rape not being considered "too serious" an offence
 

[t]

      Dude -- lighten up!  i don't have any theory along these lines. . .was simply wandering around the board in the middle of the night looking
      for something of interest to remark upon. . .


        and the wet streets glisten with the sound no symphony could                               

Attachments:

[t]

          got the feeling you gotta have the last word on all this so this is the last thing i have to say:  PEACE 


                                                       fog on the SF Bay                      
                                                           

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2014 17:26:21 GMT sammyt said:

Read up on the Sir Jimmy Savile case if you don't believe that serial rapists who are VIPs would be protected.

I've studied this case for a decade now... and although nothing is ever certain with this damn case, I'm starting to think the VIP angle is as likely as any.

In the 1970s serial rapists who were captured were only serving a couple of years of jail time - the powers that be did not view serial rape as too serious an offence, so 'protecting' a powerful person from serving any jail time wouldn't be a huge conflict of conscience for the average big decision maker IMHO.

Why would any suspect be cleared FOUR times by DNA?? - that stinks of 'protesting too much' if that's true...

As F1 says, why did EAR offend so often in Sac?? - did he have a 'get out a jail card' there even if he got caught red handed?

Why was EAR so careful to try and hide that he was the ONS?? - had he used up all his favours but continuing to offend as EAR for so long, and did he known that his 'protection' wouldn't cover murder as well as rape?

Good post. I think your point is spot on that even if he had been prosecuted for the rapes, he most likely wouldn't have had a long sentence. I doubt they could have prosecuted him for more than a handful of the rapes anyway. Most of us our outraged about 50 rapes, but there are plenty of people out there that really don't care unless it's happening to them, nor do they care much about 10 murders. Their own self-interests are what's more important to them.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2014 21:09:57 GMT sfbay said:

Mar 26, 2014 17:51:46 GMT t said:

THANKS for your post SammyT in general and esp. re: rape not being considered "too serious" an offence
 

Guys... be serious. This perp had a gun, a rape kit, was planning to B&E, tie up the victims and rape them at gun/knife point.  While something like statutory rape may have gotten someone 2 years, aggravated rape with all the other counts here would have been slightly higher, don't you think? Again, if a perp had been talked to under the stated circumstances in civillian-ville (outside of base) a report would have been generated at minimum. 

Wasn't there also dog beating incident in a home according to Shelby in Sac, but a couple of posters here claim it's not in the records and that his memory is wonky? Just sayin'.

Reports aren't always generated. They're supposed to be, but they aren't. Some convicted serial rapists with zero clout were getting pretty light sentences.

It was guessting and port that claimed his DNA was cleared 4 times. Guessting said in 4 different jurisdictions originally.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2014 21:35:44 GMT sfbay said:

Mar 26, 2014 21:34:10 GMT @privatecitizen said:

Wasn't there also dog beating incident in a home according to Shelby in Sac, but a couple of posters here claim it's not in the records and that his memory is wonky? Just sayin'.

Reports aren't always generated. They're supposed to be, but they aren't. Some convicted serial rapists with zero clout were getting pretty light sentences.

Deflect all you want, what I'm saying is... there is apparently NOBODY to stand behind the claim that the journal printed.

It's not a deflection, it's relevant. I understand you not wanting to acknowledge it lol. They claim there is no record of what Whitmeyer claimed and they say the same thing about some of what Shelby claims. You don't know that nobody stands behind it. I don't know, either. I could easily see Whitmeyer not being willing to tell who was asking him anything at all.

It's pretty easy to cover in all jurisdictions when one says, "He was cleared."

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2014 21:43:30 GMT sfbay said:

Mar 26, 2014 21:27:33 GMT @privatecitizen said:

Good post. I think your point is spot on that even if he had been prosecuted for the rapes, he most likely wouldn't have had a long sentence. I doubt they could have prosecuted him for more than a handful of the rapes anyway. Most of us our outraged about 50 rapes, but there are plenty of people out there that really don't care unless it's happening to them, nor do they care much about 10 murders. Their own self-interests are what's more important to them.

Do you think they didn't evaluate say... all rapes 10 years prior and 10 years after 1976 with relation to the EAR case? Cops don't just sit and eat doughnuts while following orders to conspire and cover-up crimes all day long. "Most" citizens did care... take a look at the packed town hall photos. It wasn't happening TO those people, it was happening AROUND those people and they were !@#!%!ing *ED OFF about it - demanding LE to catch the guy.

Did you see the same publicity and outrage by those people about the Early Morning Rapist and didn't he do 30 or something rapes in the Sac area? How many people have heard about GSK period? Most LE and people outside the jurisdictions haven't and plenty of people inside the jurisdictions didn't care much. If you think what the people want always supercedes the self interest of LE or officials, you're dreaming.

[playinem]

I began researching these cases late last year. Very quickly I found the Ojai Times article in which the "1974 Rancho Cordova incident" was detailed by reporter Misty Volaski who supposedly got the story from Ojai PI, Russ Whitmeyer. You can read the story for yourselves. Here is the link. www.jjmcgr.org/BK/Clippings/20070112.pdf .

I read the story. I got pretty excited. Clearly this incident sounds like a pretty damned important harbinger of things to come back in pre-EAR Rancho Cordova. I spent a good deal of time researching this incident. I was not the first member of this community to do so. Not even close. I am sure that I won't be the last. Probably not even close on that one either. I am not going to go into everything I discovered. Most of you probably know. Those of you who know me (as much as we can know each other here), feel free to PM me if you have any questions. I think the high...low points of the story are basically set forth within this thread and some others on the board. I don't mind answering any questions via PM. Why not just spit it all out here? Because it will just be turned into another spoke in this huge always growing, ever turning wheel of conspiracy that is promoted here. A conspiracy theory by the way that I have never refuted, maintaining only that I am not convinced because innuendo, coincidence and conjecture just don't constitute evidence and fact when I evaluate things. It might be true. I guess it could be true. But for me...I have to believe it is true. I have to be convinced and I am not.