JJD’s 1976 & 77 police reports have be found

[johnnyhands1]

Jan 23, 2020 23:32:14 GMT kg said:

Jan 23, 2020 15:30:42 GMT stanley said:

So if this is correct, on Day 1 one we know he is on duty at 3:45 PM when he wrote a report.  On day 2 he attacks at 1:30 AM and writes a report later at 4:30 PM (and therefore he was on duty).  To conclude he was on duty at 1:30 AM when he attacked would mean he worked a 24 hour shift, or back to back to back 8 hour shifts and we know Auburn typically worked 8 hour shifts.

So he worked two consecutive days and raped in between on the ‘night shift’ about an hour away? I don’t know about that.....

If anyone else has laid this out in this kind of detail, apologies for being redundant.

Also, for the first half of the EAR attacks, the distance was more like a half-hour away, around one hour total travel time.   

I'm sure this situation happened every once in a while unless someone knows different: a graveyard shift, for example, goes uncovered for whatever reason, the swing shift officer holds over for an extra four hours and the day shift officer comes in early for an extra four hours.  

This most likely has nothing to do with the Hayes situation, but I'm sure JJD did this extra four hours for Auburn PD a few times for real - as either the swing officer or morning officer, again for example, and almost certainly told his wife he was doing it quite a lot when he wasn't (he was doing EAR instead.)   I'm thinking he did a lot of his attacks on his days off, but at least a few back-to-back work shift as described as well during the East Area attacks (and maybe a lot more just prowling if he knew he had a shift coming up later that day.)

Bottom line, it was nothing physically or emotionally straining for him to do a 12-13 hour day with eight-hour shift + his EAR activity, either before the shift (APD day shift) or after (APD swing shift.)  He probably still got his eight hours of sleep or close to it - and did his next swing shift (or whatever) for another eight hours - he just didn't do much else in between.

If so, I'd be interested if SH will be asked in court if she scrutinized the family bank accounts to answer the following question, for example: "Mrs. Deangelo, do you recall ever thinking or even doing calculations about whether the JJD paycheck amounts seemed larger for time periods when he told you he was working overtime?".  

I'm thinking that his work hours is not considered privileged spousal communication - the family finances, on the other hand, may be considered privileged (maybe not if she never discussed it with him - but for her to know something didn't add up financially and not demand explanation from him - would open up another can of worms, as in what did she suspect.)

On the other hand, this wouldn't be a defense team line of inquiry, and the prosecution is probably just glad to have her talking on the stand - and don't want to make her feel like she's the one on trial.

[f1guyus]

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

[htx]

One thing to keep in mind with the reports - Deangelo was extremely cautious about covering his tracks. It's entirely possible that the "Time Report Written" lines on some of the reports aren't accurate, and are instead meant to provide him some sort of alibi were he ever accused of being the EAR. It would be relatively easy for him to pick any time between arriving on a scene and turning in the report to fill in that blank, and if (a big if) he was committing crimes while on duty, this could provide him with some evidence suggesting innocence. It's also possible (but far less likely, given the likelihood that this could blow up in his face and ruin any potential of having an alibi) that he could adjust other times on the report (e.g., the time he arrived on scene), or even created reports about incidents that never happened.

[guessting]

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

I would hope so-but she carries marital privilege as they we’re still “legally” married at the time of his arrest. It would be the honorable thing to do. Will she be one of the 150 witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, I hope so?

[f1guyus]

Jan 24, 2020 15:57:04 GMT guessting said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

I would hope so-but she carries marital privilege as they we’re still “legally” married at the time of his arrest. It would be the honorable thing to do. Will she be one of the 150 witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, I hope so?

Are there really going to be 150 witnesses at the preliminary hearing? I’m thinking all that does is give his lawyers another something to complain about.  They are going to have to put in a lot of time prepping.

[dogs]

Jan 24, 2020 16:10:30 GMT f1guyus said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:57:04 GMT guessting said:

I would hope so-but she carries marital privilege as they we’re still “legally” married at the time of his arrest. It would be the honorable thing to do. Will she be one of the 150 witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, I hope so?

Are there really going to be 150 witnesses at the preliminary hearing? I’m thinking all that does is give his lawyers another something to complain about.  They are going to have to put in a lot of time prepping.

That's what the defense said at the trial, and no one else even blinked. So they must have been discussing the issue privately beforehand.

[johnnyhands1]

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

Thanks for that question, as, once you brought it up, I wasn't sure if the privilege covered the spouse from the time of arrest or the time of testimony - here is the snippet from the California Evidence Code, which says time of testimony (boldface mine):

EDIT: oops this may just the words of the lawyer whose site I got this from, not a copy-and-paste of the code itself. Note this lawyer is a member on this board who member Walter got in a spat with some months back over some questionable SH rumor, can't remember. 

-----
California Evidence Code §§970-971 (Spousal Testimonial Privilege). The Spousal Testimonial Privilege states that no one can be forced to testify in court, including in a criminal case, against their spouse. Importantly, this Evidence Code privilege does not prevent a spouse from testifying should they choose to do so, and it only applies to people who are married at the time the testimony would occur. The privilege protects a spouse from being forced to testify on matters that occurred before or during marriage, but the privilege terminates upon divorce, and the testifying spouse holds the privilege, meaning the accused spouse cannot prevent their spouse from testifying should they choose to do so.
----

dailygrindredefined.com/2018/05/12/joseph-deangelo-the-suspected-golden-state-killer-and-wife-sharon-huddle-deangelos-youngest-rape-victim-and-huddles-former-client-and-work-colleagues-speak-out/

[htx]

Jan 24, 2020 16:51:30 GMT dogs said:

Jan 24, 2020 16:10:30 GMT f1guyus said:

Are there really going to be 150 witnesses at the preliminary hearing? I’m thinking all that does is give his lawyers another something to complain about.  They are going to have to put in a lot of time prepping.

That's what the defense said at the trial, and no one else even blinked. So they must have been discussing the issue privately beforehand.

Considering that they'll need to present witnesses for each of the homicides with which he's charged, and that they were investigated by several different agencies, AND that they were investigated over 40 years by different people, AND the fact that the genealogical research/DNA stuff needs to be presented, 150 witnesses doesn't seem too outrageous to me. A single homicide case can easily have 10 or more witnesses.

[dogs]

Jan 24, 2020 17:48:45 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

Thanks for that question, as, once you brought it up, I wasn't sure if the privilege covered the spouse from the time of arrest or the time of testimony - here is the snippet from the California Evidence Code, which says time of testimony (boldface mine):

EDIT: oops this may just the words of the lawyer whose site I got this from, not a copy-and-paste of the code itself. Note this lawyer is a member on this board who member Walter got in a spat with some months back over some questionable SH rumor, can't remember. 

-----
California Evidence Code §§970-971 (Spousal Testimonial Privilege). The Spousal Testimonial Privilege states that no one can be forced to testify in court, including in a criminal case, against their spouse. Importantly, this Evidence Code privilege does not prevent a spouse from testifying should they choose to do so, and it only applies to people who are married at the time the testimony would occur. The privilege protects a spouse from being forced to testify on matters that occurred before or during marriage, but the privilege terminates upon divorce, and the testifying spouse holds the privilege, meaning the accused spouse cannot prevent their spouse from testifying should they choose to do so.
----

dailygrindredefined.com/2018/05/12/joseph-deangelo-the-suspected-golden-state-killer-and-wife-sharon-huddle-deangelos-youngest-rape-victim-and-huddles-former-client-and-work-colleagues-speak-out/

Oh, this reminds me: a few days ago, I was surfing the net looking for some related info, and I ran into one of those websites devoted to providing info on people (for a small fee, which I didn't pay). Anyhoo, there was a free synopsis on SH that noted she was divorced. If that's true, it's the 1st I heard of it.

[johnnyhands1]

Jan 24, 2020 18:53:48 GMT dogs said:

Jan 24, 2020 17:48:45 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

Thanks for that question, as, once you brought it up, I wasn't sure if the privilege covered the spouse from the time of arrest or the time of testimony - here is the snippet from the California Evidence Code, which says time of testimony (boldface mine):

EDIT: oops this may just the words of the lawyer whose site I got this from, not a copy-and-paste of the code itself. Note this lawyer is a member on this board who member Walter got in a spat with some months back over some questionable SH rumor, can't remember. 

-----
California Evidence Code §§970-971 (Spousal Testimonial Privilege). The Spousal Testimonial Privilege states that no one can be forced to testify in court, including in a criminal case, against their spouse. Importantly, this Evidence Code privilege does not prevent a spouse from testifying should they choose to do so, and it only applies to people who are married at the time the testimony would occur. The privilege protects a spouse from being forced to testify on matters that occurred before or during marriage, but the privilege terminates upon divorce, and the testifying spouse holds the privilege, meaning the accused spouse cannot prevent their spouse from testifying should they choose to do so.
----

dailygrindredefined.com/2018/05/12/joseph-deangelo-the-suspected-golden-state-killer-and-wife-sharon-huddle-deangelos-youngest-rape-victim-and-huddles-former-client-and-work-colleagues-speak-out/

Oh, this reminds me: a few days ago, I was surfing the net looking for some related info, and I ran into one of those websites devoted to providing info on people (for a small fee, which I didn't pay). Anyhoo, there was a free synopsis on SH that noted she was divorced. If that's true, it's the 1st I heard of it.

I haven't seen any news stories on the divorce being final (only that the divorced was filed.) I'm basing the divorce-as-final from this thread started by almagata (she found final dissolution papers, apparently):

    earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/8473/divorce-thread-2

[walter]

Jan 24, 2020 17:48:45 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

Thanks for that question, as, once you brought it up, I wasn't sure if the privilege covered the spouse from the time of arrest or the time of testimony - here is the snippet from the California Evidence Code, which says time of testimony (boldface mine):

EDIT: oops this may just the words of the lawyer whose site I got this from, not a copy-and-paste of the code itself. Note this lawyer is a member on this board who member Walter got in a spat with some months back over some questionable SH rumor, can't remember. 

-----
California Evidence Code §§970-971 (Spousal Testimonial Privilege). The Spousal Testimonial Privilege states that no one can be forced to testify in court, including in a criminal case, against their spouse. Importantly, this Evidence Code privilege does not prevent a spouse from testifying should they choose to do so, and it only applies to people who are married at the time the testimony would occur. The privilege protects a spouse from being forced to testify on matters that occurred before or during marriage, but the privilege terminates upon divorce, and the testifying spouse holds the privilege, meaning the accused spouse cannot prevent their spouse from testifying should they choose to do so.
----

dailygrindredefined.com/2018/05/12/joseph-deangelo-the-suspected-golden-state-killer-and-wife-sharon-huddle-deangelos-youngest-rape-victim-and-huddles-former-client-and-work-colleagues-speak-out/

For what it is worth, actual divorce and defense attorneys have said that is NOT the correct interpretation.  HE can declare spousal privilege for the time in which they were married.  HE can prevent HER from testifying to direct or indirect communication they had.

In fact the very definition you look up says this as an example testifying against him for direct questions. They can still ask her questions about him being in/out of the house and behaviors etc. but they can't ask about any communication they had.

'A woman is charged with being a Penal Code 32 PC accessory after the fact to a Penal Code 211 PC robbery. The robbery occurred while she was married to a man from whom she is now divorced. The prosecution calls him to testify about things she might have told him about the robbery. But she has the right to prevent him from disclosing anything she told him in confidence while they were married.'

The lawyer you are posting information from is a pretty poor lawyer (I had no idea you got the information from HER).  She's pretty ignorant about the most basic marital laws apparently.

[walter]

Jan 24, 2020 15:57:04 GMT guessting said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:16:09 GMT f1guyus said:

Do we know that SH will be called to testify?

I would hope so-but she carries marital privilege as they we’re still “legally” married at the time of his arrest. It would be the honorable thing to do. Will she be one of the 150 witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, I hope so?

HE carries the privilege as well and can prevent her from testifying.

Here is the second part of the law (read the second section)

You have the right not to disclose any confidential communications between you and your spouse—AND the right to prevent your spouse from disclosing any such confidential communications.

They can ask her about observations but nothing in regards to what he directly or indirectly said to her.  So the part of the law you identify as applying to her applies to him as well.

[spodey]

Jan 24, 2020 18:53:48 GMT dogs said:

Jan 24, 2020 17:48:45 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

Thanks for that question, as, once you brought it up, I wasn't sure if the privilege covered the spouse from the time of arrest or the time of testimony - here is the snippet from the California Evidence Code, which says time of testimony (boldface mine):

EDIT: oops this may just the words of the lawyer whose site I got this from, not a copy-and-paste of the code itself. Note this lawyer is a member on this board who member Walter got in a spat with some months back over some questionable SH rumor, can't remember. 

-----
California Evidence Code §§970-971 (Spousal Testimonial Privilege). The Spousal Testimonial Privilege states that no one can be forced to testify in court, including in a criminal case, against their spouse. Importantly, this Evidence Code privilege does not prevent a spouse from testifying should they choose to do so, and it only applies to people who are married at the time the testimony would occur. The privilege protects a spouse from being forced to testify on matters that occurred before or during marriage, but the privilege terminates upon divorce, and the testifying spouse holds the privilege, meaning the accused spouse cannot prevent their spouse from testifying should they choose to do so.
----

dailygrindredefined.com/2018/05/12/joseph-deangelo-the-suspected-golden-state-killer-and-wife-sharon-huddle-deangelos-youngest-rape-victim-and-huddles-former-client-and-work-colleagues-speak-out/

Oh, this reminds me: a few days ago, I was surfing the net looking for some related info, and I ran into one of those websites devoted to providing info on people (for a small fee, which I didn't pay). Anyhoo, there was a free synopsis on SH that noted she was divorced. If that's true, it's the 1st I heard of it.

I subscribe to a "people finder" website and it apparently remembered me looking into the names "Huddle" about 6 months ago when the divorce news was being discussed on proboards. 

Oddly and unsolicited, I got a notice from the people finder service several days ago that the "Huddle" I was looking at had moved and had a new phone number. 

But people say to not rely on such companies so it could be just an advertising gimmick to get me back in the search loop there. 

[stanley]

Jan 24, 2020 19:32:38 GMT walter said:

Jan 24, 2020 15:57:04 GMT guessting said:

I would hope so-but she carries marital privilege as they we’re still “legally” married at the time of his arrest. It would be the honorable thing to do. Will she be one of the 150 witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, I hope so?

HE carries the privilege as well and can prevent her from testifying.

Here is the second part of the law (read the second section)

You have the right not to disclose any confidential communications between you and your spouse—AND the right to prevent your spouse from disclosing any such confidential communications.

They can ask her about observations but nothing in regards to what he directly or indirectly said to her.  So the part of the law you identify as applying to her applies to him as well.

"Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be called as a witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without the prior express consent of the spouse having the privilege under this section unless the party calling the spouse does so in good faith without knowledge of the marital relationship."

That is the exact language from the statute and it does say "married person" but doesn't provide a definition of "married" that includes persons divorced. There of course be case law that interprets it as such--do you have a cite?

[walter]

Jan 25, 2020 0:41:37 GMT stanley said:

Jan 24, 2020 19:32:38 GMT walter said:

HE carries the privilege as well and can prevent her from testifying.

Here is the second part of the law (read the second section)

You have the right not to disclose any confidential communications between you and your spouse—AND the right to prevent your spouse from disclosing any such confidential communications.

They can ask her about observations but nothing in regards to what he directly or indirectly said to her.  So the part of the law you identify as applying to her applies to him as well.

"Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be called as a witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without the prior express consent of the spouse having the privilege under this section unless the party calling the spouse does so in good faith without knowledge of the marital relationship."

That is the exact language from the statute and it does say "married person" but doesn't provide a definition of "married" that includes persons divorced. There of course be case law that interprets it as such--do you have a cite?

The privilege extends for the duration of their lives. There may be some exception regarding length of separation but anytime they were married is covered under that privilege and that extends forever even if they are now divorced.

A defense attorney discussed this at length in specific regards to this case a year or so on a podcast. Essentially he can prevent her from testifying about anything he told her while they were married at least up until they lived separately. This privilege extends in perpetuity.

Does that answer somewhat?

Here is a very specific example

'A woman is charged with being a Penal Code 32 PC accessory after the fact to a Penal Code 211 PC robbery. The robbery occurred while she was married to a man from whom she is now divorced. The prosecution calls him to testify about things she might have told him about the robbery. But she has the right to prevent him from disclosing anything she told him in confidence while they were married.'