CA CA - East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer *ARREST* #2

[EuTuCroquet?]

Nope.
Redundant: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for;

Not speaking for blusneakers, but I believe they were more ritualistic paraphilias — they were repetitive and NEEDED behaviors for DeAngelo to commit his crimes. They weren’t unnecessary, to him at least. They defined his crimes.

 

[Mamamerced]

Good point. And if we include the Visalia Ranscker timeline, those known crimes ran early 1974 to late 1975.

Bonnie broke off their “volatile” engagement in the early 70s. I’ve been looking for an exact date as to when their engagement was announced — and when Bonnie eventually married someone else. Not having much luck.

Anyone here have that info?

Wondering if Bonnie’s remarriage correlates with the beginning of the ransackings, etc.

Clips upthread also show he was caught stealing when he was a juvenile. Knowing he stalked victims, I wonder how far back his history of peeping goes, too.

Actually, the VR crimes began in Sept. '73 and GSK married in Nov '73, if I'm reading the timeline correctly. Who knows, though, when they actually physically began living together...maybe it was before marriage.
He began his job of 27 years with the grocery chain the same year (91) he separated from his wife. I wonder he went on any medication such as anti-anxiety.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

But... GOOGLE. All they had to do was google him. This seems intellectually lazy, at best.

I wonder if they are googling him NOW?

Intellectually lazy? I strongly disagree.

Why would they have any reason to search for or care about what their father was up to before they were born, especially if it was never discussed in the household? And especially if they had zero reason to suspect him in these crimes??

Large, publicly searchable news clip databases are relatively new, and are often used for things like deep-dive genealogy research and investigative reporting. Why would his children be into that? It doesn’t seem logical to me, nor does it seem intellectually lazy.

 

[RANCH]

Rancher........you're correct about the known crimes stopping in '86, but not the starting. My oversight. http://image.ibb.co/jHpAoc/deangelo_timeline.jpg
I am just very suspect about the dynamics of that marriage....not that I'm accusing the wife of complicity. I'm not.

I don't know the source of that timeline. Is it MSM?

I have feeling that it's not accurate.

 

[Suglo]

Actually, the VR crimes began in Sept. '73 and GSK married in Nov '73, if I'm reading the timeline correctly.
He began his job of 27 years with the grocery chain the same year (91) he separated from his wife. I wonder he went on any medication such as anti-anxiety. Who knows, though, when they actually physically began living together...maybe it was before marriage.

He was engaged to another woman in 1970. That other woman married someone else in 1972. He married his current estranged spouse in 1973. She was only 20 years old. I can’t know for sure but I think it’s probably unlikely they lived together before marriage.

 

[Mamamerced]

I don't now the source of that timeline. Is it MSM?

I have feeling that it's not accurate.

Good question. I don't know the answer....only that it has been posted to this thread at least once before me.

 

[fred&edna]

Good point. And if we include the Visalia Ranscker timeline, those known crimes ran early 1974 to late 1975.

Bonnie broke off their “volatile” engagement in the early 70s. I’ve been looking for an exact date as to when their engagement was announced — and when Bonnie eventually married someone else. Not having much luck.

Anyone here have that info?

Wondering if Bonnie’s remarriage correlates with the beginning of the ransackings, etc.

Clips upthread also show he was caught stealing when he was a juvenile. Knowing he stalked victims, I wonder how far back his history of peeping goes, too.

Bonnie and JJD engagement announced in the May 14 1970 Auburn Journal

Bonnie married MU on August 12 1972

https://nypost.com/2018/04/28/golden-state-killer-was-driven-by-hatred-of-ex-fiancee-investigator/


SH and JJD married in the fall of 1973

https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/sharon-huddle-deangelo-joseph-marie-wife/

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Interesting. Have you googled your parents? I haven’t. Maybe I will now, though I’m pretty sure it’s pretty boring if there’s anything at all.

eta: But my mom once googled an ex and found out he was in prison for killing a guy in a rage. And I googled a former co-worker once, and found out he was in prison for child *advertiser censored*.

OT

It took more than a google search, but my mother discovered her grandfather killed a neighbor over a land dispute, was an abusive alcoholic of some social stature, kidnapped his children and moved cross-country, and then escaped from a moving train as he was being transferred back to the state in which he was charged with murder. He was sentenced to death, but later the charge was reduced and he was released from prison because he was at risk of losing his homestead. The governor took pity on him because his wife and child were left behind to manage it and couldn’t do it on their own. (I think I remember all that correctly — at one point, the wife/child went into hiding in another state, too.)

This info took YEARS of searching to uncover, it was done after the aforementioned were dead, and she did it only because her mother REFUSED to even mention her father’s name or speak of him in any way.

In my experience, it isn’t something kids do all the time simply out of curiosity. It’s not like looking up a recent court docket on a state courts database. Especially if there isn’t a documented, digitized record of any crime.

Imo

 

[RANCH]

Good question. I don't know the answer....only that it has been posted to this thread at least once before me.

Probably best not to use it then. Websleuths only allows MSM links for facts unless approved by MODS.

 

[molly1255]

Great point, Mamamerced. Now I’m curious, too!!

I’ve been reading about long-term separations (10 years or more). About 15 percent of people who separate long-term don’t end up divorcing, which was surprising to me. That seems relatively common.

Of the two couples I know like this, there are children involved ... and, imo, lingering control issues on one or both sides. ... Child support enforcement, “restricting” either of both from fully moving on or remarrying, lingering “intimacy” issues, fear of retribution if it’s an abusive relationship (just leave and don’t look back), finances, health, child custody issues, etc.

Perhaps DeAngelo never agreed to divorce because he didn’t want anything negative in the court record if accusations would be made between them, etc.? Sorta like he didn’t really fight the shoplifting thing because he didn’t want anyone looking further into his background.

Hmmmmmmm.

Didn’t he end up raising at least two of their kids? Or am I misremembering?

I don’t think it would be an affordability issue.

Here are a few links I found on the “permanent separation” issue:

The demographics of couples who separate, but don't divorce
http://m.startribune.com/the-demographics-of-couples-who-separate-but-don-t-divorce/166767186/

“The numbers from the study:

- 49 percent of participants left their first marriages.
- 60 percent of those participants first tried marital separations.
- 80 percent of those who first tried separations moved on to divorce.
- Among the 20 percent who didn't proceed to divorce, 5 percent tried to reconcile and 15 percent remained in long-term marriage separations.

____________

The Un-Divorced
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/fashion/01Undivorced.html

From the article:
“Technically, the two are married. They file joint tax returns; she’s covered by his insurance. But they see each other just several times a year. “Since separating we get along better than we ever have,” he said. “It’s kind of nice.”

“And at 58, he sees no reason to divorce. Their children have grown and left home. He asked himself: Why bring in a bunch of lawyers? Why create rancor when there’s nowhere to go but down?”

____________

This article also mentions reasons like insurance, pensions, selling a family home, Social Security benefits, income tax filing, etc. interesting, imo.

Pros and Cons of Long-Term Separation
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-long-term-separation

“Sometimes the decision to stay separated may have more to do with social considerations; some couples simply prefer to continue conducting their lives as Mr. and Mrs. Married, whether or not their friends and family know the truth. Couples with children may feel that separating is less confusing or easier for their offspring. And many couples just don't “get around to” divorcing, seeing no real benefit in doing so, particularly if they don't expect to remarry.”

Very interesting! I know a few people who have never gone through the process of a legal divorce, and they live separate lives. I think this can be a very risky proposition, especially if a person knows or suspects their spouse is a psychopath.

His wife is an attorney and I'm not, and I'm sure she has weighed the benefits and risks of remaining legally tied to this man, but if there is civil litigation over the murders and rapes he committed, she may be on the hook from a financial standpoint. I don't think she knew about the murders and rapes, but she likely came to the conclusion there was something wrong with him.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Bonnie and JJD engagement announced in the May 14 1970 Auburn Journal

Bonnie married MU on August 12 1972

https://nypost.com/2018/04/28/golden-state-killer-was-driven-by-hatred-of-ex-fiancee-investigator/


SH and JJD married in the fall of 1973

https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/sharon-huddle-deangelo-joseph-marie-wife/

Probably best not to use it then. Websleuths only allows MSM links for facts unless approved by MODS.

Thank you, feed&Edna!! I knew it was out there somewhere. [emoji106]

The info is available from public records and news reports — I just hadn’t been able to find the links. My Google-fu is weak today, apparently. Lol. ❤️

 

[Kapua]

chilling thank you. I will read that next. Anyone else think his wife helped him?

I don't think she helped him. However, he was alleged to have spend considerable time at the crime scenes. I am very curious to know how he explained his many absences to his wife, and if she happened to notice that crimes were taking place on the nights that her husband went out in the middle of the night. Maybe he told her that he had insomnia, and needed to go for a drive to get back to sleep. Maybe he told her that he had to fill in for someone on the third shift who called in sick. Who knows... I wonder if she will allow herself to be interviewed at some point.
:cow:

 

[Texas Red]

Good point. And if we include the Visalia Ranscker timeline, those known crimes ran early 1974 to late 1975.

Bonnie broke off their “volatile” engagement in the early 70s. I’ve been looking for an exact date as to when their engagement was announced — and when Bonnie eventually married someone else. Not having much luck.

Anyone here have that info?

Wondering if Bonnie’s remarriage correlates with the beginning of the ransackings, etc.

Clips upthread also show he was caught stealing when he was a juvenile. Knowing he stalked victims, I wonder how far back his history of peeping goes, too.

According to this article Bonnie married no later then 1973.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olden-State-Killers-love-Bonnie-revealed.html

 

[WhaleWatcher]

Good point. And if we include the Visalia Ranscker timeline, those known crimes ran early 1974 to late 1975.

Bonnie broke off their “volatile” engagement in the early 70s. I’ve been looking for an exact date as to when their engagement was announced — and when Bonnie eventually married someone else. Not having much luck.

Anyone here have that info?

Wondering if Bonnie’s remarriage correlates with the beginning of the ransackings, etc.

Clips upthread also show he was caught stealing when he was a juvenile. Knowing he stalked victims, I wonder how far back his history of peeping goes, too.

"fall 1973" http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article209823959.html

 

[fred&edna]

Thank you, feed&Edna!! I knew it was out there somewhere. [emoji106]

The info is available from public records and news reports — I just hadn’t been able to find the links. My Google-fu is weak today, apparently. Lol. ❤️

Here's a video timeline and there's also another link on the page to a "crimes" timeline.

My ability to successfully link a video within a post is simply f-u (a different kinda' fu )

http://abc7news.com/parallel-paths-tracking-deangelo-and-the-golden-state-killer/3400873/

 

[bluesneakers]

Interesting. Have you googled your parents? I haven’t. Maybe I will now, though I’m pretty sure it’s pretty boring if there’s anything at all.

eta: But my mom once googled an ex and found out he was in prison for killing a guy in a rage. And I googled a former co-worker once, and found out he was in prison for child *advertiser censored*.

I couldn't list all the jobs my parents had before I was born. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood I learned my mom worked at General Dynamics (How could she not tell me?!).

This was before google and ancestry.com and linkedin, otherwise I would have been sleuthing them like crazy. Is it possible not everyone is as curious as WSers?

 

[Shiressleuth]

There is no evidence that ninja swords were not used either. How do you provide evidence of something that did't occur??

Right now we don't know. JJD might say at a later date: "yep, if I knew beforehand there was a large dog at a house I wanted to attack, I brought a can/bottle of dog repellent with me"

Or he might say "Dogs were constantly lifting a leg and peeing all over the tyres of my patrol car and it drove me nuts" OR "Every *advertiser censored* morning I'd walk outside to find dog crap all over my neatly-mowed lawn"

We don't know.

But the evidence we do have so far, says that JJD wanting dog repellent was not some major red flag as some people seem to be claiming it should have been.

In 125 Visalia Ransacker attacks, no evidence has been released to say dog repellent was ever used.
In the 49 commonly accepted EAR attacks, no evidence has been released to say dog repellent was ever used.
In the 10 ONS murders, no evidence has been released to say dog repellent was ever used.


Don't you think that out of the hundreds of well-trained officers who attended at least one VR/EAR/ONS crime scene that someone might have picked up the pungent stench of dog repellent?

Four key things stand out to me, in the facts as we know them currently:

1.) EAR attacked home which didn't have dogs in the vast majority of cases.
2.) In several of the rare cases where he decided to attack a residence that DID have a dog he simply picked up a small dog and locked it in a bathroom, or instructed someone in the house to lock the dog up.
3.) There have been long-sanding (admittedly unconfirmed) reports that he brought a large German Shepherd dog to 2 of the murder scenes. He can't be bringing dogs with him and repelling them at the same time.
4.) Bloodhounds were commonly used at this time. Why on earth would EAR want to use something with a very strong odor that would make it infinitely easier for the bloodhounds to track his scent?

All MOO.

Re number 3, I have read the report of the footprints of a large dog at one of the crime scenes thought to belong to the perp. I will post the link if I come across that again.

 

[PinkPrincessPoop]

I thought VR crimes started in September 1973??? And he got married in November 1973....

 

[bluesneakers]

Nope.
Redundant: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for;

Yes, like me saying "You're looking for a different word" and then posting the meme. That was redundant.

(Or do you mean calling him by all the different monikers? I can see how that might be redundant.)

 

[Shiressleuth]

intriguing. They assumed he was there but it wasn't publicly acknowledge two years ago. So how did Salty Dog know?

I don't get the denial of dog repellant being used.
Seriously.
Dog repellant is horrible for dogs, who have a very acute sense of smell. It can stop them in their tracks.
Say a prowler gets spotted, dog starts barking, then poof dog repellant. Dogs every sense is assaulted.
it's probablg like pepper spray used to ward off the likes of this *******.
The dog repellant might not be as easily detected by humans, but for dogs It's awful.

Now it's getting confusing with Salty Dog and dog repellent. All we need is hair of the dog and we have a hat trick. :smile: