I am having a very difficult time understanding how a large corporation like SAFEWAY wasn't more proactive (or were they?) about these assaults in their parking lots!(Just one or all three in Safeways?) Anyone know what, if anything they did after the FIRST or SECOND assault to protect their Customers? (Apparently not enough since there was a THIRD attack?!) And please, someone explain to me how AGT's wanted poster could be on their front doors and no Safeway employee called in a tip? (Or did they?)I mean the guy worked there!!! And how could they NOT know that car wasn't his? It's so distinctive. Maybe I just don't have the whole story, but Safeway isn't looking too good at the moment...just my opinion!
I may very well be wrong since I haven't checked the archives but I believe the attacks all took place during one week in March 2009. That's a very short amount of time for a corporation that size to respond to anything. The manager has to kick it upstairs to the regional manager who has to kick it upstairs to the VP in charge of security who has to generate or approve a solution, blah blah blah.
Safeway may very well have taken additional security precautions at some point after the first attack but part of security is to keep it secret. Don't tell anyone who doesn't need to know just what you're doing in terms of security and it is more likely your security measures will be successful.
One of the attacks was not, in my strictly amateur opinion, even an attack in legal terms. The victim heard footsteps behind her at 11 pm, increased her speed, said that the footsteps also increased in speed, got into her car, locked the doors and saw the suspect staring at her with what she described as a smirk on his face.
I have no doubt it was scary as all get out but in legal terms, what exactly did the suspect do that was illegal? She was in a parking lot. He was in the same parking lot. She was walking to her car and had the impression he was following her. Although she felt he was following and matching her increase in speed, the fact of the matter is that she got safely into her car, so he couldn't not have been that close to her.
Staring and smirking in public is obnoxious but not illegal; otherwise I estimate the majority of 18-25 year old men would be serving time. And a fair number of teens and older men, too.
As for why no one who worked with him called him in based on the sketch, well, I seem to be in the minority here because I don't think the sketch looks anything like the photos I've seen of AGT. To me, there is barely anything there that matches AGT's features in his photos. Considering it is fairly common for people to differ in real life compared to their photos (the whole "the camera puts on ten pounds" thing), I don't think it's too farfetched to think that no one who worked with him saw the resemblance.
Particularly if AGT did his "good guy" act at work. If he was creepy at work the way Gary Ridgway was, then I think it would be easier to think maybe the sketch was of AGT. But if he was a nice guy and not creepy at all, then it would be more difficult to associate someone like that with the violent behaviour of the perp.