CA CA - Clyda Delaney, 24, & Nancy Warren, 64, Mendocino Co, 13 Oct 1968

[j_rey916]

Hi all, I have some theories I'd like to bounce off you. This case is a passion project of mine, so I may ramble. Please bear with me!

What if Nancy was the intended victim, and not Clyda Jean as LE seems to assume? It's her property, and she was attacked in her home. She also sustained more injuries perimortem, which implies rage at her, specifically. In the interview with Johnny Ussery from the Mansonblog.com, Johnny's wife Dawn mentions that Nancy had a gun, and always answered the door of her trailer with the gun. Then, if she knew the person, she would put the gun in a cupboard by the door. LE found the gun in that cupboard the next day. Aren't the odds good that she knew the person? It also points to her being the first one attacked. If she hears her granddaughter being beaten and strangled outside her trailer in the middle of the night, why didn't she go out there with the gun? (Unless she forgot it, and tried to run back inside for it when she was attacked?) It makes much more sense to me that someone came to her trailer late on the night of the 12th, and she knew who it was, so she let them in. Then, either a fight ensued, or the attack was premeditated (more on that in a minute). Nancy was beaten and strangled, then the killer was leaving the property and ran into Clyda Jean, who heard the fight and came to see what was happening. The killer murders her between the trailers, but she is only killed because she could identify him.

On premeditation: My only real issue with this theory (and feel free to bring up any others that you have) is that the murder weapon was two identical leather thongs, which some sources have identified as boot laces. Who kills someone with boot laces? It's an extremely difficult way to kill someone, and must have taken an extreme amount of strength. Also, if Nancy was the only intended victim, how were there two thongs? Does that mean that the killer knew he would have two victims? Or, did he go there with no intention of killing anyone, became enraged, pulled one of his bootlaces out and killed Nancy, then when he was discovered by Clyda Jean, pull the other one out and kill her too? That seems so ridiculous as to be impossible, doesn't it?

A few loose ends:

• In Johnny's interview from Mansonblog.com he mentions that his mother's purse was dumped all over her bed. Why would that be? Did someone enter the trailer and dump her purse looking for something, or did she do it before going outside, where she was killed? If so, why? Did she have a knife or something else in there that she thought she would need?
• There is mention that a lacquered jewelry box seems to be the only thing taken from the crime scene; what is it's significance?

I'm sure you've noticed I've focused on only one assailant. From what I've read, there was only one DNA profile and set of fingerprints found at the crime scene? Someone tell me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[burblestein]

Welcome j_rey916 to Websleuths, everyone! She has begun her career with us with a bang, as seen above. When I questioned her sources, she forwarded the following update to my email. I am bringing a copy out here because it is so fabulous I have to share it with all:

j_rey916:

My sources are mostly from Bruce Anderson’s AVA article Old Murders Never Die (Oct 15, 2008), Old Murders Never Die, the Clyda Dulaney thread on manson.com Manson Family Photos - Manson Family Today - Where are they now - Tate LaBianca Murders - TLB, archived articles from the local papers (Ukiah Daily Journal and Press Democrat), and my own research on Ancestry.com.

It is interesting that the first investigator, Earl Friend, zeroed in on Sgt. Dulaney. The investigator assigned to the case in 2008 responded to Johnny Ussery's request for information and wrote: “I had the opportunity to speak with the original investigator, Earl Friend before his death and I got his opinions. He believed Delany hired someone to do it. Delaney was excluded based on blood type comparing his blood type to blood found under your grandmothers [sic] fingernails.” His response can be found on mansonblog.com under the Clyda Dulaney or Johnny Ussery thread.

I would love to know why Friend came to this conclusion. Dulaney's timeline aside, it seems his DNA and fingerprints we're not present at the crime scene. “Sheriff Bartolomie said the prints were left in Mrs. Warren’s trailer by an unknown person, because early in the case all relatives, friends and visitors to the scene of the crime were fingerprinted and checked out. None matched, leaving the conclusion the prints belong to the murderer” (Investigators Following Year-Old Murder Trail, Press Democrat, Tues. Oct. 14, 1969).

So were his financials funky (showing a large withdrawal or payment to someone), implying he hired someone? If so, it wouldn't matter when he got to the CHP office in Sacramento. Maybe he really did forget his uniform (or a few spares, as you've implied that he would need them) and went back. Though it does seem that he took an early retirement a few years after this happened. (I cannot find where I read that; I’m scrambling to find that info again.)

Maybe he was pressured out? A sort of good ol' boy "you're one of us, so we won't go any further with this, but we don't want you working here anymore" kind of thing? But if so, what would his motive be? Future child support payments if the relationship didn't work out? She was 8 months pregnant with what we can only assume was his child. That's pretty callous, though I'm aware this does happen.

As for the Manson family bent and other sightings of scruffy strangers and trucks full of hippies, well. You're from Mendocino county; I'm sure you know that even today that area around Ukiah and Boonville are full of people like that. It just doesn't feel like a random, stranger attack to me. Just a gut feeling.

Nothing was taken, though Bruce Anderson writes in ‘Old Murders’ that “Robbery was the apparent motive. A metal cash box had been rifled and left on a table although a plastic box and glass jar containing approximately $300 in cash rested in plain sight in a closet of the older woman's trailer.” Contrary to this, the 1969 Press Democrat article states that: “Puzzling to lawmen was the fact that nothing was taken from either trailer by the murderer and the nearby antique shop that Mrs. Warren owned had not been entered (Investigators, p.2)”. So a bit of warring info there. I had also read somewhere that only a black enameled jewelry box was missing from Nancy Warren’s trailer, so I’m going back to see if I can find that reference again.

no evidence of sexual assault, (“The two dead women were fully clothed”, Old Murders)

and the whole thing felt too tidy. According to an interview Investigator Friend gave to the Press Democrat in 1969 (Investigators Following Year-Old Murder Trail, Press Democrat, Tues. Oct. 14, 1969), he was “somewhat disturbed” by the lack of ‘panic’ at the crime scene. In the interview, he claims that “there was no evidence the killer went berserk and committed the murder in a violent rage.”

Also, Clyda was killed right outside the trailer where her three boys slept and they didn’t hear anything. The neighbors reported hearing no barking from Nancy’s dogs that night, or “anything unusual” (Press Democrat, Tues. Oct. 15, 1968 p. 1)

According to Bruce Anderson of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, Clyda was in a contentious custody battle with her ex-husband, and I’ve read that the Sr. John Ussery took the boys back to Oregon the day of the funeral and cut off all ties to Clyda's family. (there is an article from the UDJ that mentions this, but again, I’m coming up empty on finding it. Homework for me.)

Also, according to Johnny in his mansonblog.com interview Manson Family Photos - Manson Family Today - Where are they now - Tate LaBianca Murders - TLB, his father “did an unusual amount of time in prison back in the day”, though what his conviction(s) were for, I have yet to ferret out.

He had an alibi, sure, but again, if he hired someone to do it he could be in Medford that night and all seems well.

 

[burblestein]

I do have some reactions to her posts. Reactions, not objections. Please pardon me if I do not claw through those links again; however, unless I label it as my personal observation/opinion, what I present is from memory of my links above.

1. I don't recall the bit about Nancy's gun. However, I can think of three possibilities concerning the gun's location. One, as suggested, she trusted the intruder(s). Two, they simply walked in an unlocked door. Three, they twisted open the flimsy trailer door lock and barged in. The latter two possibilities count on her being out of synch in her habit.

2. I am admittedly the person who posits bootlaces as the thongs used for the murders. A spare pair of bootlaces in a pocket would appear harmless if a person were stopped, but could serve as an improvised garrote. And from my personal experience in basic training, I can assure you you will black out from being choked in about 30 seconds. So, stun your victim. (We were taught to sandbag a sentry from behind...all's fair, etc. Both women were badly beaten.) Once you whip a wet bootlace around their throat, it's thin enough to really dig into their flesh and quickly close their airway. (Another factoid: we were taught thinner garrotes were more effective, and that piano wire may behead your victim.) When the victim collapses, their weight will increase the pressure of the garrote. The wet bootlace stretches half an inch as the killer hangs on until death.

Might I add, that in practice combat, all 6 feet 4 inches and 180 pounds of me was choked to blackout in half a minute by a guy 5 feet 3, 135 pounds?

3. Earl Friend checked Dulaney's financials for large withdrawals, such as would be used to pay a hitman. Nada. No word if Ussery's financials were checked.

4. It would be fascinating to find out if Dulaney was actually shuffled into early retirement. I did discover that his later life was crossed by further domestic violence. He married yet again. Yet again, it was a younger woman with a family. The 16 year old daughter of the blended family shot herself with his service pistol. Ironically, this happened in the neighborhood I originally misidentified as the murder site.

5. The missing jewelry box full of jewelry was eventually accounted for when a sales slip for it was eventually found.

6. Why didn't sounds of a struggle carry from Nancy's trailer to Clyda's, or from Clyda in the yard into Nancy's place? Heavy rain on a trailer roof can mask a lot of noise.

Mind you, none of the nits I picked above were dispositive. Our new member may be just the sleuth needed to solve this case. Certainly, she is off to a blazing beginning, and I would applaud her solution of it.

 

[burblestein]

And one last after thought...how would Dawn Ussery, who married Johnny in adulthood, know about Nancy's gun?

 

[j_rey916]

And one last after thought...how would Dawn Ussery, who married Johnny in adulthood, know about Nancy's gun?

Exactly; who would have told her that? It doesn't seem they were in touch with Clyda and Nancy's family, so I don't know how/why she said that. But it is interesting if true

 

[j_rey916]

I do have some reactions to her posts. Reactions, not objections. Please pardon me if I do not claw through those links again; however, unless I label it as my personal observation/opinion, what I present is from memory of my links above.

1. I don't recall the bit about Nancy's gun. However, I can think of three possibilities concerning the gun's location. One, as suggested, she trusted the intruder(s). Two, they simply walked in an unlocked door. Three, they twisted open the flimsy trailer door lock and barged in. The latter two possibilities count on her being out of synch in her habit.

2. I am admittedly the person who posits bootlaces as the thongs used for the murders. A spare pair of bootlaces in a pocket would appear harmless if a person were stopped, but could serve as an improvised garrote. And from my personal experience in basic training, I can assure you you will black out from being choked in about 30 seconds. So, stun your victim. (We were taught to sandbag a sentry from behind...all's fair, etc. Both women were badly beaten.) Once you whip a wet bootlace around their throat, it's thin enough to really dig into their flesh and quickly close their airway. (Another factoid: we were taught thinner garrotes were more effective, and that piano wire may behead your victim.) When the victim collapses, their weight will increase the pressure of the garrote. The wet bootlace stretches half an inch as the killer hangs on until death.

Might I add, that in practice combat, all 6 feet 4 inches and 180 pounds of me was choked to blackout in half a minute by a guy 5 feet 3, 135 pounds?

3. Earl Friend checked Dulaney's financials for large withdrawals, such as would be used to pay a hitman. Nada. No word if Ussery's financials were checked.

4. It would be fascinating to find out if Dulaney was actually shuffled into early retirement. I did discover that his later life was crossed by further domestic violence. He married yet again. Yet again, it was a younger woman with a family. The 16 year old daughter of the blended family shot herself with his service pistol. Ironically, this happened in the neighborhood I originally misidentified as the murder site.

5. The missing jewelry box full of jewelry was eventually accounted for when a sales slip for it was eventually found.

6. Why didn't sounds of a struggle carry from Nancy's trailer to Clyda's, or from Clyda in the yard into Nancy's place? Heavy rain on a trailer roof can mask a lot of noise.

Mind you, none of the nits I picked above were dispositive. Our new member may be just the sleuth needed to solve this case. Certainly, she is off to a blazing beginning, and I would applaud her solution of it.

This is why I came here! I need someone with this knowledge. I know nothing of garrotes, strangling, etc. Great info.
1. So true. Any of these scenarios is entirely possible.
3. Sources please! His financials were checked and came up with nothing? Then WHY was he suspected to the point where, honestly, it seemed they stopped looking for any other leads?
4.Where did you hear about his domestic violence problems?? I'm having a very hard time coming up with much on his life at all.
And his step-daughter-- so sad. I would love to know more about why she decided to end her life. Awful.
Love this site, so glad to be on. I joined just for this case, and with the 50th anniversary of their deaths next month, I'd love to see some closure for the Warren/Dulaney/Ussery families.

 

[burblestein]

Gotta dig back into my files to verify my sources on the above. Gonna take a while.

Also, I should have labeled 6. above as a sourceless personal observation. Humble apologies for clumsy error.

 

[burblestein]

2. Oh ho! I am not the only one saying the thongs were bootlaces. So did Sheriff Bartolomie: 16 Oct 1968, Page 1 - Ukiah Daily Journal at Newspapers.com

Back to the files.

 

[j_rey916]

I am doing the happy dance today. Files! Sources! Someone else cares!

 

[j_rey916]

2. Oh ho! I am not the only one saying the thongs were bootlaces. So did Sheriff Bartolomie: 16 Oct 1968, Page 1 - Ukiah Daily Journal at Newspapers.com

Back to the files.

I don't have access to the link. Can you post a pic of the aritcle here?

 

[burblestein]

In reference to post #41: I checked into Nancy Warren's background, but found nothing. Perhaps someone else can have more success.

And post #43, item 3: one of the sources that mentions the check of Dulaney's financials with negative result is A Hell of a Hoax! Part 10: The Mendocino Witches. I seem to also recall seeing that fact in a news article, probably the UDJ.

 

[j_rey916]

50 years ago today. Rest in peace, Nancy and Clyda. We're still looking for justice.

 

[burblestein]

It's the oddities that plague the imagination. For instance, Clyda's purse dumped on her unused bed. Obviously, someone was searching for something from that purse. A moment's reflection tells us it must have been something small and inconspicuous, rather than an easily spotted object. But who wanted that object? Clyda? Or did an assailant enter her trailer, rifle the purse, and leave? Without noticing the sleeping kids?

 

[burblestein]

Another oddity. The murder method.

If a victim is faced with an assault with a garrote, foiling the attack is simple. The victim has only to thrust an arm into the loop. Therefore, the garrote is successfully applied from the victim's rear.

This leads to a quandary. If the victim is throttled from behind, why the beating? A successful surprise attack from the rear would render the victim senseless almost immediately. A beating, then, would be a followup assault, fueled by passion rather than tactics.

Was the beating then a blitz attack, designed to stun the victim enough they could be overcome and strangled? That would seem to imply a non-stealthy approach, followed by a killer gaining position behind the victim.

 

[burblestein]

Another oddity--the dog.

Nancy had a dachshund in her trailer. This isn't mentioned above, but is in the sources.

Would the dog defend Nancy, or would it shrink from an intruder? Wouldn't its barking rouse Clyda next door? Is that what brought her out of her trailer?

 

[burblestein]

And then there's the actual murder weapon(s). An axiom of murder investigation is that knives are very personal murder weapons and their gruesomeness is indicative of powerful homicidal emotions, while firearms are a more objective and less messy method of murder. But garrotes? They're up close and personal like a knife; they are non-messy like a gun. So what can be told from this choice of weaponry?

 

[j_rey916]

And then there's the actual murder weapon(s). An axiom of murder investigation is that knives are very personal murder weapons and their gruesomeness is indicative of powerful homicidal emotions, while firearms are a more objective and less messy method of murder. But garrotes? They're up close and personal like a knife; they are non-messy like a gun. So what can be told from this choice of weaponry?

Exactly. I've been researching the use of garrotes in murders to see what I can glean about the type of person who would choose this method. While I don't believe the Manson family was involved, it is interesting that the choice of murder weapon in the Ukiah case was leather thongs.

 

[j_rey916]

Another oddity--the dog.

Nancy had a dachshund in her trailer. This isn't mentioned above, but is in the sources.

Would the dog defend Nancy, or would it shrink from an intruder? Wouldn't its barking rouse Clyda next door? Is that what brought her out of her trailer?

In my experience with Dachshunds, they are very yappy, but kind of cowardly (I have one, and feel bad saying this about her, but it's true). They bark and bark and bark, but when it comes down to it, they want YOU to protect THEM. At least, that's what mine does. It is very odd that the neighbors (the Torrells) reported hearing no dogs bark from the property that night. Does that mean the dog knew the attacker(s)?

 

[j_rey916]

Another oddity. The murder method.

If a victim is faced with an assault with a garrote, foiling the attack is simple. The victim has only to thrust an arm into the loop. Therefore, the garrote is successfully applied from the victim's rear.

This leads to a quandary. If the victim is throttled from behind, why the beating? A successful surprise attack from the rear would render the victim senseless almost immediately. A beating, then, would be a followup assault, fueled by passion rather than tactics.

Was the beating then a blitz attack, designed to stun the victim enough they could be overcome and strangled? That would seem to imply a non-stealthy approach, followed by a killer gaining position behind the victim.

Why the beating, and why did Nancy receive the worst of it? Everyone seems to think Clyda was the target, and Nancy interfered, but the bulk of the beating seemed to be on Nancy. I SO WISH we had access to the crime scene photos-- does anyone know if it's possible to request them somehow?

 

[j_rey916]

It's the oddities that plague the imagination. For instance, Clyda's purse dumped on her unused bed. Obviously, someone was searching for something from that purse. A moment's reflection tells us it must have been something small and inconspicuous, rather than an easily spotted object. But who wanted that object? Clyda? Or did an assailant enter her trailer, rifle the purse, and leave? Without noticing the sleeping kids?

The purse has always made me think that Clyda heard her grandmother being attacked in the adjacent trailer, and went for a gun or knife in her purse. This points to Nancy being the intended Target (also supported by the fact that Nancy was killed inside her trailer; Clyda was killed outside. Of course, there is no mention of a gun or knife being found near them. It could be that the killer(s) entered the trailer to rob it, and saw the children and got spooked. It's just so hard to tell without the police reports and crime scene photos.