NEAR THE LIBRARY ANNEX

6/24/2017

Cheri Jo Bates, by all accounts, was a gregarious and sociable young woman who easily made friends. The day of her murder she had called her friend Stephanie Guttman at approximately 3.45 pm to see if she wanted to accompany her to the Riverside library that evening to study, but Stephanie declined the offer. It would be another 45-75 minutes later that Cheri Jo Bates left her 4195 Via San Jose residence in her lime green Volkswagen Beetle (between 4.30-5.00 pm).. The journey time from her residence to the Riverside City College library is little more than 10 minutes journey time, which evidently would place her outside the library at around 5.10 pm at the latest, rather early for a library that doesn't open until 6.00 pm. We have Cheri placing a phone call to her co-worker Donna from the Riverside National Bank at 5.30 pm, explaining that she had misplaced her term paper bibliography. So we know she had to have made this call somewhere other than her home residence, likely from somewhere near to the library. Strangely though, the next two sightings of Cheri Jo Bates by eyewitnesses have her driving towards Terracina Drive and the library annex at 6.10-6.15 pm. This would be 40-45 minutes after the call to Donna. Where did she go for this extended period of time.

Had she called on a friend to seek companionship, in light of Stephanie Guttman being unable to accompany her to the library that night. Clearly she had left her residence that night at least one hour prior to the library opening that evening. She certainly wasn't going to sit in her Volkswagen Beetle outside the library for 50 minutes, in temperatures that exceeded 80 degrees Fahrenheit in October. It is also clear she wasn't sitting outside the library, well in advance, waiting for it to open.
A Mexican-American student: stated 'he knew Cheri Jo Bates and had noticed her in the library the night in question. He said he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen" in her blue spiral school notebook." The boy told us he was outside about 5.30 pm, waiting for the library to open at 6, and it was then he saw the girl'.
This statement is open to interpretation, but the Mexican-American student does indicate he saw Cheri Jo Bates IN the library, not outside. He was waiting outside the library at 5.30 pm, but it was only once the library opened at 6.00 pm, that he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen" in her blue spiral school notebook. We know two eyewitness saw her approaching Terracina Drive at approximately 6.10 pm. So it is likely the Mexican-American student saw Cheri Jo Bates shortly after it opened. He was likely able to recollect such precise details regarding her ball point pen and blue spiral school notebook, because the library was probably quite empty at this point. The details he gave lends credence to the fact Cheri Jo Bates did enter the library that evening, albeit for a very brief period of time. Detectives could easily have authenticated the accuracy of his statement, from the victim's belongings retrieved from her vehicle or the crime scene
We know that no further eyewitnesses saw Cheri Jo Bates in the library that evening from 6.30-9.00 pm, indicating she spent likely 15 minutes or less in the library. She had earlier misplaced her bibliography, so unless she had already returned home to retrieve it, she may have felt she was unable to do the studying she had planned and went elsewhere. It is also equally possible, that because Stephanie Guttman was unable to accompany her to the library, she may have made alternative arrangements before leaving her residence. Whatever the case, from approximately 6.30 pm to 10.30-10.45 pm, when screams were heard coming from the alleyway, her movements are unaccounted for. It could be argued however, that spending 4 hours elsewhere, was somewhere she likely felt comfortable.

Shortly after 6.10 pm, four young men, under police interrogation stated "they had seen Cheri Jo near her car the previous night." They didn't recall any suspicious activity around the Volkswagen Beetle that evening, so the claim she was abducted as she arrived on Terracina Drive, or had returned to a disabled Volkswagen Beetle could not have happened during the time they were sitting on the fence opposite her vehicle.
They were later spotted by other eyewitnesses in exactly the same location. Walter Siebert stated that 'he and a few friends were in the library from 7.15 pm until 9, but did not see Miss Bates, whom they all knew. They said they saw four men dressed in work clothes sitting on a fence across from the spot where Miss Bates' car was found, but they did not know them.'
The remaining options appear to be that Cheri Jo Bates left the library that evening with person or persons unknown, or had arranged earlier that day to visit another friend, after Stephanie declined her offer.
Two crucial factors come into play here:
#1. The Riverside light was fading badly shortly after six and 'Detectives learned from the slain girl's friends that Cheri Jo had been "terribly afraid of the darkness."
#2. Cheri Jo Bates vehicle would have been parked on Terracina Drive for upwards of 4 hours.
If Cheri Jo Bates had prearranged to visit somebody that evening, it would suggest the secondary location was within reasonable walking distance. The question to ask would be, how far was Cheri Jo Bates prepared to walk that evening in the dark. Or how far would you be prepared to walk, when you have a vehicle parked right outside the library. There is a reasoned argument to be had, to suggest the secondary location, possibly a friend's apartment or house, was extremely close to the Riverside campus grounds. Quite possibly situated in the adjoining streets.
If Cheri Jo Bates did visit a nearby friend's residence for several hours, they clearly failed to reveal this information to investigators. One could argue they feared being implicated in the crime, being the last person to see Cheri Jo Bates before her death, or they were the actual killer of Cheri Jo Bates, while escorting her back to her vehicle. But if she visited them, when did they disable her vehicle? In a heated argument when they both returned to her vehicle. If the latter were the case, then the 'smoking man', observed by a female student in the alleyway at 9.30 pm may have a reprieve, but it's not the likeliest of scenarios.
Cheri Jo Bates was certainly 'missing' for approximately 4 hours, with her Volkswagen Beetle sitting idle in Terracina Drive, and if she hadn't been abducted, then she was seemingly comfortable in her surroundings, likely with a friend, and possibly very close by.

http://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-news/the-cigarette-butt

26 Comments

monarch link

6/24/2017 03:09:43 am

Would the Riverside National Bank be open at 5:30 PM on a sunday ?

Richard

6/24/2017 03:42:53 am

I have rephrased it Monarch. I doubt the bank was open, she just called Donna, likely to her home residence, but Donna was a co-employee.

Ray Grant link

6/26/2017 09:54:34 pm

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Zodiac hobbyists, even the best of them like Richard Grinell, whom I cite thricely in my book to correct my own errors, HAVE TO HAVE Cheri Bates in the RCC Library that night. There are simply no alternatives, and attempting to dissuade them is like trying to argue someone out of his religion.

The Cheri Bates timeline is simple, straightforward, and needs no mysterious friends whom she arranges to meet on the spur of the moment and who never come forward after fifty years. She doesn’t need to walk off somewhere for four hours. We can figure out what happened from things we actually know, not speculation.

3:45pm. She talks to Stefanie on the phone. She wants to go to the library to take out books and study a little, not run in and run back out.

4:30pm. Friends see her car parked in front of 4195 Via San Jose.

4:45pm. She finishes supper, washes dishes, and puts leftovers away. Again, she eats before leaving because she expects to spend the evening at RCC.

5pm. The latest she leaves the house. Her father calls at 5pm and gets a busy signal, most likely from Stefanie already engaging the line.

5:15pm. She parks her car and is sitting in front of the library looking through her notepad. She was likely doing this when she noticed her bibliography was missing.

5:20pm. Her dad arrives home, finds message: DAD—WENT TO RCC LIBRARY. Again, an indication she intended to spend the evening there. He takes a phone call from Stefanie, who has likely been calling the number since Cheri left. Joseph Bates leaves a message for Cheri, telling her Stefanie called, and goes back out.

5:25pm. Meanwhile, the Mexican-American student sees her sitting OUTSIDE the library.

5:30pm. She calls Donna from a pay phone outside the library quad to report she’s missing her bibliography. Again, an indication she means to spend significant time inside the library, not run in and run back out.

5:40pm. She drives back home in search of the bibliography.

5:55pm. She arrives at the house, walks back to her bedroom, finds the bibliography, and goes back out to her car. She never walks into the kitchen, which is why her dad’s note is undisturbed.

6pm. She drives back to RCC.

6:10pm. She is seen by her friend on Magnolia Avenue, driving TOWARD RCC.

6:15pm. She is seen by the March Air Force base man in the alley perpendicular to Terracina. She is being followed closely by another car.

6:20pm. The occupants of the other car accost her right after she parks. She does not have time to roll the windows up or take the key out of the ignition. They lead her back to her own car.

That timeline makes perfect sense of her actions. I didn’t have to suggest she was in a hurry, which she wasn’t, or that she met up with mysterious friends. It’s true that I’m assuming she was abducted circa 6:20pm, but that’s consistent with the evidence at the car, her absence from the library, and the contents of her stomach.

The guy in the alleyway said Hi to the girl, and she said Hi back. If there was DNA on the cigarette butt, it was nuclear DNA. The DNA stuck to Cheri’s palm was mitochondrial DNA. Those two types aren’t comparable. You have a guy in the alley a half hour after the library closed, smoking a cigarette, and he makes no attempt to avoid being seen by a witness, and he doesn’t have Cheri Bates in tow. To make him a suspect, you have to invent a scenario where Cheri Bates went off somewhere for four hours (why would she do that, when she’d spent the entire afternoon preparing to go to the library?) with mysterious friends who haven’t come forward in fifty years.

As I said, this is religious conviction, not investigative reporting.

Richard

6/26/2017 11:54:08 pm

Hi Ray, nice to see you my friend. Putting aside the magazine article that stated the Mexican-American noticed her IN the library. I do take eyewitness testimony seriously, as you stated. As I posted in three other articles we cannot ignore the testimony of four eyewitnesses, or to be more specific four men dressed in work clothes who clearly saw Cheri Jo by her vehicle that evening. These four men were interrogated by police, and said "they had seen Cheri Jo near her car the previous night". Then at 7.15 pm Walter Siebert of 3667 Gloreen Court stated that on the Sunday evening in question 'he and a few friends were in the library from 7.15 pm until 9, but did not see Miss Bates, whom they all knew. They said they saw four men dressed in work clothes sitting on a fence across from the spot where Miss Bates' car was found, but they did not know them.' These four men admitted to police they saw Miss Bates by her vehicle that night. By all accounts they were still there at 7.15, corroborated by Walter Siebert and never mentioned any suspicious activity in or around her vehicle. No abduction was recalled, no mention of her vehicle unable to start, no suspicious third parties or vehicles. Had they, we still wouldn't be having this conversation. We both agree she was away from the library for an extended period. I believe she entered and exited the library in about 5 minutes (6.20-6.25). You believe she didn't. You stated "I’m assuming she was abducted circa 6:20pm", but no abduction was ever mentioned to police, by four eyewitnesses who were sitting on the fence opposite her vehicle subsequent to 6.15 pm when the March Air Force base man spotted her. I appreciate the bibliography timeline, but without corroboration, this is filling in the blanks, a considered opinion. It may be logical, but she wasn't sighted by anybody on the 5.40 pm journey. I notice your timeline makes no reference to the four young men sitting opposite her vehicle. My guess is that police would have grilled the men on what they saw that night and since they were likely there from the time she parked up, to the point they were spotted by Walter Siebert, and failed to mention any suspicious activity in or around her vehicle, it is likely nothing happened at this juncture. Had they I'm sure this would be known to police. I notice you never reference these four eyewitnesses?

Richard

6/27/2017 12:54:28 am

Here I will show another 4+ eyewitnesses you fail to mention in your Lake Herman Road abduction theory. You quote Sharon Henslin from 2003 that "I told him to go to Blue Rock Springs. That's something I never told cops. I just assumed that's where they were going to." The key word being "assumed". She didn't know where they went. If Betty Lou was her friend, who had just been murdered, don't you think that is pertinent information to relay to police, which she chose not to in 1968. Regurgitated recollections from 2003, thirty five years later is not the basis to begin an abduction theory from, at 9.10 pm from Blue Rock Springs Park. Les Lunblad, or any investigating officer worth his salt would have followed up on reports the couple intending to go to Hogan High. It is without doubt that Sgt Les Lunblad would have gone to Hogan High and sought attendees of the Christmas concert to see if any eyewitnesses could recollect David Faraday and Betty Lou that night, to form a timeline. This is exactly what they did. This is route investigative work. And the amazing thing is they did find eyewitnesses, in fact at least 4.
The Inside Detective magazine from January 1969, only days or weeks after the double murder alluded to this. I would rather believe at least four eyewitnesses from Hogan High, a matter of days after the crime, rather than a belated 35 year quote from Sharon Henslin on Zodiackiller.com, to formulate a theory around. You quoted "your fellow posters consistently ignore forensics (such as the Bates and Jensen autopsies), ballistics (the behavior of bullets in the Gate #10 turnout), eyewitness accounts (no one in the RCC Library remembers Cheri Bates being there the night of her murder."
I shall therefore take into account very seriously these eyewitnesses.
#1.'At the concert, classmates of Betty Lou noticed the couple sitting side by side in the gymnasium bleachers (retractable seats), holding hands. Nobody remembers seeing them after they left the concert.' A very detailed recollection you might say, "in the gymnasium holding hands." Classmates-at least two or more.
#2. 'During his many hours of investigation (Les Lunblad), the graying veteran detective sergeant learned the terrible murders on Lake Herman were the tragic end of a first date for the young couple. They had attended a pre-Christmas concert and chorale at Vallejo's Hogan High School, where pretty Betty Lou had been a student. The couple had left the school auditorium at 10.00 pm, bidding goodnight to their school chums.' Their school chums waved them of at 10 pm. Another 2+ eyewitnesses. We now have 4+eyewitnesses viewing them at Hogan High that night.
#3 Les Lunblad in the December 22nd 1968 Sunday Examiner and Chronicle: 'Detective Sgt Les Lunblad, the graying, husky officer in charge of the investigation said there was a distinct possibility the young couple had been trailed to the murder scene from the pre-Christmas concert in Vallejo.'
#4 Sunday Times Herald: 'Authorities said the couple, David Faraday (17) and Miss Betty Lou Jensen (16), had driven to the reservoir after attending a Friday night concert at Hogan High School here, where Miss Jensen was a junior.'
Even on December 22nd Lunblad was clear in the opinion they had been to Hogan High. Had he found no eyewitnesses at Hogan High he surely would not be considering this scenario. After the couple left Sharon's house, it's clear they ignored her advice and went to Hogan High, leaving at 10 pm, and arriving 15 minutes later in the turnout. Therefore they couldn't have been abducted from Blue Rock Springs parking lot at 9.10 pm, based around an account 35 years in the recalling. Sharon has no evidence of where they went. There are no eyewitnesses to them being at BRS. There are however 4+ eyewitnesses and Detective Sargent Les Lunblad to corroborate they were present at Hogan High. Ray, you value eyewitness recollection, as in Riverside. Do you value these eyewitnesses equally, or will you dismiss them all, to keep the abduction theory on track. Anyway nice to see you again Ray.

Richard

6/27/2017 01:00:06 am

And don't pick me up on the few errors in text, I was rushing. ('of' instead of 'off'. Route instead of "routine."

Richard

6/27/2017 01:16:06 am

In summation Ray: If you value eyewitness testimony as in Riverside and use this as justification for Miss Bates not being in the library, then you cannot just omit or ignore 8+ eyewitnesses through Riverside and Hogan High School to justify an abduction theory in both cases. If you dismiss the Hogan High School sightings, then you are simply picking and choosing who to believe to create a timeline. I have no reason to believe the 4+ friends and classmates of the couple were simply mistaken or lying. These are credible eyewitnesses, whereas there are none at Blue Rock Springs. I also take January 1968 testimony a little more seriously than an interview on Zodiackiller.com, 35 years too late, with cobwebs on.

Richard

6/27/2017 01:55:32 am

"Zodiac hobbyists, even the best of them like Richard Grinell, whom I cite thricely in my book to correct my own errors."
Thanks Ray, I will take this as a compliment. But when you bring out your next book, which surely must be in the offing, of which I will surely purchase or expect in my Christmas stocking, I hope "thrice" to become at least "four errors", when you revise that Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday were now abducted at 10.10 pm from Blue Rock Springs, instead of 9.10 pm. I will not claim any royalties for my valued and knowledgeable input. I respectfully suggest you call it "ZODIAC KILLER FOR DUMMIES, EXCEPT RICHARD GRINELL."

Richard

6/27/2017 03:38:21 am

" this is religious conviction, not investigative reporting"
It cannot be religious conviction Ray, as I am not religious, and I assume you are neither, because clearly you only rely on facts. As I have stated to you on countless occasions the articles I write are not necessarily my held conviction, they may be, but not always. They are designed to generate discussion, whether somebody agrees with the premise of the article or not, is fine by me. So we will start with the facts this time, facts "which only I + the police know", to quote somebody infamous.
FACT #1 Nobody can say with certainty where Cheri Jo Bates was between 5.30-6.15 pm. We can speculate using logic.
FACT#2 Nobody can say with certainty where Cheri Jo Bates was between 6.20 pm on Oct 30th and 6.30 am the following morning. It was reported that screams were heard around 10.30 pm. We just assume that was the time of the murder. We don't actually know.
FACT#3 Mexican-American student "He knew Cheri Jo Bates and had noticed her in the library the night in question. He said he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen" in her blue spiral school notebook." The boy told us he was outside about 5.30 pm, waiting for the library to open at 6, and it was then he saw the girl'.
Don't try and railroad this statement into 5.30 pm: "Meanwhile, the Mexican-American student sees her sitting OUTSIDE the library."
You know very well there are two ways to interpret this statement, but never does the Mexican-American say he saw her outside, it says he was outside, but it is mentioned the he saw her "IN" the library. You are interpreting the quote as "when the student was outside at 5.30 pm, it is then he saw the girl," but the quote actually says "he was waiting for the library to open at 6, and it is then he saw the girl." The only truth here is that this Mexican-American quote can be interpreted two ways. You have chosen one way to suit your timeline, I have chosen the other to suit mine. Surely you can agree on that.
The facts are, nobody knows for certain, we use timelines and logic the build a framework. To claim the ultimate truth in this case is simply not logical, with so many gaps in the timeline. We could play 'God of the gaps.'
I have always liked your Riverside timeline Ray, apart from the point of the 'abduction', which is, as you put it, pure religious conviction based only on a Graysmith account of a car supposedly following behind her, and her stomach contents at autopsy, which can be explained in many different ways, other than fear slowing the digestion. The two unidentified people at the library reconstruction can be explained in many different ways, other than a sinister one.
Her unlocked vehicle, rolled windows, books left on the seat and key in the ignition can equally be explained by her returning willingly to her vehicle later that night, as any abduction. Besides this, the fact is that four men saw CJB by her vehicle when she parked up in Terracina Drive. You can attempt to claim this sighting was at 5:40 pm, when she drove back home in search of the bibliography, but the men never testified to this, and had this been the case, the police or news reports, or Graysmith for that matter never once brought this into the timeline as a suggestion or observation. The reports have Cheri arriving circa 6.10-6.15 pm. The four men who were sitting on a fence opposite testify to this fact. This has to be taken into account in a fair and balanced evaluation of the timeline.

Ray Grant link

6/27/2017 07:17:28 am

“As I posted in three other articles we cannot ignore the testimony of four eyewitnesses, or to be more specific four men dressed in work clothes who clearly saw Cheri Jo by her vehicle that evening. These four men were interrogated by police, and said "they had seen Cheri Jo near her car the previous night". “

I don’t know anything about four men dressed in work clothes. Why would they have been working on a Sunday evening, which would be unheard-of in 1966? If four such men were interrogated by police, why would the reconstruction at the library have been from 6pm until 9pm on November 13, 1966? It’s possible, if there were four men in work clothes in the vicinity, that they saw Cheri when she made her initial stop by the library, circa 5:10pm or 5:15pm, and/or possibly saw her get in her car to leave to go back to her house to retrieve the bibliography circa 5:40pm or 5:45pm. The police, per the reenactment, treated the 6:15pm sighting by the March Air Force base man as the last spotting of Cheri.

“Then at 7.15 pm Walter Siebert of 3667 Gloreen Court stated that on the Sunday evening in question 'he and a few friends were in the library from 7.15 pm until 9, but did not see Miss Bates, whom they all knew. They said they saw four men dressed in work clothes sitting on a fence across from the spot where Miss Bates' car was found, but they did not know them.' These four men admitted to police they saw Miss Bates by her vehicle that night. By all accounts they were still there at 7.15, corroborated by Walter Siebert and never mentioned any suspicious activity in or around her vehicle. No abduction was recalled, no mention of her vehicle unable to start, no suspicious third parties or vehicles. Had they, we still wouldn't be having this conversation.’

Never underestimate the ability of Zodiac hobbyists to come up with alternative scenarios out of whole cloth. So should we assume that “four men in work clothes,” which is a much vaguer description of a witness or witnesses than anything else we have from that night, were sitting on the fence from about 5:10pm until at least 7:15pm? That’s a long time for four men in work clothes to be sitting on a fence on a Sunday evening in 1966. If they saw Cheri, I suspect they saw her during her earlier stop and not circa 6:20pm. Which is why the police didn’t take particular note of their account, since the timing was prior to her disappearance.

It was already dark out. And this assumes that the abduction necessarily looked suspicious. If, as I believe may have happened, Hugh Penn walked up to the car, flashed his state ID, and asked her to accompany him back to his own car on some pretext, and then stuck a gun in her ribs and forced her into the back seat, even people walking by may not have noticed.

“We both agree she was away from the library for an extended period. I believe she entered and exited the library in about 5 minutes (6.20-6.25). You believe she didn't.”

So now you’re throwing out the Mexican-American student’s testimony, which has her outside the library waiting for it to open, and then walking in circa 6pm? I suppose I should be grateful for the concession. If she’s in the library for five minutes, is her engine disabled during that time? If it isn’t, she just gets back in the car and drives away. If it is, now we have her trying to start her car from about 6:30pm until almost 10:30pm.

“You stated "I’m assuming she was abducted circa 6:20pm", but no abduction was ever mentioned to police, by four eyewitnesses who were sitting on the fence opposite her vehicle subsequent to 6.15 pm when the March Air Force base man spotted her.”

And you’re assuming that the four eyewitnesses were there the entire time, from 5:10pm until 7:15pm, which doesn’t make much sense. Why would four men in work clothes be lounging on a fence on a Sunday night? Why wear work clothes on a warm Sunday evening if you’re not doing any work?

As I said, the more logical assumption, and the one which fits the behavior of the police during the reenactment, when they charted and diagrammed the movements of cars and library patrons from 6pm to 9pm, is that the men may have noticed Cheri during her initial stop (5:10pm or 5:15pm) or when she initially left (5:40pm or 5:45pm). Why would police try to nail down the positions of everyone at the library, with the fundamental question being WHERE WAS CHERI BATES?, if they already knew where she was from the testimony of FOUR witnesses?

“I appreciate the bibliography timeline, but without corroboration, this is filling in the blanks, a considered opinion. It may be logical, but she wasn't sighted by anybody on the 5.40 pm journey.”

The bibliography timeline follows from her conversation with Donna on the pay phone (5:30pm to maybe 5:40pm) and that she was seen driving BACK toward RCC circa 6:

Ray Grant link

6/27/2017 07:19:29 am

“I appreciate the bibliography timeline, but without corroboration, this is filling in the blanks, a considered opinion. It may be logical, but she wasn't sighted by anybody on the 5.40 pm journey.”

The bibliography timeline follows from her conversation with Donna on the pay phone (5:30pm to maybe 5:40pm) and that she was seen driving BACK toward RCC circa 6:10pm (by a friend of hers) and 6:15pm (by the March Air Force Base man).

And again, remember: SHE WASN’T SEEN ANYWHERE ELSE.

“I notice your timeline makes no reference to the four young men sitting opposite her vehicle. My guess is that police would have grilled the men on what they saw that night and since they were likely there from the time she parked up, to the point they were spotted by Walter Siebert, and failed to mention any suspicious activity in or around her vehicle, it is likely nothing happened at this juncture. Had they I'm sure this would be known to police. I notice you never reference these four eyewitnesses?”

Richard, if you like those four men in work clothes so much, research who they were, look them up, and by all means take them to dinner at your Indian restaurant in Coventry. The only one who saw them on the fence was Walter Siebert at 7:15pm, so maybe they weren’t sitting on the fence at 6:20pm. Maybe they spotted Cheri earlier, circa 5:10pm or 5:40pm, when they weren’t sitting on the fence? Maybe they were actually engaged in work activity at 6:20pm?

If the men told police they saw Cheri circa 6:20pm leave her car and walk to the library, why didn’t anyone inside the library see her? If you’re saying the Mexican-American student saw her INSIDE the library circa 6:25pm, entering after she was sitting outside, now you’re saying she didn’t park her car circa 6:20pm, so there goes the testimony of the four workmen. If nothing suspicious happened at Cheri’s car, and the men were there the whole time, how did the car become disabled? Wouldn’t they have noticed a man lurking by the car and opening the rear hood and pulling out the distributor wire? And if the car wasn’t disabled that early, and Cheri left the library early, why didn’t she just drive away?

Why did Cheri leave the key in the ignition? And why did she have so much food in her stomach almost six hours after finishing supper, if she wasn’t abducted and in fear for her life?

“Here I will show another 4+ eyewitnesses you fail to mention in your Lake Herman Road abduction theory. You quote Sharon Henslin from 2003 that "I told him to go to Blue Rock Springs. That's something I never told cops. I just assumed that's where they were going to." The key word being "assumed". She didn't know where they went. If Betty Lou was her friend, who had just been murdered, don't you think that is pertinent information to relay to police, which she chose not to in 1968.”

I have never said that David and Betty Lou were DEFINITELY abducted at Blue Rock Springs Park. I have said that Blue Rock Springs Park was the most likely abduction venue, per Sharon’s testimony. They may have been abducted a block from Sharon’s house, for all I know.

“Regurgitated recollections from 2003, thirty five years later is not the basis to begin an abduction theory from, at 9.10 pm from Blue Rock Springs Park.”

Again, Zodiac hobbyists have little experience with other cases, and think that true eyewitnesses keep giving the same testimony over and over. They only do that if they’re trying to “sell” a story, the way a mobster will keep saying the same thing over and over. In real cases, eyewitnesses often elaborate on earlier testimony.

And I’m not beginning my abduction theory from Sharon’s testimony. I’m beginning it from the fact that David and Betty Lou were not actually seen by anyone between 9pm and their murders at 11:10pm to 11:13pm.

“Les Lunblad, or any investigating officer worth his salt would have followed up on reports the couple intending to go to Hogan High. It is without doubt that Sgt Les Lunblad would have gone to Hogan High and sought attendees of the Christmas concert to see if any eyewitnesses could recollect David Faraday and Betty Lou that night, to form a timeline. This is exactly what they did. This is route investigative work. And the amazing thing is they did find eyewitnesses, in fact at least 4.”

Okay, so now you’re throwing out the testimony of Sharon Henslin and Sharon Henslin’s mother, both from the original police report, that has David and Betty Lou at Sharon’s house from about 8:20pm until 9pm that night? No mention was made of any Christmas concert, and the teenagers in fact initially planned on going to San Francisco, but didn’t because Sharon’s boyfriend didn’t show up in time.

“The Inside Detective magazine from January 1969, only days or week

Ray Grant link

6/27/2017 07:20:47 am

“The Inside Detective magazine from January 1969, only days or weeks after the double murder alluded to this.”

The lead time for such a magazine would have been longer than that. The murders occurred on December 20, 1968, and a magazine dated January 1969 would have come out in December 1968.

“I would rather believe at least four eyewitnesses from Hogan High, a matter of days after the crime, rather than a belated 35 year quote from Sharon Henslin on Zodiackiller.com, to formulate a theory around.”

There is no mention of the four eyewitnesses from Hogan High in the police report. If you’re talking about them listening to records at a friend’s house, that happened before 6pm that evening.

“#1.'At the concert, classmates of Betty Lou noticed the couple sitting side by side in the gymnasium bleachers (retractable seats), holding hands. Nobody remembers seeing them after they left the concert.' A very detailed recollection you might say, "in the gymnasium holding hands." Classmates-at least two or more.”

Again, the police report quotes Sharon and her mother, not those classmates. I’ll believe the police report. By the way, if fellow students told Lundblad that they saw the couple at the Christmas concert, after Lundblad telling them that that’s what Betty Lou told her parents, it’s possible her friends were just covering for her. It’s clear, for example, that Lundblad believed that the couple had some sort of drug involvement, and that he grilled several of her friends about this. In other words, the police didn’t trust the kids, and the kids didn’t trust the police.

“#2. 'During his many hours of investigation (Les Lunblad), the graying veteran detective sergeant learned the terrible murders on Lake Herman were the tragic end of a first date for the young couple. They had attended a pre-Christmas concert and chorale at Vallejo's Hogan High School, where pretty Betty Lou had been a student. The couple had left the school auditorium at 10.00 pm, bidding goodnight to their school chums.' Their school chums waved them of at 10 pm. Another 2+ eyewitnesses. We now have 4+eyewitnesses viewing them at Hogan High that night.”

None of whom are mentioned in the police report, which is odd if they gave this testimony directly to Lundblad. And we know they were at Sharon’s between 8:20pm and 9pm, and that Sharon believed they were going to Blue Rock Springs Park. I think I’ll take the word of one of her best friends, and that friend’s mother, over unnamed eyewitnesses quoted in some tabloid magazine.

“#3 Les Lunblad in the December 22nd 1968 Sunday Examiner and Chronicle: 'Detective Sgt Les Lunblad, the graying, husky officer in charge of the investigation said there was a distinct possibility the young couple had been trailed to the murder scene from the pre-Christmas concert in Vallejo.'”

Since they did tell her parents that that’s where they were going (but didn’t), I’m assuming that’s where his assumption comes from.

“#4 Sunday Times Herald: 'Authorities said the couple, David Faraday (17) and Miss Betty Lou Jensen (16), had driven to the reservoir after attending a Friday night concert at Hogan High School here, where Miss Jensen was a junior.'”

Again, possibly assumptions made from what they told her parents.

“Even on December 22nd Lunblad was clear in the opinion they had been to Hogan High. Had he found no eyewitnesses at Hogan High he surely would not be considering this scenario. After the couple left Sharon's house, it's clear they ignored her advice and went to Hogan High, leaving at 10 pm, and arriving 15 minutes later in the turnout.”

Sharon says they planned on driving to San Francisco. That’s also what her mother says. No mention is made in either testimony of Hogan High. If they leave Sharon’s house circa 9pm and, against their stated intentions, drove to a Christmas concert at Hogan High, they would have arrived when? Circa 9:10pm? That’s preposterously late for a high school concert in 1968 to begin, isn’t it? Would an Eagle Scout like David have shown up at a school concert more than an hour into the concert (if it started at the more reasonable time of, say, 8pm)? That would have been quite an entrance, particularly since Betty Lou hadn’t had a boyfriend up until then.

The only mention of the school concert in the police report concerns what Betty Lou told her parents.

And they couldn’t have been parked in the turnout circa 10:15pm, because Frank Gasser came out through Gate #10 circa 10:20pm, and a white Chevy Impala was parked there. He shown his flashlight into it. And Helen Axe admits she didn’t look into the turnout as her sailor boyfriend drove by circa 10:15pm. Sheesh.

“Therefore they couldn't have been abducted from Blue Rock Springs parking lot at 9.10 pm, b

Ray Grant link

6/27/2017 07:22:02 am

“Therefore they couldn't have been abducted from Blue Rock Springs parking lot at 9.10 pm, based around an account 35 years in the recalling. Sharon has no evidence of where they went. There are no eyewitnesses to them being at BRS. There are however 4+ eyewitnesses and Detective Sargent Les Lunblad to corroborate they were present at Hogan High. Ray, you value eyewitness recollection, as in Riverside. Do you value these eyewitnesses equally, or will you dismiss them all, to keep the abduction theory on track. Anyway nice to see you again Ray.”

Show me the eyewitness acounts of the Hogan High concert in the police report. You can’t, because they’re not there. Let’s see a quote from whatever magazine you’re sourcing, and even if you have such a quote, I’m calling BS on it. David said his intent was to give Betty Lou Jensen his class ring and ask her to Go Steady, and that class ring is what was clutched in his fingers when he lay dead in the hospital circa 12:30am that night, not a program from the Christmas concert.

The folklore about the Hogan High concert is from what Betty Lou told her parents. The folklore about the sighting in the turnout at 10:15pm is what Helen Axe erroneously told the police, and it’s disputed by four other witnesses. Speaking of 35 years, isn’t it nice that almost 48+ years later, the folklore accounts of the Lake Herman Road murders live on? Folklore never dies, does it?

Oh look, he posted some more!

“If you dismiss the Hogan High School sightings, then you are simply picking and choosing who to believe to create a timeline.”

Eyewitness testimony HAS to be reconciled, since one account almost always contradicts another account on some basis (timing, location, etc.). I’ve given my reasons for believing the timelines I’ve presented. I’ve already cited the example of Robert Connley (9pm) and Bingo Wesher (10pm) giving two different times, an hour apart, for their encounter at the Gate #10 turnout. I’ve already explained why Bingo’s timing makes sense, and why Robert’s doesn’t. Welcome to the world of eyewitness testimony reconciliation. If you don’t want to even attempt to decide which details in which account make the most sense, you can construct almost any scenario you choose. Welcome to the world of Zodiac hobbyists on message boards.

“"Zodiac hobbyists, even the best of them like Richard Grinell, whom I cite thricely in my book to correct my own errors."
Thanks Ray, I will take this as a compliment. But when you bring out your next book, which surely must be in the offing, of which I will surely purchase or expect in my Christmas stocking, I hope "thrice" to become at least "four errors", when you revise that Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday were now abducted at 10.10 pm from Blue Rock Springs, instead of 9.10 pm. I will not claim any royalties for my valued and knowledgeable input. I respectfully suggest you call it "ZODIAC KILLER FOR DUMMIES, EXCEPT RICHARD GRINELL."”

Nope. The 9:05pm or 9:10pm abduction makes sense of the movement of vehicles, in particular the white Chevy Impala parked in the turnout. By the way, the three errors are 1, that a shot was fired into the left rear wheel well, per Graysmith, which you corrected, saying that bullet came from the shot into the right rear window; 2, Fouke driving a block past Cherry Street, which only makes sense if you assume he was misdirected by the Zodiac, which I thought was unlikely since he’d then leave himself open to further questioning; and offhand I forget what the third one was.

“FACT#3 Mexican-American student "He knew Cheri Jo Bates and had noticed her in the library the night in question. He said he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen" in her blue spiral school notebook." The boy told us he was outside about 5.30 pm, waiting for the library to open at 6, and it was then he saw the girl'. Don't try and railroad this statement into 5.30 pm: "Meanwhile, the Mexican-American student sees her sitting OUTSIDE the library." You know very well there are two ways to interpret this statement, but never does the Mexican-American say he saw her outside, it says he was outside, but it is mentioned the he saw her "IN" the library. You are interpreting the quote as "when the student was outside at 5.30 pm, it is then he saw the girl," but the quote actually says "he was waiting for the library to open at 6, and it is then he saw the girl." The only truth here is that this Mexican-American quote can be interpreted two ways. You have chosen one way to suit your timeline, I have chosen the other to suit mine. Surely you can agree on that.”

He couldn’t have seen her inside the library circa 6pm unless you want to throw out the two eyewitnesses who saw her driving TOWARD the library at 6:10pm and 6:15pm. Even if he’d said, “I definitely saw her INSID

Ray Grant link

6/27/2017 07:23:19 am

“FACT#3 Mexican-American student "He knew Cheri Jo Bates and had noticed her in the library the night in question. He said he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen" in her blue spiral school notebook." The boy told us he was outside about 5.30 pm, waiting for the library to open at 6, and it was then he saw the girl'. Don't try and railroad this statement into 5.30 pm: "Meanwhile, the Mexican-American student sees her sitting OUTSIDE the library." You know very well there are two ways to interpret this statement, but never does the Mexican-American say he saw her outside, it says he was outside, but it is mentioned the he saw her "IN" the library. You are interpreting the quote as "when the student was outside at 5.30 pm, it is then he saw the girl," but the quote actually says "he was waiting for the library to open at 6, and it is then he saw the girl." The only truth here is that this Mexican-American quote can be interpreted two ways. You have chosen one way to suit your timeline, I have chosen the other to suit mine. Surely you can agree on that.”

He couldn’t have seen her inside the library circa 6pm unless you want to throw out the two eyewitnesses who saw her driving TOWARD the library at 6:10pm and 6:15pm. Even if he’d said, “I definitely saw her INSIDE the library,” it would be 2 to 1 against him, and I’ll take the 2 because the overall timeline is more logical.

“her stomach contents at autopsy, which can be explained in many different ways, other than fear slowing the digestion.”

Cheri was not known to have any digestive issues, and stomach contents are Criminology 101. Her stomach should have been empty when she was examined.

“The two unidentified people at the library reconstruction can be explained in many different ways, other than a sinister one.”

Now you’re picking and choosing what you want to believe. If I based all of my reconstruction on the two unidentified people, or on the stomach contents, or on the condition of her car, or the absence of the eyewitness testimony inside the library, you’d have a point. But what I think is based upon ALL of those things. Isn’t it odd that two people unknown to anyone present just happened not to show up for the library reconstruction?

“Her unlocked vehicle, rolled windows, books left on the seat and key in the ignition can equally be explained by her returning willingly to her vehicle later that night, as any abduction. Besides this, the fact is that four men saw CJB by her vehicle when she parked up in Terracina Drive. You can attempt to claim this sighting was at 5:40 pm, when she drove back home in search of the bibliography, but the men never testified to this, and had this been the case, the police or news reports, or Graysmith for that matter never once brought this into the timeline as a suggestion or observation. The reports have Cheri arriving circa 6.10-6.15 pm. The four men who were sitting on a fence opposite testify to this fact. This has to be taken into account in a fair and balanced evaluation of the timeline. “

Okay, have it your way. She left her vehicle at 6:20pm, was witnessed by the four men in work clothes, walked a block east to the library, where she was witnessed by the Mexican-American student, and no one else, because she immediately ran back outside after charging the three books out. She wasn’t even seen by the staffer who charged out the books. Since the books were found on the front seat of her car, that means she returned to the car. So why didn’t she drive away? And if the car had been disabled, why didn’t the men notice that when it happened? And if the car had been disabled, why didn’t the men notice her trying to start it? And if the car had been disabled, circa 6:30pm, why wouldn’t she have called her dad or one of her friends to come get her?

Instead, she wasn’t seen by anyone. But maybe she went with a friend who decided not to saying anything about it to the police? But maybe that friend ended up killing her? But if the friend ended up killing her, that means the car WASN’T disabled at 6:30pm, so why didn’t she just drive away? Why would you run into a library, run back out again, and then leave the books on the front seat of your unlocked car with the windows down and the key in the ignition and walk off with a friend? Also, since Cheri scratched her assailant, this friend must have been one of those who were magically missed by the police. But as I said, have it your way. It’s like trying to teach evolution to a creationist.

Richard

6/28/2017 01:15:01 am

"And they couldn’t have been parked in the turnout circa 10:15pm, because Frank Gasser came out through Gate #10 circa 10:20pm, and a white Chevy Impala was parked there. He shown his flashlight into it. And Helen Axe admits she didn’t look into the turnout as her sailor boyfriend drove by circa 10:15pm. Sheesh."
Since you are an advocate of police reports I shall quote word for word the police report on page 28. "Miss Axe reports that she and her boyfriend, a sailor, were driving on Lake Herman Road. They passed the area of the pumping station, SHE RECOGNIZED the Rambler and the victims, Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday. Stated that when she went by about 10.15 pm the car was facing in towards the gate and when she returned about 15 minutes later after having gone to the end of the road and then came back, the car was turned round and the front was facing the field, a little to the side."
Can you help me Ray, regarding "she admitted not looking into the turnout", that's not what I've just read in the police report, my eyes must be deceiving me. I shall urgently ring Specsavers in Coventry. I also need to find the Frank Gasser shone his torch into the Impala at 10.20 pm. Can you point me to the page in the police report where this information is located. It would be a big help.

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 01:49:19 am

I thought, so as not to leave a bad taste in Richard Grinell’s mouth, I would go back over the timelines for Riverside and Lake Herman Road and in doing so deal with some of the issues he raises. I want primarily to focus on how logic will usually suggest a particular choice when one comes to a fork in the road.

No one can know exactly what happened during the Zodiac crimes, but if one is going to bother posting on Internet message boards and comment sections, does it not make sense to attempt to find the most plausible scenarios?

Logic is not infallible. It made sense to me that the police would take the Z408 letters seriously, and take command of the publication of them, but as it turns out, they didn’t take them seriously, and left it up to the newspapers how to handle them (at least, at first). It made sense that the man on Jackson Street would simply say No when asked if he’d seen anything, as otherwise he might be detained for further interviews; however, Richard’s insight that the cops drove on as far as Arguello Boulevard suggests that the Zodiac did, in fact, misdirect them, as he says in the November 9, 1969 letter.

However, I do think that logic is the best tool we have in terms of figuring out what happened. And if you’re going to insist that the truth is unknowable, what the Hell are you doing posting on, or for that matter even just reading, Zodiac message boards and websites?

THE RIVERSIDE TIMELINE

I assume that Cheri Bates’s actions prior to 5pm are not in dispute. She talked to Stefanie Guttman on the phone at 3:45pm and invited her to the library to take out books and study a little. Stefanie declined. Cheri cooked supper of roast beef and vegetables and drank milk with it. She would have been finished eating circa 4:45pm. She would have washed the dishes and put away leftovers and then left the house just before 5pm.

Where did she go? Logic says she drove directly to the RCC Library, which was in the Quad building on Terracina Drive. She had invited Stefanie to accompany her, she’d cooked and eaten supper in preparation for spending the evening in the library, and she’d left a note for her father: DAD—WENT TO RCC LIBRARY.

COULD she have gone somewhere else? Of course, but no one saw her anywhere else, and everything she’d done up to that point pointed to her going to the library. Okay, so Cheri Bates drives to the library from just before 5pm to circa 5:10pm or 5:15pm.

The next thing on my timeline is the Mexican-American student spotting her writing in her notepad with a ballpoint pen. This anecdote, which I’ve seen in various publications, has always come with a specific time—5:30pm. In my book, I move the time up to 5:25pm, because Cheri’s call to Donna is also timed at 5:30pm, and they can’t have happened at the same time.

If the Mexican-American student actually saw Cheri IN the library, it would have to have been after 6pm, when the library reopened after the supper break. So why does the anecdote always include the time of 5:30pm?

Also, if Cheri rushed in through the library doors immediately after 6pm, grabbed books off a shelf, had them charged out on her student ID, and then quickly left, when exactly did she sit down and make notations in her notepad? And what notations could she have made, if, as she told Donna, she didn’t have her bibliography, and if, as Richard Grinell insists, she didn’t drive back home to get it? To make notations in her notepad, she’d logically have been sitting down, and it seems unlikely that other people wouldn’t have noticed her.

If the Mexican-American student saw Cheri IN the library, why didn’t Captain Cross report that fact when he was interviewed by Graysmith about the reconstruction, as mentioned in the book ZODIAC? Cross says no one in the library that night reported seeing her, and the only reason they knew she was in the library was that there were library books found in her car.

No one disputes that Cheri was outside the library circa 5:15pm to 5:40pm, since she’d told Stefanie and her dad that that’s where she was going, and since the Mexican-American student mentions the time of 5:30pm, and since she would have to have called Donna from a public phone. Joseph Bates had returned to 4195 Via San Jose circa 5:20pm, and was there long enough that he took a call from Stefanie and then left a note for Cheri in the kitchen, so if Cheri had called Donna from her home, she would almost certainly have run into her father. The most logical place for Cheri to call Donna was from a pay phone outside the library, and as I’ve indicated numerous times, pay phones were readily available near public buildings back in the 1960s.

So let’s review our revised timeline:

5pm. Cheri leaves her house.

5:10pm to 5:15pm. Cheri parks her car at RCC and waits outside the library.

5:25pm. The Mexican-American student

Richard

6/28/2017 03:04:14 am

Richard Grinell "She had earlier misplaced her bibliography, so unless she had already returned home to retrieve it, she may have felt she was unable to do the studying she had planned and went elsewhere."
Raymond Grant "And what notations could she have made, if, as she told Donna, she didn’t have her bibliography, and if, as Richard Grinell insists, she didn’t drive back home to get it? To make notations in her notepad, she’d logically have been sitting down, and it seems unlikely that other people wouldn’t have noticed her."

Ray, at least be fair and not quote things I didn't say.

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 01:51:32 am

So let’s review our revised timeline:

5pm. Cheri leaves her house.

5:10pm to 5:15pm. Cheri parks her car at RCC and waits outside the library.

5:25pm. The Mexican-American student sees her sitting outside the library, writing in her notepad with a ballpoint pen.

Again, following the line of logic, if Cheri drove to RCC and parked her car and then sat down outside the library and was going through her notepad, that would be the most likely time for her to suddenly realize that she didn’t have her mid-term bibliography. So the line of logic, from sitting outside the library going through her notepad, to getting up and calling Donna and asking if she’d seen her bibliography, is a perfectly plausible one.

Cheri Bates drives to the library at 5pm. She’s sitting outside the library, writing in her notepad, when she’s seen by the Mexican-American student. Cheri notices that her bibliography is missing. She calls Donna from a pay phone nearby and asks if she’s seen the bibliography. Donna says No.

Does Cheri decide to just wait where she is, and go inside the library without the bibliography, or does she get back in her car and drive back to her house to look for it? That Cheri called Donna to ask if she’d seen it tells us that Cheri was anxious to find it, felt it was necessary for researching her term paper, and that Cheri was proactive. If she called Dorra at 5:30pm, and was back off the phone by 5:40pm, it was still 20 minutes before the library reopened, and there wasn’t much she could do without the bibliography. So deciding to drive back to her house to look for the bibliography would have been a natural choice.

The other reason Cheri’s trip back to her house (5:40pm to 5:55pm) makes sense is that it explains how she could be outside the library at 5:25pm to be seen by the Mexican-American student, and at 5:30pm to call Donna from a pay phone, and still be seen driving TOWARD RCC by her friend on Magnolia Avenue (6:10pm) and the March Air Force Base man in the alley perpendicular to Terracina, in the parking lot behind the Shelly-Lynn Apartments (6:15pm).

Again, she would have pulled up in her car circa 5:55pm, walked immediately back to her bedroom and found the bibliography there (since she studied in her bedroom), and then walked directly back through the front door to her car (thus not seeing her father’s note, because she had no reason to go into the kitchen). And then the trip back to RCC would have taken from 6pm to 6:15pm.

Since, despite her retrieval of the bibliography, she was never seen inside the RCC Library that night, and left her car with the doors unlocked and the windows down and the key still in the ignition, it’s reasonable to assume that she was abducted circa 6:20pm, just after parking her car.

If Walter Siebert saw four men dressed in work clothes sitting on a fence across from the spot where Cheri’s car was found at 7:15pm, were they sitting on that fence at 6:20pm, almost an hour earlier? If so, what sort of work were they doing, that they spent an hour after sunset just sitting on a fence? If the men were simply working in the general area between 5pm and 7:15pm, it’s entirely possible they saw Cheri Bates either when she initially parked (5:10pm or 5:15pm), or when she came back to her car to drive back home (5:40pm), since she was an attractive blonde that any man in the area would have taken note of. Were they sitting on the fence at 6:20pm, after sundown? And if so, would they necessarily have noticed an abduction?

Kathleen Johns was successfully abducted by a passing motorist who was almost certainly the Zodiac, and was already in the car with him for several minutes before she even realized she’d been abducted.

Donna Lass was successfully abducted from the medical unit in a casino on a Labor Day weekend, when it was absolutely swarming with people. Since no one noticed the abduction, does that mean it didn’t happen?

Joan Webster was abducted and then murdered after being taken, apparently quite voluntarily, from the Eastern Airlines Terminal in Boston, which was swarming with people on a Thanksgiving weekend. Since no one noticed the abduction, does that mean it didn’t happen?

Since there is every reason to believe the same people were involved in the Bates, Johns, Lass, and Webster abductions (and the Faraday/Jensen abductions, for that matter), why is it so hard to believe that her killers could have pulled off the abduction of Cheri Bates without anyone noticing?

If Walter Siebert saw four men in work clothes at 7:15pm that night, and those four men then reported seeing Cheri Bates at some point that afternoon, that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t change anything. Cheri Bates was still abducted, most likely circa 6:20pm that night. There is simply too much evidence of her abduction (lack of eyewitnesses at the library, the condition of her ca

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 01:53:13 am

If Walter Siebert saw four men in work clothes at 7:15pm that night, and those four men then reported seeing Cheri Bates at some point that afternoon, that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t change anything. Cheri Bates was still abducted, most likely circa 6:20pm that night. There is simply too much evidence of her abduction (lack of eyewitnesses at the library, the condition of her car, her stomach contents), and no evidence of her presence anywhere after 6:15pm that night (except what can be gleaned retroactively from the crime scene, and the scream heard by two earwitnesses circa 10:30pm).

LAKE HERMAN ROAD

There is nothing in the police report to suggest that David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen ever attended a Christmas concert at Hogan High on the night they were murdered. If four students at the concert said David and Betty Lou were there, that’s interesting, but it doesn’t fit any logical scenario of events. Since David and Betty Lou did go to the house of a fellow student at Hogan High that afternoon to listen to records (circa 5pm-6pm), maybe that’s what they meant?

Sharon Henslin was interviewed by police and said that David and Betty Lou were at her house between 8:20pm and 9pm. Her mother’s statement says the same thing. The teenagers were considering a trip to San Francisco that night. Nothing was said about the Christmas concert. 9pm would have been quite late for such a concert at a high school; 8pm or even earlier might have been more like it. So would a regular churchgoer and Eagle Scout like David have brought Betty Lou to a concert an hour after it started? That strikes me as bad form.

Sharon Henslin said, in 2003, that David wanted to give Betty Lou his class ring and ask her to Go Steady with him. She said David asked her where to take Betty Lou, and she suggested Blue Rock Springs Park. Again, I don’t INSIST that that’s where he took her, but it seems the most likely destination for them, all things considered.

This notion that eyewitnesses elaborating on previous testimony, even decades after the fact, somehow makes that testimony suspect is just ridiculous, and is evidence that Zodiac hobbyists don’t have much knowledge of criminal cases in real life. I’m not a Zodiac buff; my interest in the Zodiac case was an offshoot of my interest in serial murder cases, and homicide cases generally. Witness elaboration on previous statements is very much the norm, not the exception.

If one just takes the time to look through the police reports, he will notice that pretty much every single time a witness gives more than one statement (CONNLEY, YOUR, OWEN, CROW, HENSLIN), there is further elaboration and even sometimes conflict with previous details. As David Belin pointed out in his book, YOU ARE THE JURY, that’s typical of eyewitness statements in criminal cases. That witnesses to the JFK assassination gave conflicting accounts was not evidence of a conspiracy.

But Zodiac hobbyists don’t understand that because they have absolutely no interest in criminology, and they’re not interested in educating themselves. They’d rather just blow air out of their arses on a message board.

Helen Axe’s identification of the Faraday Rambler as the car she saw in the turnout at 10:15pm that night is just wrong. For starters, she admitted to Solano County that she didn’t see the car at 10:15pm, her sailor boyfriend who was driving the car saw it. Then she never had her boyfriend get in touch with the police after her initial statement. Her account is disputed by Crow (who says he saw a light-colored Chevy chase him off the road at 9:45pm and then double back in the direction of the turnout), Connley (who saw a white Chevy Impala parked in the turnout at 10pm), Wesher (who saw a white Chevy Impala parked in the turnout at 10pm), and Gasser (who walked out through Gate #10 from the brush on the hillside and shone his flashlight into the parked white Chevy Impala circa 10:20pm). That’s four witnesses who contradict Helen Axe, who wasn’t looking at the turnout when she passed it at 10:15pm. She and her boyfriend saw a car in the turnout during their two passes; it just wasn’t the Rambler.

She didn’t know either David or Betty Lou and wouldn’t have recognized David’s car. She was a year older than David and had gone to Hogan High, not Vallejo High. She was married in 1965, when she was 15, and was out in a car with a man who wasn’t her husband. And she wasn’t a neighbor of David or Betty Lou, since all three lived in different zipcodes.

There isn’t a better example of the misinterpretation of an eyewitness account in the entire Zodiac lore than that of Helen Axe. From the time of Graysmith’s book (1986) until my Zodiac Killer Timeline website (circa 2012), everyone following the case believed Helen Axe knew the couple and had identified the Faraday

Richard

6/28/2017 03:57:57 am

Is it impossible Cheri Jo Bates was abducted. No, I have never said it was. It would obviously help if the sworn statements of the four men were available, or even a police report for that matter. Can we rule out an abduction? No, but the three book explanation, having the abductors charge out the books needs clarifying. If these abductors stole her ID and the bearded man and woman entered the library to secure the books, did they grill Cheri on the type of books she wanted, after all it would appear odd if they had taken any books from the library unrelated to her studying. The Riverside library was not likely full of 65 attendees at this point. So this couple I am assuming entered around 6.20 pm, and likely left at approximately 6.25 pm with the reading material, and placed the books in the Volkswagen. My question is, were these books dusted for Cheri Jo Bates' fingerprints. Logic, as you say, suggest they should have been. I would like you to expand on the above Ray, the exact sequence of events from Cheri pulling up circa 6.15 pm to the moment the abductors pull away.

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 01:54:28 am

There isn’t a better example of the misinterpretation of an eyewitness account in the entire Zodiac lore than that of Helen Axe. From the time of Graysmith’s book (1986) until my Zodiac Killer Timeline website (circa 2012), everyone following the case believed Helen Axe knew the couple and had identified the Faraday Rambler in the turnout at 10:15pm. She didn’t know the couple at all, wouldn’t have known their car, wasn’t even looking as her car sped by the turnout, and the car she and her sailor boyfriend saw (circa 10:30pm) was actually the white Chevy Impala that all the other witnesses saw parked there.

And now, in 2017, a supposedly respectable researcher like Richard Grinell just blithely resurrects and repeats the same misinformation.

Richard

6/28/2017 03:26:25 am

"And now, in 2017, a supposedly respectable researcher like Richard Grinell just blithely resurrects and repeats the same misinformation."
I didn't blithely resurrect the same misinformation, I blithely reminded you of the police reports you so dearly love. So the police report is therefore misinformation, not what I said. Why are you persisting in misquoting what I say to score points. Be fair Ray.

Richard

6/28/2017 02:50:26 am

#1 Bingo Wesner (page 26 of the police report): "He was checking his sheep at 10.00 pm and he observed a White Chevrolet Impala Sedan, parked by the south fence of the entrance to the pumping station. He also observed a red Ford pick-up IN THE AREA."
#2 Robert Connelly (page 22 of the police report) "They said that when they arrived at 9.00 pm, a white 4-door hardtop, a '59 or '60 Impala, was parked there, and also, a truck coming out of the gate. This coincides with information from Bingo Wesner that when he came out of the gate and saw the same Impala and also saw the red pick-up truck go by."
"IT DOESN'T COINCIDE. It must have been 10 pm when Connelly drove past in his truck, not 9 pm as he claimed. There is a discrepancy of one hour. I think Connelly was mistaken".

Not once did Bingo Wesner say he saw Robert Connelly driving past the turnout at 10.00 pm. He said "He observed a red Ford pick-up IN THE AREA." That was correct, the red pick-up was parked at the Marshall Ranch, while they were raccoon hunting. Observing a red pick-up in the area, has been conveniently translated and interpreted as "drove by".
Now let's turn to the police page 22 again "This coincides with information from Bingo Wesner that when he came out of the gate and saw the same Impala and also saw the red pick-up truck go by." This is a STATEMENT BY THE POLICE, not what Bingo Wesner said, this is how they interpreted his statement of "He observed a red Ford pick-up IN THE AREA." He said he saw a red pick-up in the area, not a red pick-up drive by. Bingo Wesner was coming out of the gate at 9.00 pm. Bingo Wesner was tending his sheep at 10.00 pm. He was a busy man and had the ability to be somewhere at 9.00 pm and had the ability to be somewhere at 10.00 pm. Unless we assume he was standing motionless for one hour.

9.00 pm Connelly and Gasser arrive by the turnout. They see Bingo coming out of the gate. Bingo does not state he saw Connelly and Gasser drive by, but he may have seen them, but they saw him. Only the police quoted Bingo as saying he saw the red truck go by, he said "in the area"
10.00 pm Bingo is still around (maybe he drove back at some point between 9 and 10.) He is now tending his sheep, when he noticed the red pick-up in the area.
BIG PROBLEM; William Crow was driving around LHR approximately 9.30 pm and 10.00 pm.
But hang on, Robert Connelly said that they arrived at 9.00 pm, and a white 4-door hardtop, a '59 or '60 Impala was in the turnout. Bingo observed the white Impala at 10.00 pm. How can that be? William Crow never saw it. Did it drive away before 9.30 pm and come back around 10 pm. Shall I dismiss the testimony of William Crow as sensationalist opportunism, thrusting himself into the investigation for his 9.30-10.00 minutes of fame, and then embellishing his story years later, where the Valiant turned into a Chevrolet, blue turned to white, two Caucasians turned into one, and now had short hair and glasses, the car following him never closed up, but now became a hot-rod race, bumper to bumper of theatrical magnificence. No I believe every word. I'm a sucker for fiction thrillers. I shall dismiss Connelly instead. If you can root through the jumbled mess of a police report and find any logic in, then good luck to you Ray. I truly understand your logic on Robert Connelly, I am not disagreeing. I am just pointing out how easy it is to twist the police report upside down and inside out. Because it was compiled shoddily and incorrectly.

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 05:36:10 am

“Can you help me Ray, regarding "she admitted not looking into the turnout", that's not what I've just read in the police report, my eyes must be deceiving me.”

I think your folklore-addled brain is deceiving you. Here’s the part you didn’t quote:

“There is some conflict in this statement and Miss AXE has consented to bring her boy-friend to the office to clarify the actual position of the car. The first time she stated when she called, that the car was backed in. Noting this discrepancy, the RO contacted her by telephone on this date 12/28/68 at 12:00 noon.”

In other words, the orientation of the car was as follows:

10:15pm. “facing in towards the gate”

10:30pm. “front was facing [Lake Herman Road]”

So when she initially talked to the police, Helen Axe told them on the phone that the car was facing the road. But when she gave the statement at the Solano County Sheriff’s Office (12/23/68, 11:55am), she told them that the car was initially facing in toward the fence (at 10:15pm) and then facing the road (at 10:30pm). So when they called her a few days later (12/28/68 at 12:00 noon) in an attempt to clear up the discrepancy, she had to promise to bring the boy-friend in to clarify the position of the car. In other words, only the boy-friend saw the car facing in during the first pass (10:15pm), because only he was looking at the turnout then. When the police challenged her on the point, she had to admit that only her boy-friend saw the car on the first pass. Okay?

“I also need to find the Frank Gasser shone his torch into the Impala at 10.20 pm. Can you point me to the page in the police report where this information is located. It would be a big help.”

The Gasser episode has been mentioned in numerous places over the years, including ZodiacKiller.com. It’s similar to Rust finding the two shell casings on the right rear floorboard of Darlene Ferrin’s car. You won’t find that in the police report, either. The police reports aren’t the whole truth, nor are they nothing but the truth. So help me God. Do your own research and find it.

“Ray, at least be fair and not quote things I didn't say.”

Why don’t you decide whether you accept the drive back to retrieve the bibliography or not, and say one or the other? I’m getting a little tired of your playing the Devil’s advocate.

“did they grill Cheri on the type of books she wanted, after all it would appear odd if they had taken any books from the library unrelated to her studying.”

They wouldn’t need to say anything to her, just look at her notepad or bibliography.

6:20pm was the time of the abduction. I obviously don’t know when they entered the library; it would have been sometime between, say, 6:45pm and closing. I think police assumed she took the books out, so they wouldn’t have dusted them.

“why wasn't this a clinical execution similar to Betsy Aardsma, rather than the seemingly uncontrolled murder as testified to, by the autopsy report.”

As I’ve said now how many times? The autopsy, if read closely, suggests that two men wrestled her to the ground, one in front pinning her arms (temporarily), and one behind cutting her throat. But police assumed it was a crime of rage, so that’s what they read into it.

“I blithely reminded you of the police reports you so dearly love. So the police report is therefore misinformation, not what I said.”

Police reports may CONTAIN misinformation, since they contain witness statements, which may include such misinformation (Helen Axe’s, for example).

“Not once did Bingo Wesner say he saw Robert Connelly driving past the turnout at 10.00 pm.”

You just love playing these semantic games, don’t you? You don’t know what Wesher said to the police. Were you there? Okay, it says IN THE AREA on one page, but since the police make the assumption that Connley drove by as Wesher was coming out through Gate #10, he may in fact have said, “drove by,” or something to that effect, and the responding officer may have written down, “in the area.”

Both men say they saw a white Chevy Impala in the turnout. But William Crow was PARKED in the turnout circa 9:35pm, and there were no other cars there at the time. Connley had been drinking at Gasser’s house prior to their coming out to Lake Herman Road. So he got the time wrong. By an hour. It’s less likely Wesher was wrong, both because of them both seeing the parked Chevy and because Wesher was doing something he likely did the same time every night, tending sheep.

Before you decide to play any more of your semantic games, you might just want to note that Bingo Wesher gave his statement to police out at the crime scene, at 8am on 12/21/68. In other words, Wesher gave his statement before the police knew there WAS a Robert

Ray Grant link

6/28/2017 05:37:21 am

Before you decide to play any more of your semantic games, you might just want to note that Bingo Wesher gave his statement to police out at the crime scene, at 8am on 12/21/68. In other words, Wesher gave his statement before the police knew there WAS a Robert Connley or any of the other witnesses. Bingo Wesher’s was the first statement they took. So IN THE AREA may just be a reflection of that vagueness of the police not yet knowing any of the facts of the case.

“I am just pointing out how easy it is to twist the police report upside down and inside out. Because it was compiled shoddily and incorrectly.”

Don’t think so. I think the police work on the case was adequate, and in some cases (the RCC Library reconstruction) exemplary. I think the problem here is that Zodiac hobbyists tend to read things like police reports shoddily and incorrectly.

Richard

6/28/2017 05:51:23 am

Have you ever considered the second knife in your "two man" killing of Cheri Jo Bates. A second assailant wearing gloves. There were reports of a hunting knife discovered by a gardener on November 14th 1966. Even though it was described as 'buried', the fact it was discovered using a rake, suggest it was a superficial covering of the knife, possibly by somebody who wanted to separate themselves from it in haste. This of course was ruled out in the crime, because it didn't match the knife evaluated through autopsy, plus it had no blood on it. But with an accomplice scenario this doesn't have to be the case. A second man, second weapon, tossed or hurriedly covered to create an immediate separation from the weapon that night. It may simply have had a supporting role in the crime. It was after all discovered very close to the murder scene. However being the day after the re-enactment it may have just been an ill conceived prank by a fellow student.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

NEAR THE LIBRARY ANNEX

Leave a Reply.

CATEGORIES