This page will commence the outlining of various persons of interest who meet the criterion of my investigation to warrant further interest in the case of The Night Predator, more commonly known as the East Area Rapist and/or Original Night Stalker.
I am bound to this course for several reasons. One, my investigation has been of longstanding and is a most public matter, with many victims and their families following its outcome. Two, this page was planned before the FBI’s national press conference, and it anticipates that the process of identifying The Night Predator will be a very involved task.
Tips and theses are not the same thing. The FBI’s entrance into the case is a boon answered on many levels, and its contributory factor cannot be overvalued, especially as they are able to facilitate the flow of information between jurisdictions. However, they are not street investigators. It was made clear to me that the FBI national press conference was designed to rekindle the memories of people who may be able to provide some valuable information from the past. This is not what the summation of my investigation embodies. From experience I know that theses are for the jurisdictions that have a clear mandate to investigate and prosecute. This is the path I must follow when sufficient evidence is at hand. These pages may assist toward that end. If you have a tip on a person whom you feel meets the evidence the FBI has presented, you should contact them at their webpage as soon as possible.
In short, I proceed along the pathway that indicates to me that EAR is most likely dead. I have found that the process of investigation in such cases is rather dire. A living person of interest can be swabbed for DNA. Since the EAR/ONS left DNA behind, this is sufficient to identify or exclude any living person of interest. If the person of interest is dead, proof is monsterously harder to come by. Familial DNA is not easy to extract. There must be probable cause. If there is no close living male relative, it becomes increasingly difficult. Exhumation requires a lot of probable cause.
As the case of the EAR/ONS stands at present (July 2, 2016) there is no official suspect, nor ever has been. It is 40 years now since the beginning of the crime spree. Thus there is every probability that EAR/ONS is actually quite dead. This makes the prospects of identifying EAR quite daunting.
From my years of investigating this case, this is the unenviable path I have found myself on.
To appreciate how unenviable this is it may be best to vanquish misperceptions about investigating verses processing. In all criminal cases, whether hot or cold, persons of interest are processed before being investigated. In hot cases, detectives visit the crime scene first and look for clues and evidence before this evidence leads them to check rap sheets and begin processing viable persons of interest. In cold cases, the investigating is often long ago in the past. Cold case is often about persons of interest. Continuing tips bring forward persons of interest who must be processed. Where there is DNA evidence to compare, DNA sampling will be attempted from a person of interest that was deemed viable. The process essentially ends there for DNA evidence cases. In essence, cold case is pursued in the exact opposite way of hot cases. In a hot case, investigation comes first and then processing. In cold case, processing comes first and then investigating of that person if it is deemed appropriate. If there is no DNA, it is a difficult task indeed to connect the dots.
In order to expose EAR, it is my contention that investigating must come first, as though this was a hot case, in order to identify a viable person of interest, that is to say, to include one into the process other than the usual suspicions that motivate people to turn someone in. These include but are not limited to: “he was weird,” “he liked ski masks,” “he was a sexual fiend.” This section of The Quester Files has revealed the extent of investigation that I have done in order to convey who might have been in a position to execute the crime spree. This has brought to light a few persons of interest whose candidacy cannot be readily justified except in a thesis.
To underscore the difficulties in identifying the EAR/ONS today, some historical context should be introduced here. Thousands of young men were examined by the respective jurisdictions at the time of EAR’s crime spree between 1976 and 1986. Following the usual process of elimination, where the whereabouts of the person of interest could not be determined at the time of a crime, swabbings were done to see if they were non-secretors. EAR/ONS was determined to have been a non-secretor, that is, his bodily fluids did not contain the usual identifying substances to identify his blood type. Test results indicating the person of interest was a secretor eliminated that person.
Since no prime suspect ever existed, one must accept that EAR/ONS was outside of the dragnet. Thus, logically, he was not a young man who was readily considered suspicious by his neighborhood or friends. Or, possibly, he lived further from the center of his crime spree— Sacramento’s East Area of Carmichael/Citrus Heights/Rancho Cordova— than was believed probable at the time. Living much further afield than was suspected, he was naturally not suspected of being EAR/ONS by his neighbors, even if he did display less than desirable qualities in his regular, routine life.
Forty years later, how does one identify someone like this, especially if he is dead? To this end I have investigated.
EAR’s connection with the East Area may have been one of his recent past, in his early teens. Thus for his crimes he was returning to an area he knew well, having grown up there recently. This introduces our first person of interest.