Hair Evidence Murders and Sky Parkway attack #22

[portofleith]

Note that this LA Times article was written before ONS was linked to EARS by the Contra Costa DNA. It is mentioned twice in the article that EARS ONS hair samples are in evidence. It also states that Santa Barbara has no usable DNA. It also states that Santa Barbara capitulated from their 1981 position that the killings were all linked.

The 22nd Ears attack in Sky Parkway article is also in this link.(says 24th, but count changed)


www.jjmcgr.org/BK/Clippings/20001003b.pdf

i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm241/portofleith-2008/says24but22nd.jpg

--

[jjmcgr]

The hair samples were obviously from the linked attacks. Even though the dog is not mentioned in a posting about the 2d Goleta attack I placed on the board a few days ago, this article clearly mentions its presence. This presents a minor mystery in two parts: a. why is the dog not mentioned
b. Why would the killer steal a neighbor's bike? It seems riding the bike while walking the dog would be difficult at best.

I'd speculate that the bike was abandoned because of the latter.
The lack of mention of the dog Could mean it was left a distance away from the scene, maybe tied to the tree in the treeline, and the killer brought turkey out to feed it. In this case, footprints and food debris would have linked the dog to the killer.
It seems the killer could not resist stealing bikes even when it was impractical.

[guessting]

IMO there is one question? Who owned the dog? Is the owner the same owner as the Sacramento dog photographed and posted on this site? If Whitmeyer knows who owns the dog, why can't that information be shared? I have heard Whitmeyer has stated there is no connection, if that is so for Goleta, why not let Sacramento confirm that as well.

I know who owned the dog in Sacramento, now is there a match in Goleta? G