|
Post by jason on Aug 6, 2018 12:21:21 GMT -5
So are we to believe that after Arlis Perry entered the church late that night, Crawford decided he was going to kill her and went over to the print shop and got an ice pick? How could he be sure she would still be there when he returned? Was there any ink and other debris on the ice pick?
I think that Crawford was involved in some way. If nothing else, he jerked off and left his semen on her jeans, but I'm not convinced that he acted alone. The strange man people saw at the church that night who fit the description of the strange man at the law offices that afternoon has never been identified. If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he come forward and admit to being at the church that night and clear himself?
There are too many unanswered questions, which could have been answered if that stupid woman sheriff had the sense God promised a billy goat. She screwed up when she had the deputies knock on Crawford's door instead of arresting him outside and if she wasn't a woman, she'd be on the hot seat for making such a serious error in judgment.
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Aug 6, 2018 17:14:41 GMT -5
So are we to believe that after Arlis Perry entered the church late that night, Crawford decided he was going to kill her and went over to the print shop and got an ice pick? How could he be sure she would still be there when he returned? Was there any ink and other debris on the ice pick? I think that Crawford was involved in some way. If nothing else, he jerked off and left his semen on her jeans, but I'm not convinced that he acted alone. The strange man people saw at the church that night who fit the description of the strange man at the law offices that afternoon has never been identified. If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he come forward and admit to being at the church that night and clear himself? There are too many unanswered questions, which could have been answered if that stupid woman sheriff had the sense God promised a billy goat. She screwed up when she had the deputies knock on Crawford's door instead of arresting him outside and if she wasn't a woman, she'd be on the hot seat for making such a serious error in judgment. I agree with you when it comes to the ice pick.
I would like to know what David Berkowitz has to say about Crawford. If he knows who killed Arlis Perry, then he might know if Crawford was involved. I think that Crawford was just a pervert who found the body and masturbated and left his semen on her clothing after she was already dead.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2018 13:06:03 GMT -5
I still haven't seen anything confirming that Crawford acted alone. I'm beginning to think Jason is right when he says that woman sheriff was completely incompetent and that the mishandling of the arrest was covered up because she's a woman. Like Jason said, there are too many unanswered questions.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 13, 2018 0:06:39 GMT -5
I still haven't seen anything confirming that Crawford acted alone. I'm beginning to think Jason is right when he says that woman sheriff was completely incompetent and that the mishandling of the arrest was covered up because she's a woman. Like Jason said, there are too many unanswered questions. I don't think he acted alone. I'd never heard of Arlis Perry until Lee wrote the first story, but after that, I did some research and even checked out "The Ultimate Evil" from the library. My problem with Crawford being guilty is that there is no record of him killing anyone before or after Arlis Perry and people who commit that kind of murder don't stop at one. In one article somewhere in this thread, they said that he would be checked out for other murders in the area, does anyone know what came of that?
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Oct 26, 2019 16:28:04 GMT -5
Hi, everyone! I realize there may not be any "experts" on this case, but I'll ask, anyway. I'm a little confused. Firstly, I understand that a clear palm print was found on the candle used to assault Arlis Perry. And that said palm print did not match her husband, security guard Steve Crawford, any of the people entering or leaving the chapel before midnight, or any other suspect. Secondly, I believe that police at the time found a fresh semen stain on the cushion of a "kneeler." There was no mention AT THE TIME, that I know of, of any semen stains on her jeans. News reports (not always accurate) claim that police recently claim to have found semen stains on her jeans. That would be a lot of semen for one perp, but on the other hand, it must have been a tiny "trace," since they say the only recently discovered it thanks to "more sophisticated tests." If so, then that sounds more likely to have been cross-contamination from the cushion while in storage. (In my experience, one must be veerrrrrrryyyy careful about hanging an entire case on the nail of "trace" evidence. Very careful.) Thirdly, two witnesses at the time reported seeing a young man about 5'10" with sandy-colored hair near the entrance to the church just before midnight. I believe witnesses at the law office where Arlis worked also reported a young man, noticeably upset, same description, who enquired about the previous afternoon. Fourth, I understand that Crawford's brother was a Mountain View (less than two miles from the scene of the crime) police officer. Does anyone know his full name, or what he looked like in 1974? I ask because, I understand that AT THE TIME, police withheld the existence of this suspect from the public? Is that right? How could someone come forward with information about a POI if they don't know police would like said info? Did police NOT WANT help identifying this person? And apparently, this man was impersonating Bruce Perry, down to getting a phone registered in his name. Fifthly, if police today have doubts (based on what???) that Crawford killed the first three victims, then they obviously think the unidentified sandy-haired accomplice did. Do they already know who he is? If so, and if blaming the whole thing on Crawford (I don't see how he could be 100 percent innocent) is just to "cover" for this other guy, then why not just go ahead and say Crawford did all three? Last, but not least, if the guy waited two years to off himself, and then suddenly grabbed a handy gun the instant police knocked, then I wonder if someone tipped him that the boys were coming... Thanks! Welcome, stonesunturned. The sandy-haired man is discussed in the original article and it seems he was never identified. I don't know anything about Steve Crawford's family members, but I'm sure Lee (graveyardbride), the lady who wrote the original article, will know who he is. If you read the various updates, you know that even some of the police officers who worked on the case don't believe that Crawford was the one who killed Arlis Perry. If that stupid sheriff had waited to have him arrested when he was outside of his apartment, he could have been questioned and might have implicated others. It seems really strange to me that a man who served in the Air Force and hadn't killed anyone before or since killed Arlis Perry. It just doesn't fit.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Oct 26, 2019 21:21:26 GMT -5
I understand that Crawford's brother was a Mountain View (less than two miles from the scene of the crime) police officer. Does anyone know his full name, or what he looked like in 1974? I ask because, I understand that AT THE TIME, police withheld the existence of this suspect from the public? Is that right? How could someone come forward with information about a POI if they don't know police would like said info? Did police NOT WANT help identifying this person? And apparently, this man was impersonating Bruce Perry, down to getting a phone registered in his name. Fifthly, if police today have doubts (based on what???) that Crawford killed the first three victims, then they obviously think the unidentified sandy-haired accomplice did. Do they already know who he is? If so, and if blaming the whole thing on Crawford (I don't see how he could be 100 percent innocent) is just to "cover" for this other guy, then why not just go ahead and say Crawford did all three? Last, but not least, if the guy waited two years to off himself, and then suddenly grabbed a handy gun the instant police knocked, then I wonder if someone tipped him that the boys were coming... Thanks! I'm in law enforcement, but in Kentucky not California, and I've worked on a lot of murder cases, but not anything like what happened to Arlis Perry. I knew that there was someone else who had the exact name as Bruce Perry, but I never heard that someone was deliberately impersonating him. I think that Crawford was just a loser who envied the students at Stanford and that's why he had a Stanford diploma with his name on it. His actions just don't seem to be those of a killer, but I think he probably knew who killed her and his semen probably got on her jeans because he was a pervert. Last spring, a man named John Getreu was arrested for the murders of Leslie Perlove and Janet Taylor. There's a picture of Getreu when he was young with the article about his arrest and he looks like he probably had sandy hair. whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thread/9782/stanford-murders-getreu-serial-killer
Welcome, stonesunturned.
|
|
|
Post by Graveyardbride on Oct 26, 2019 22:59:00 GMT -5
I understand that Crawford's brother was a Mountain View (less than two miles from the scene of the crime) police officer. Does anyone know his full name, or what he looked like in 1974? I ask because, I understand that AT THE TIME, police withheld the existence of this suspect from the public? Is that right? Crawford's brother, William "Bill" Edward Crawford, was the police officer. During the time I was researching the article, I never came across anything indicating he was a suspect. Of course, this doesn't mean he wasn't. He doesn't have a criminal record, was highly-regarded as a police officer and spent 36 years on the force. He had a wife and children and I doubt he would have gotten mixed up in anything with his brother. Bill Crawford died last year. Considering that Mountain View is only six miles from Stanford, had Bill Crawford been the sandy-haired man who visited Arlis Perry at the law firm and was later observed in church, someone would likely have recognized him.
|
|
|
Post by Graveyardbride on Oct 28, 2019 16:17:46 GMT -5
Thanks, everyone! Uh, "someone would likely have recognized him..." Why would they, if police never circulated a composite sketch? But the unidentified man was described as being in his early 20s, whereas Bill Crawford was 34 in 1974. On the other hand, it looks as though Getreau MIGHT have been the sandy-haired man. He was 29 at the time. If not, then there is a THIRD unknown man... I wasn't referring to a composite sketch. Police officers are often in the news and this was true in 1974. Accordingly, Bill Crawford would have been taking quite a chance going to the law firm, because attorneys, paralegals, etc. often question and otherwise interact with police officers and there's a chance he would have been recognized.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 29, 2019 8:19:58 GMT -5
I wasn't referring to a composite sketch. Police officers are often in the news and this was true in 1974. Accordingly, Bill Crawford would have been taking quite a chance going to the law firm, because attorneys, paralegals, etc. often question and otherwise interact with police officers and there's a chance he would have been recognized. John Getreu picked up women at church and Arlis Perry was always recruiting for Christ, so if they met, they would have had something in common. Where was Getreu living and working when she was killed?
|
|
|
Post by Graveyardbride on Oct 29, 2019 11:39:02 GMT -5
John Getreu picked up women at church and Arlis Perry was always recruiting for Christ, so if they met, they would have had something in common. Where was Getreu living and working when she was killed? Getreu varied the spelling of his name, making it difficult to trace him, but in 1974, he was believed to have been living at 3553 Alma Street, which is around 2 miles from the Stanford campus. He was allegedly working at the clinic near Stanford, which is just a few blocks from campus. The law firm where Arlis Perry worked was at 321 Lytton Avenue, less than a mile from Stanford and less than a ½-mile from where Getreu worked.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 7, 2019 10:13:34 GMT -5
Whether or not someone at the law office where Arlis worked "would have recognized" Bill Crawford, the question remains, "Whose palmprint is that on the candle?" Is it Getreu's? If so, then why do Stanford area police still insist he's not a suspect? So, apparently, it isn't his. That means we're still looking. But old photos of Getreu do look like the description of the "sandy-haired young man." And the MO in Arlis's murder--beaten, choked, sexually assaulted but not actually raped, and this whole process extended over a period of up to a few hours, sure fits Getreu's known MO, as described by a surviving victim. So there must be SOME reason police don't think he killed Arlis. Let me see if I can state my logic another way: 1. Police already know (for 40 years) that isn't Steve Crawford's palmprint on the candle. But they have matched his DNA to some semen stain(s) found at the scene and maybe on her jeans. So, we KNOW there were AT LEAST two assailants. 2. The obvious second suspect is the sandy-haired man who was not only spotted at the scene minutes before the church was locked up, but was also "stalking" Arlis, maybe to the point of impersonating her husband. That man has never come forward, and never been identified. 3. Getreu fits his description, AND the MO of the crime committed against Arlis. But police still insist he is NOT a suspect in her murder. 4. The only way they could reasonably rule him out is if they know that's not his palmprint, either. But that doesn't mean he wasn't involved; only that they can't PROVE he was involved. "... would have likely recognized Bill Crawford." The palm print on the candle may not have been from the night of the murder. Fingerprints on porous surfaces, like a wax candle, have been known to remain for 40 years. That would mean the palm print could have been left by the person who made the candle, the one who packaged the candle, the one who sold the candle and anyone else who may have handled it. Getreu was a suspect in the Arlis Perry murder until the DNA on her jeans was identified as Crawford's. That incompetent female sheriff decided Crawford was the killer and all other suspects were eliminated. Law enforcement officers have to follow orders and if the person at the top decides a case has been solved and closes it, an officer can be fired if he continues investigating, even if he doesn't agree with his superiors. There's an article somewhere in this thread that mentions some of the detectives who worked the case aren't satisfied Crawford acted alone. He may not even have been involved in the murder at all. He was a weirdo and there's no telling what he did when he was alone in the church. His semen on her jeans could have been transferred from one of the benches, the floor, a cushion, or whatever. If he was a real sicko, there's also the possibility that he committed an "act" when he found the body that left semen on her jeans. If he did something like that, he certainly wouldn't have wanted everyone to know what a degenerate he was and it would have been reason enough to kill himself.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 8, 2019 1:37:02 GMT -5
Anyone else? I'm not trying to "solve" the case. I'm only trying to find out if anyone knows WHY (or HOW) police seem to have more or less ruled out Getreu as a suspect in the Perry case. That's all I'm interested in. I'm interested, because he looks like a solid gold suspect to me. And it looks fishy that they bent over backwards BACK IN 1974, not 2016 or 2018, to NOT look for the sandy-haired suspect. Because Getreu's old photo seems to match the description. And SOMEONE, most likely the lead detective or prosecuting attorney, DECIDED not to find the sandy-haired young man. Most likely because they already knew who he was, and didn't WANT to find him. And that means they already knew who killed Arlis. And if that sandy-haired man was Getreu, then that means SOMEONE in a position to call the shots in the Perry investigation already knew GETREU and that he was most likely the killer of Arlis and the other two girls. So, WHO made that decision? Regardless of who the sandy-haired man was, Steve Crawford had to know him. Who else? Unless, of course, police have a legitimate reason for ruling him out. Does anyone know what that is? That's it. Thanks. I think I'm missing something. In your first post, if I read it right, you thought that Crawford's brother might have been involved. I also don't understand why Crawford would have had to know the sandy haired man. I thought that Crawford was a guard who made rounds on the campus and that would mean that he just checked on the church like he did other buildings. It would have been easy for someone to hide in a church and Arlis Perry wasn't found until the next morning, even though she had been lying dead in the church since the night before.
|
|
|
Post by stonesunturned on Nov 9, 2019 7:20:20 GMT -5
Hi, Kitty! Noooooo, I'm not pushing ANY "theory." I'm not trying to "solve" this case. I'm asking one question:
Does anyone know if police have ANY actual EVIDENCE of any kind that Getreu was "not" directly involved in Arlis Perry's murder? I haven't seen any. Has anyone?
That's it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by stonesunturned on Nov 16, 2019 7:24:45 GMT -5
I got an answer, straight from SCSO spokesperson: No. And the reason than no evidence rules out Getreu in the Perry case is, they haven't bothered to check. And the reason they haven't checked, and never will, is that the Perry case is "closed." A few days before Getreu was arrested.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Nov 16, 2019 8:23:06 GMT -5
I got an answer, straight from SCSO spokesperson: No. And the reason than no evidence rules out Getreu in the Perry case is, they haven't bothered to check. And the reason they haven't checked, and never will, is that the Perry case is "closed." A few days before Getreu was arrested. … and law enforcement spokespersons always tell the truth.
|
|