Did Sandy even exist? I’m skeptical.

One of the weird things about ‘Sandy’ is that he was supposed to have only taken a very small share of the money that he and the other kids stole from the farmer (Smith). Perhaps only $20 of the $360 that Smith had. I don’t really understand why LE are buying this? It just looks like they spent $20 of the money they stole.

It’s all super convenient that the murder is down to someone they only just met and now can’t be found. However, if I remember correctly (and maybe I am wrong here), didn’t local authorities try Sandy ‘in absentia’ ? Clearly, LE thought he was real enough. I don’t get where this certainty is coming from?

The boys told police where they threw Sandy’s jacket out of the window, and that is where it was found. Also, they mentioned that they dropped him off outside a motel/hotel. That motel/hotel also vouched for someone matching that description checking in under the name William Carr and giving an address in Bakersfield. For me, it seems like enough to lean towards him existing rather than not, or the boys just got really lucky with coincidence. They may have thrown the jacket out for other reasons.

I would be interested in finding out what the address in Bakersfield was (I live in Bakersfield). If the street was real, then that could indicate some familiarity with it… maybe he passed by it, or knows someone there. I’d like to cross reference the street (if wasn’t made up) with anyone with the last name Carr or Coffman. I already know of a family who has lived here dating back with the last name Carr, not that it means anything since the surname is common.

There is a William Carr in Bakersfield:

https://www.greenlawnmortuaryandcemeter … r/3788159/

If he had given his ID / name correctly (at the hostel) – no reason to give a fake name there – this guy might be Sandy (or related to him). But would place him into his thirties in 1964, somewhat unlikely.

QT

There is a William Carr in Bakersfield:

https://www.greenlawnmortuaryandcemeter … r/3788159/

If he had given his ID / name correctly (at the hostel) – no reason to give a fake name there – this guy might be Sandy (or related to him). But would place him into his thirties in 1964, somewhat unlikely.

QT

Thanks for the info Quicktrader, I’ll check this out further. I found a whole list of people with that name that lived in Bakersfield at one time or another

https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/name/w … rsfield-ca

I’d like to find out what the "fake" address was in Bakersfield too.

Quick question, were Sandy’s full fingerprints found in the Sunbeam that Coleman and Reed were driving around Santa Maria?

If so, does that mean that Zodiac’s prints are potentially on record?

In my research, I came across a serial killer called RICHARD WADE FARLEY who was alive and active around the time of the Zodiac in the contemporary period.

https://criminalminds.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_Farley

While I have my doubts Sandy exists I thought I might just mention him because he doesn’t look a million miles away.

The only thing is Sandy was supposed to have blond hair?

He was not a serial killer. He stalked one co-worker and then committed a workplace shooting were he killed seven people. Also, being born in 1948, he would have been 15 when Domingos and Edwards were killed in 1963, and he would have been 21 in 1969, a bit on the young side for Zodiac. And yes, Sandy was reported to have blonde hair, though it could have been dyed.

Posted by: @ak-wilks

He was not a serial killer. He stalked one co-worker and then committed a workplace shooting were he killed seven people. Also, being born in 1948, he would have been 15 when Domingos and Edwards were killed in 1963, and he would have been 21 in 1969, a bit on the young side for Zodiac. And yes, Sandy was reported to have blonde hair, though it could have been dyed.

Sorry you are right. He is a spree killer. I should have known that because Michael D. Kelleher who wrote the book “The is the Zodiac Speaking” also wrote…

Flash Point: The American Mass Murderer (Contributions in Political Science)

and

Profiling the Lethal Employee: Case Studies of Violence in the Workplace

He covered Richard Wade Farley in those books.

So he is the expert on both.

Your points are well taken. There are lots pointing away form him but I thought I would include him because of some features and his ability to kill people.

Posted by: @ak-wilks

He was not a serial killer. He stalked one co-worker and then committed a workplace shooting were he killed seven people. Also, being born in 1948, he would have been 15 when Domingos and Edwards were killed in 1963, and he would have been 21 in 1969, a bit on the young side for Zodiac. And yes, Sandy was reported to have blonde hair, though it could have been dyed.

The sketch description actually specifies ‘not dyed’.

Posted by: @ak-wilks

He was not a serial killer. He stalked one co-worker and then committed a workplace shooting were he killed seven people. Also, being born in 1948, he would have been 15 when Domingos and Edwards were killed in 1963, and he would have been 21 in 1969, a bit on the young side for Zodiac. And yes, Sandy was reported to have blonde hair, though it could have been dyed.

Zodiac did of course threaten mass shootings in his letters.

Posted by: @jacob

Posted by: @ak-wilks

He was not a serial killer. He stalked one co-worker and then committed a workplace shooting were he killed seven people. Also, being born in 1948, he would have been 15 when Domingos and Edwards were killed in 1963, and he would have been 21 in 1969, a bit on the young side for Zodiac. And yes, Sandy was reported to have blonde hair, though it could have been dyed.

Zodiac did of course threaten mass shootings in his letters.

That’s a point and half!

Richard Wade Farley during the hostage negotiation he started to talk about cypher locks.

https://youtu.be/ZA6uiqFZ23k?t=38

Edit: I also think I should take the time here to say this. When I discovered the Farley Halloween Card connection I found this guy and said to myself, well I should really go back to the card and try to see if Richard Wade is in there. So I had a bias going in but I could not explain some things on the card with him at all. It is when I went digging more that the name I got popping out wasn’t Richard Wade but something else and more importantly it was explaining other features of the card. It was then that I began looking at what the evidence was showing me rather than what I thought should fit into it. That is why I have the POI I have today.