Today I've had several calls come my way to inform me that listed in an obit. of the Matlock family it tells that Al Matlock is in Georgia! Check it out yourself in the Elyria paper today.So now that would mean the FBI would have a start in the search for Al Matlock!
25 comments:
For those who aren't near a Chronicle-Telegram (and don't feel like registering online for it,) it was also cross-posted in the Lorain Morning Journal:
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/07/18/obituaries/mj3042710.txt
No news is good news!
The FBI must not have found him, knowing that he may have come up there this past week and chose not to--either that, or they didn't find anything that will publicly be stated, if he did come up.
For what it's worth, his publicly available USSearch gives these results:
Address History
* 1 in Tucson, AZ
* 1 in Savannah, OH
* 1 in Galion, OH
* 1 in Sullivan, OH
* 1 in St Petersburg, FL
It also lists New Albany, IN; Lorain, OH; Louisville, KY; Mt. Vernon, KY.
All of the OH addresses are more or less the same general area; the IN address is essentially a Louisville suburb, but the Mt. Vernon one is a little more off the beaten path (it's not terribly far from the Trosper, KY, where his father was born, and likely lived in through Al's birth, judging from the obit, although the details on Al's age are hazy.)
I know the address for Tucson,Az is a different Al Matlock. I'll have to check a few things and see which one lived where meaning Al Matlock Jr. or Al Matlock Sr.
Interesting. What do you think of the latest James post about James Sullivan, a true monster in the closet, and his possible accomplice, the latter of whom allegedly looks like the composite sketch?
Anonymous:
I've heard the story before and for some reason it just didn't jive with me, I thought it had to many holes in it.I just couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that not one but two people were entering this childs room and no one knew about it. I just can't see it, but anythings possible.
Anyone with info on John Still, the guy who tried to abduct a girl at the LENSC a few days ago?
He's no one important to the case according to my source's.
Agree--he's probably never looked like the sketch, for one (he was in his early 20s in 1989, not 30s-40s, and was probably at a distant military base at the time.)
What do you think about the latest information about Dan Monnett?
I'm wondering if we have to now revise a considerable amount of information we think we know about 10/27/89.
I do not think he was involved (and James' headline is misleading, as Mr. Monnett wasn't yet a sex offender at the time,) but I wonder about some of the details that happened.
I don't feel the need to revise my thoughts on it or any of the info I processed. I take everything with a grain of salt. Cases like these always bring out the crazies.
This follow up is disturbing to be sure but what does it really change of what we know?
My feelings about Mr. Monnet tells me to check him out further, but in the mean time I'll say this is just another thing that took up valuble time in finding Amy's abductor and killer. To much info. and not enough evidence.
I myself don't have to revise any info. about 10/27/89 as I didn't believe most of it to start with.
The thing to do about the details is to pick it apart and see if it fits what you know to be true.
I suspect they are getting real damn close to getting the person/s.
Monnet was 14 at the time! 14! Renner's over the edge on this one saying there was a "sexual offender steps away from Amy."
Of course Monnet's not going to completely tell the truth about that----who would want to tell a journalist that little nugget. I do wish that the other witnesses would talk though.
I suppose that if you squint, his present-day photo kinda, sorta, looks like the abductor photo.
I'm not even convinced the photo he found is the right Dan Monnett--his birthday is listed on the Ohio sex offender website as 1972, i.e. he would have been 17 instead of 14. James appears to have removed the photo from his website--it may be that he's not even doing the "even if they didn't do it, let's expose the creeps" part of his job correctly.
It sorta, kinda looks that way, but hey, he's still trying to find a killer and keeping this case in the forefront where it belongs. Like I've said before, I don't always agree with James but he does have good intentions.
i went to school with Dan. His birthday is dec 1975. It is the right one the lorain website is wrong i caught that when i saw it but def his picture and i verfied the crime through cuy county court records
Thanks for the info. So there you have it folks. Moving on.....
A brief glance at the online Cuyahoga docket confirms that the birthdate is Dec. 11, 1975.
To James' credit, he has made a more accurate, and less sensational, headline.
Time to move on, yes...
Why is Renner going over all this crap again? Doesn't he read his own site? Looks like he's trying to stick Runkle again, what a waste of time and energy!
I know that Liz is fairly sure that Dean doesn't fit the profile.
Renner did already comment on Runkle's twin sister dying, but this is the first time he commented on his aunt's suggestion that it was his fault--a comment that gives the "power of suggestion" that Dean could kill someone.
But his aunt's comments may also have been clouded by prejudice against Dean for his sexual orientation (which James never explicitly notes in his comments about Dean, perhaps because he doesn't want to lead people to conflate homosexuality with child abuse, which is a belief by some.)
Again, James has a right to say these things (innocent until proven guilty only applies to the jurors,) and helps keep a spotlight on the case, even if we may not like his methods.
I'd be curious to hear everything he found in those old newspapers, as he's promised in the next few days.
Yes it would be interesting to see what all he found in those old newspapers. My sources told me way back that Mr Case, being from that area knew all the children in New London as it was a small town and that the child he saw wasn't from there. Comments from Mr. Case's family claim that he was very distraught about the fact that area people and police wouldn't believe him. The reason being that Mr. Case was known to tip a few to many at times so his input into the abduction was worthless.
As for Mr. Runkle, I'm still going on the fact that Mr. Case knew everyone from that small town and he did not say that Dean Runkle was the man that was with the unknown child. The papers stated that it was an unknown white man.
Not sure if Renner should be publishing "Dan's" last name...it's generally frowned upon to publish the names of people who are targets of perversion. (I'm sure that James did consider this--he's had 2 years in which he only published the first name.)
But again, it is safe to say that Mr. Runkle is, at best, no better than Mark Foley.
Anonymous:
elaborate on your comment we would love to hear how you got to your opinion.
Dan's name has been kicked around the net many times in two years and he's over 21, I doubt it would make any difference now.
Has it? This is the first I'd heard his last name (granted, I only seriously started researching this case a few months ago.)
I figured it might bring negative repercussions to Dan on the job, with friends/acquaintances/etc. even though he's well over 21 (by my estimate, a good way into his 30s.)
What about Dan’s older brother? Dan was always afraid of him. He was much older.
Post a Comment