Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone


Sheriff’s Office Releases Update on I.V. Killer Investigation

Deputies who visited Elliot Rodger’s apartment last month in response to reports that he had posted threatening videos online acted in accordance with state law and department policy, a report released by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon stated.

The report revealed that deputies did not watch the videos or check whether Rodger owned firearms at the time of the “check the welfare” call on April 30. The Sheriff’s Office was first alerted to the videos by a staff member at the County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Service’s hotline who was contacted by Rodger’s mother and someone claiming to be his friend.

The department is in the midst of an internal investigation examining its handling of the welfare check and whether anything could have been done to prevent Rodger’s killing spree Friday, which left six victims dead and 13 injured.

“This is one of the most complex investigations in the history of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office,” the statement said.

Four deputies, a university police officer and a dispatcher-in-training responded to the welfare call at 10:17 p.m. While these types of calls typically only require two deputies, the report said two other deputies who were familiar with Rodger’s petty theft case against his roommate joined the two deputies on call at the time.

According to the statement, the deputies interviewed Rodger outside his apartment and found him to be “shy, timid and polite.”

“Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself,” the statement said.

The deputies said they did not have reason to believe Rodger was an immediate threat and no cause to put him under an involuntary mental hold. Rodger’s mother was called at the scene, and Rodger was given information on various local services he could contact if he needed help.

On the night of the killings, Rodger emailed his 137-page manifesto to several people including his mother, father and therapist at 9:18 p.m., a minute after he uploaded his final video to YouTube. Gunshots were first reported at 9:27 p.m.

The therapist first saw the email at 10:00 p.m. and contacted the police at 10:11 p.m., the report said. The police were not aware of Rodger’s “retribution” video or his manifesto until 10:26 p.m., a full hour after the rampage had begun. A family friend of the Rodgers said his parents rushed to Isla Vista immediately after seeing the email but arrived too late to prevent the tragedy, according to NBC News.




Print Friendly


In an effort to combat spam, comments that include links must be manually approved. Comments will generally be approved in under an hour depending on the time that they are submitted.

Please do not submit correction requests in the comments section as comments are not reviewed regularly. Correction requests submitted this way therefore may not be noticed for weeks at a time. Please submit all correction requests to eic@dailynexus.com or to the editor of the section in which the story in question appears.

5 Responses to Sheriff’s Office Releases Update on I.V. Killer Investigation

  1. Howard Zochlinski

    May 31, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    The UCPD and the Sheriff’s Dept. are the problem. Raoul Duke is more then right about misplaced priorities and failure of basic common sense on the part of these agencies. Did you not read my screed on their past abuses? If not here it is:

    Put the blame where it belongs – with the Regents and the UCPD – When the police got the report of Rodger Elliot’s attempt to push girls off a ten-foot ledge, they had sufficient grounds for an arrest. There were multiple witnesses to his actions, which, besides the physical assault, included verbal threats to kill the girls. The police could have gotten a warrant for his arrest, put him on the no-buy list for guns and even take away the gun he had at the time.

    I know lawyers out there will point out that the crime was a misdemeanor and there are requirements for an arrest for a misdemeanor that does not take place in the presence of an officer, such as a warrant, The UC police have no problem getting warrants from friendly D.A.’s desperate to suck up to the Regents, and they could have easily arrested Rodger, find his gun and confiscate it. If that was UC Regents’ “policy.”

    Then there was the later incident where the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs came to his home due to concern over his videos, which included threats. Santa Barbara’s county sheriff, Bill Brown, now engaging in COA, stated that his deputies found Rodger “shy, timid and polite, well-spoken”, who played down any claim to his having mental problems. Of particular interest, the sheriff claims no one in his department had bothered to watch the threatening videos before going to see Rodgers about them, yet, according to Rodger’s ‘manifesto’, seven deputies showed up at his door. Why the small army then? Moreover, Rodger’s YouTube broadcast threats were sufficient to secure a search warrant and would justify confiscation of any weapons found there. The sheriff claims that all his deputies did was give Rodger advice and information on where to seek help and leave.

    So, why wasn’t any ‘enforcement’ done by law enforcement? The sheriff’s COA effort blames “inadequate mental healthcare.” Others blame our “gun culture”, “inadequate laws”, culture / civilization in general, movies and video games, the laws, and, in one really odd attack, Seth Rogan and Judd Apatow.

    That’s all nonsense – the responsibility lies with the Regents of the University of California and the thugs they hire as police. The Regents, to use a legal term, foster a “policy, practice or custom” of ignoring crimes against women unless there is so much publicity or pressure that they can’t hide what occurred. The UCPD is trained to believe their mission is not to protect the safety, health or welfare of the students, staff or faculty, but, rather, to protect the property and reputation of the Regents and the University. They will ignore crimes on campus unless someone with authority wants the person arrested for what the Regents see as crimes – for “whistle blowing” or threatening to do so (e.g. Prof. Bin Han, UC Davis), as retaliation for complaining about or suing the University for civil rights violations, for stealing the University’s property or money (e.g. Jennifer Beeman, former director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, who kept track of Clery related data on the UC Davis campus), or there is a racial motive or a personal vendetta.

    How do I know all this? How can I dare make such an allegation? Experience:
    I hate to discuss this and admit it as most people don’t know my history with UC, but I have been arrested five times (three times in 1972, once in 1992, once in 1993) by UC police, all the arrests being for false and malicious charges for reasons of racial animus (anti-Semitism), politics (anti-Vietnam War leftist), threats of whistleblowing and retaliation / vendetta.

    If you are like most Americans, you’ve seen at least some pro-police propaganda, a.k.a. television police procedurals such as a C.S.I. or Law & Order variant. In these, the police generally keep to the rules as people are led to believe they are always enforced: the police gather evidence, interview the suspect, seek witnesses, etc. and do all of that before they seek an arrest or search warrant. The original Law & Order even began with the pronouncement that the police “investigate”. Yet, with Rodgers the police merely interviewed him, ignored the preponderance of the evidence (the videos, the numerous witnesses, his roommates, etc.) and left, only to give the matter a Gallic shrug “What else can I do, Monsieur?” after their deliberate and knowing incompetence led to disaster. In other words, they did less than would be expected of your average television cop. I submit that they didn’t want to make an arrest as they saw no reason to upset UC’s applecart.

    In sharp contrast, here’s how my cases were handled:

    All of the five arrests except the first (burglary of a photolab – I had been processing photos of police brutality at the UCSB riots – see Islavista.org) were for misdemeanors. None involved more than two witnesses and in several cases the actual alleged crime was not even witnessed (e.g. – theft of a camera lens – no one saw the theft, and it was falsely alleged that I had been in the room alone for less than a minute ‘sometime’ before the lens had allegedly ‘disappeared’). There was no investigation of any of the alleged crimes, not even as to whether a crime I was accused of had even occurred (e.g. – the burglary – after my arrest they took inventory and found nothing had been stolen from the photolab) and several of what the police claimed were investigations were actually criminal actions by the UC police to support the allegation (e.g. – making evidence disappear if it was exonerating). The most important point: in every case the warrant was secured (sometimes by having the Assistant District Attorney lie on the affidavit for the warrant, something they get away with as they have “prosecutorial immunity”), and the arrest made before I was interviewed / interrogated – i.e. the police had no interest in what I had to say or any evidence I could produce, only in insuring that I had an arrest record to haunt me.

    Note that none of these five arrests resulted in a conviction and only two went to trial. Of those, one was thrown out half-way through the trial as the judge realized the only witness against me was lying; the other was straight out of television – the fifth and final arrest went to trial. A victim identified another person in the courtroom as the perpetrator. The person identified was someone whom the UC police had been telephoned about and had on their suspect list, but claimed they could not locate him or his work place. My attorney and I not only found this man, but discovered that the UC police had lied – officers had been to his research institute and spoken to his boss. My attorney had subpoenaed him despite objections by University authorities and the DA. Seems he brings a lot of research funding into the University and the UC police and administration, in arresting me, thought they could kill two birds with one stone – retaliate against me and provide a fallguy for this very valuable researcher.

    What was this crime that I was arrested as the fallguy for? Indecent exposure from a moving car, a crime against women. I’m from New York – I never learned to drive a car, never had an automobile license. The UC police hadn’t even checked that, causing the DA some embarrassment and the jury to have a good laugh.

    Why did I suffer all this? Because retired UCPD Officer John W. Jones, the arresting officer in the first four of my arrests, and who ran for congress in Yolo County in 2006, is nothing more than a violent racist, anti-Semitic thug. His own superiors, when they fired him over another racist incident that resulted in an Asian student being in a coma, called him a liar, a slacker and implied, if not stating outright, that he is a coward. But, due to the crimes he committed against me at UCSB in 1972, which I was willing to reveal in Court, the University made a full court press to silence me – slander, disqualification (expulsion without my Ph.D.), harassment, etc. before the false charges he manipulated Yolo County District Attorney Patricia Fong into lying about in order to secure a warrant were dropped.

    It took more than ten years before I had an honest due process hearing before the Academic Senate: http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8165
    But, even after 92% of the voting faculty voted to reinstate me with full back benefits, the administration and the Regents refused. So I am unemployed and, on occasion, harassed. And I submit that this is typical of the kind of near-criminal or even criminal conduct the Regents, University administrators and police engage in when they feel their reputations are threatened. One faculty member called it “a scorched earth campaign”. And they get away with it as everyone who might prevent it is in their pocket: sheriffs and D.A.s run for office and need money for their election campaigns, so they give carte blanche to the most powerful business and largest employer in their county – the University of California.

    As to Jones, he is typical of the sort of officers the Regents hire: incompetent at best, a criminal at his worst. As to crimes against women on UC campuses – those have the lowest priority as “boys will be boys” and no one wants to embarrass the Regents with bad publicity on a campus. As to all of you who believe that the media effects culture and is a cause of rape, etc, consider that Jones himself, at a bachelor party he threw for a faculty member at UC Davis, showed the porn films “Behind the Green Door” and “Deep Throat”. How do I know this? Let’s just say I make a better detective than Jones. And a more honest one.

    So, in sum, you want to be safe on the UC campuses? Get honest police with their duty being to protect the students, staff and faculty and not the reputation of the Regents. Better still, change the California Constitution to eliminate the Regents altogether.

  2. raoul duke

    May 31, 2014 at 3:17 am

    It is disappointing that the same Sheriff that has no problem sending plainclothes sting officers into parties to hand out alcohol violations can’t be bothered to review the youtube postings and enter Elliot’s room given that a medical professional has said that he is off his rocker.

    Jadk-booted arses one minute, concerned about your liberties the next.

    • J. wedgwood

      May 31, 2014 at 4:05 pm

      But you’re not dealing with the LAPD here. The Sheriffs are not big town law enforcement, and expecting them to act like super professional law enforcement is unrealistic. And, a number of sheriffs, particularly the older ones, were probably furious at college kids–any college kids–after Deltopia. Even though the guy that caused the big problem was from out of town, some of those sheriffs probably decided to spend more time than was warranted (if any was), hasseling UCSB kids, and turning a lot of kids who were inclined to favor law enforcement into kids who are pretty cynical about them now. And that was pathetic and a failure of good law enforcement. Those failures aside, lets not forget the bravery of the sherrifs on site when this Elliot Roger went bezerk. To those who acted fast and bravely, and saved more kids from that guy, our gratitude and our admiration.

      • raoul duke

        June 1, 2014 at 9:33 pm

        Running toward the sound of gunfire is actually the safest thing to do. If you are running away, the odds that you’ll get surprised by the shooter (shot in the face) or shot in the back go way up.

        This conditioning in the active shooter training is good. I am glad it worked. It is better than the old practice of setting up a perimiter and ppicking up the bodies a few hours later.

  3. asme b30.16

    May 31, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Auburn University (AU or Auburn) is a public university located in Auburn, Alabama.[6] Auburn was chartered on February 1, 1856, as the East Alabama Male College,[7] a private liberal arts school affiliated with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In 1872, the college became the state’s first public land grant university under the Morrill Act and was renamed the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama.[8] In 1892,API RP 7G-2 PDF, the college became the first four year coeducational sch