Pedophile politician's $150,000 bribery scheme
![]() |
*EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS OF GUY WARD HENDRICKSON HERE.*
UPDATE, 5/01/09
The true crime author who sought my help with researching Deborah Perez's story has given me the okay to publish his name.
Ms. Perez was trying to sell her strange tale to no less than M. William Phelps. I got the feeling at the time that Phelps was intrigued (initially I was, too) but his journalistic instincts would never let him just buy into what Perez was saying.
Original post made 4/30/09
Deborah Perez has come forward to claim that her father, Guy Ward Hendrickson, was the Zodiac Killer. You can read what I've already had to say about that here.
I am amazed that Ms. Perez's ludicrous story has gotten some traction from the media. It seems like no one outside of perhaps a handful of San Francisco-based reporters really wants to poke around and see if her claims really track.
I decided I needed to dig into emails my author friend forwarded to me last year when he requested my help researching Ms. Perez's claims - she approached him hoping he might consider writing her story - and give you an example of how Deborah Perez plays fast and loose with her claims.
In one email to my friend, Ms. Perez wrote the following regarding a certain pair of glasses - I've added emphasis:
My goal is to obtain enough compelling evidence to eventually motivate a DNA testing of my father's items which I possess--his glasses which have all the original smudges from his use--and which had been placed locked away until now in a suitcase he gave to me when I was only 15 years of age, letters, and/or his camera about 1960's I have in my possesion with film in it that has not been processed. Today's Forensic DNA has such abilities. Also, something in my detailed statements will show that only a person with firsthand knowledge could possibly know certain information.
Now read this quote from an article published earlier today by the San Francisco NBC affiliate - again, with added emphasis:
While speaking to reporters this afternoon in downtown San Francisco, she also claimed to have the glasses belonging to Paul Stine, a San Francisco cab driver the Zodiac killer fatally shot. She said her father took the glasses off of Stine's face and she kept them all these years and only recently realized they belonged to a murder victim and not her father.
If she just realized those were Paul Stine's glasses, then why did she add the detail in the 2008 email to a true crime author about "the smudges?"
Why? Because she's making it up as she goes along.
This is nothing but a media circus manufactured around a fabricated association with one of the most high profile unsolved American crime sprees of the last 100 years and many in the so-called mainstream media seem to have credulously fallen for the thing and reported it as if it might be true.
It isn't. Deborah Perez's story is sad, that's all.
The Zodiac's victims weren't just characters in some deluded person's psychodrama; they were real young people who had their own hopes and dreams. Idiocy like many of the current outstanding desperate bids for attention claims as to the real identity of the killer only craps on the memories of the Zodiac's victims. Deborah Perez and people like her deserve - at the very least - to be treated with extreme, open skepticism. At the most, they deserve our disgust.
Additional link - I talked with SF Weekly's (a Village Voice Media paper) Joe Eskenazi earlier this afternoon. Read Joe's blog post here.








While I agree the story is most likely a fantasy, I'm having a hard time following your logic about the glasses. She believed they belonged to her father in a 2008, but in a 2009 story she claims to have just realized they belong to a victim. Is that not feasible?
What does her previously mentioning the smudging have to do with it? Does she now claim there is no smudging or something? Sorry, I'm not trying be dense, I honestly don't understand this part. Thanks.
NOTE: She's clearly embellishing and altering a story over time. Have you read anything else? She had one very specific explanation for those glasses a year ago, adding the particular detail about the smudges. It wasn't a necessary thing to note, but she did note it - because she's trying to sell something. Her story.
I'm sorry, I stopped giving this woman the benefit of the doubt a year ago. To me, it is obvious that she twists the story to suit her needs and excuses it by saying she "just remembered." I'm just stunned anyone is buying it.
Posted 04/30/2009 at 06:15:25 PMThis is a record, Steve~o! It took the media a whole year to catch up with you... and they still haven't quite figured it out~!
Posted 04/30/2009 at 10:59:04 PMI'm starting to believe this woman is having mental problems. She may have been befuddled as a child also.
In her video press conference she reports her father returned from killing Paul Stine wearing Paul Stine's glasses. ["which I've never seen those glasses before. I have those glasses," Deborah Perez says at 07:30 into the 20:52 min video]
She then says her father after taking Paul Stine's glasses wore them to subsequent crimes.
Now let me get this straight, Dad-The Zodiac was such an omnipotent killer he wore someone else's prescription glasses during the challenging act of offing people??
WOW.
Sometimes I can't see all that clearly with my own glasses. Somehow I see through Ms. Perez though.
Here's the video referred to above:
Posted 05/01/2009 at 12:31:21 AMhttp://cbs5.com/crime/zodiac.killer.claim.2.997735.html
At 10:30 into the 20:52 minute video, McLean says, "Deborah has been able to decipher some of the ciphers, I don't think that's been done up to this point." McLean then mentions Chris Farmer. Chris Farmer MAY HAVE solved one sentence of Zodiac code by adding the word "zodiac" letter-by-letter to each letter written in the coded sentence.
BUT Ms. Perez claims at 16:47 that "I never knew anything about the Zodiac...."
So why would the only cipher that's been convincingly (and that's even a stretch) solved rely on the use of the word "zodiac"?
That should tell all of us Ms. Perez, who self-purports to have never had any knowledge of Zodiac, was entirely LESS likely to have solved this cipher than all the Chris Farmer-ites, who very much DO know the name Zodiac.
Just my $0.02.
Posted 05/01/2009 at 12:42:59 AMnote: decades ago a couple did solve a complex Zodiac cipher. The cipher I refer to above is a simple one sentence code, solved by Chris Farmer using a simplistic decoding technique.
very simple code, very simple technique, one sentence.
Off topic:
Markoff's fiance finally dumps him after visiting him in jail:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_01_Phil_Markoff%E2%80%99s_former_fiancee_%E2%80%98moving_on%E2%80%99/srvc=home&position=also
At least he's decent enough to tell her and his family the truth, as opposed to, say, Scott Peterson.
Posted 05/01/2009 at 03:12:19 AMBart Baggott is the handwriting expert and the producer of the documentary?
here's Bart Baggott saying that Jack Tarrance's writing does not match Zodiac. Nanette Bardo, another handwriting expert says it's an exact match
http://cbs13.com/local/Handwriting.Claims.Of.2.974891.html
Posted 05/01/2009 at 04:37:03 AMI had the same question that Donna K. did - it seems to me that if she truly believed that those were her father's glasses and if the glasses in fact have smudges on them it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to mention that when trying to convince Mr. Phelps that she had a story worth looking in to. The smudged glasses make it a more enticing story because it gives the story something that might be more verifiable - more tangible - than just Perez's word on the matter. So there's VERY good reason for her to include that tidbit in her discussions with Mr. Phelps.
Now she says that in the year since then, she's discovered they're actually Mr. Stine's glasses. I haven't seen or heard anything to explain how she came to this realization, but if she's telling the truth (ha!) it would only be natural that she'd "update" it to reflect newly discovered information.
Before you think I believe even the tiniest smidgen of her story, let me assure you, I think she's completely full of it. It's just that when you want to poke holes in someone else's story - especially someone who will likely have supporters who are going to believe every word from her mouth no matter how ridiculous it might be - it's just good to make sure that your debunking doesn't leave for ANY wiggle room. It may seem obvious to us thinking people that her change in story is at the very least suspicious, but as it stands, it doesn't totally rule her claim untenable.
Posted 05/01/2009 at 01:00:06 PMOther holes in the interesting story:
If Ms. Perez had recently come from Mexico when this happened (no one has asked her when she and her siblings were brought to the US from Mexico--according to my information, they should); If she was already 6 or 7, then when and where did she learn to write English and spell English words?
Additionally, if one examines the "writing" on the notes and then considers a typical 2nd grader's written expression ability, there is a definite inconguity.
Thirdly, handwork like embroidery requires fairly well-developed eye-hand coordination at a level beyond that of the typical 7 year old.
Hmmm?
Posted 05/06/2009 at 04:03:42 PM