A fellow named Gary Record of Yakima, Washington was interviewed by Roger Knights and described seeing a gorilla suit in Bob Heironimus' car in the spring of 1968, about 6 months after Patterson and Gimlin are alleged to have removed the suit Heironimus allegedly wore in the film from Heironimus' mother's car trunk. The major points of this inconsistency are as follows:
1. Record was in the service in 1967, and estimates he saw the suit in 1968.
2. There was no one else besides Heironimus with Record.
3. He did not recall hearing of Heironimus pulling pranks on motorists with the suit.
4. It had no odor that Record could detect at that distance.
5. The color of the suit was dark brown or black.
6. It had a torso section (above the waist) and a separate torso and a pair of legs.
7. No rubber hip-boots in the legs.
8. The torso section was a pull-on style with no zipper in the back.
9. There was no rigid latex chest piece or breasts.
10. Its material seemed to be lighter than leather, most likely cloth.
11. The upper torso portion most likely weighed about two to three pounds.
12. It felt as if it was padded with flexible padding, possibly cotton.
13. It was not oversize-the height and girth would have fitted a Heironimus-sized person.
14. The hair was straight, and somewhat fluffier than human hair; midway between fluffy and coarse. It was about 4 or 5 inches long.
15. There was no helmet inside the head, which was not oversized.
16. The face was not observed, only the back of the head. No ears were noticed.
17. No hands or feet were observed.
18. Greg Long did not interview him.
More points from Roger Knights:
* Where did he buy the suit?
* In whose name did he buy the suit?
* How did he pay for the suit and what did it cost?
* Why did he buy the suit?
* Why wasn't he forthcoming with all this to writer Long?
* Why did he use the phrase "I think"? (This left him an "out" in case a researcher like myself was able to nail down a suit witness-but the very act of creating such wiggle room is suspicious).
* When did he get rid of the suit?
* How and why?
* Who was the last person to see this suit?
* Did Barry Woodard (Heironimus' attorney) see the suit?
* When did he buy the suit?
The last is a trick question. If BH says he bought it in 1966 or early 1967, in accordance with John Ballard's memory, then the believability of his story will be further compromised, because then he could have planted that suit in the trunk of his mother's car for his mom to see. On the other hand, if he claims that he bought the suit after October 1967, then he'll be trapped and destroyed if I spring another witness on him, one who saw him in possession of the suit at a prior date.
Your move, Mr. Heironimus. As Sidney Greenstreet said, "This is a decision calling for the most exquisite judgment."
No comments:
Post a Comment