Hansen was killed allegedly over his license plate that read '49rHugs' and Merrifield was the murdered lawyer. These cases always stuck with me. Any speculations on them? Have either ever been solved?

Hansen was killed allegedly over his license plate that read '49rHugs' and Merrifield was the murdered lawyer. These cases always stuck with me. Any speculations on them? Have either ever been solved?

Yes I would love to know if those cases were ever resolved but I haven't been able to find out anything about them online.

As far as speculation I think the guy that killed Dick Hansen was just some psycho. I mean he'd have to be to kill someone for something like a license plate he didn't like.

I can't help but think Merrifield was killed by someone that thought the lawyer had wronged probably in some sort of a business deal. That has some similarities between this case and the Annie Laurie Hearin case imo. The guy was trying to get back at Robert Hearin because of some business problems and a lawsuit and killed his wife as revenge.

As far as speculation I think the guy that killed Dick Hansen was just some psycho. I mean he'd have to be to kill someone for something like a license plate he didn't like.

Yes, I mean look at "Carol". She was shot in the head by a complete stranger without any apparent motive at all, the guy just was going to shoot someone. Motiveless crimes are extremely rare, but you still have to bare in mind they could happen.

The Dick Hansen case was very sad. I had searched a few other threads and another poster had pointed out maybe the shooter was upset that the "49er Hugs" license plate was taken. The theory the police came up with that Hansen had the build of a football player and the killer assumed he was a member of the team makes the most sense. I was also thinking that maybe the two had met before, at a football game. They could have had an altercation at the game, then Dick could have just forgotten about it, not remembering the guy when he approached the car. It was nighttime, so perhaps he did not get a good look at his killer. Although, the way he confronted the guy right before he shot him leans me toward him not knowing his killer.

I had occasion to think of the Dick Hansen case this weekend. I finished playing golf at a public course w/ a friend. As we were talking by our cars, I noticed a black sedan pull into the lot and begin circling our parking aisle, w/ the driver looking directly at us w/ a blank stare each time he passed. After my friend got in his car, I noticed the sedan pull quickly around so it was directly behind my car. The car proceeded to follow me about 90% of the way home (w/ scores of intersections it was difficult to believe it was just a coincidence). I eventually lost him at a traffic light that was turning red. Although I'll never know if he was following me, it was an unsettling experience.

It's cases like Dick Hansen's that make me wonder how many disturbed persons are out there simply riding around looking for opportunities to select random people to go after.

It was 1:30 AM and IMO the killer was randomly riding around looking for someone regardless of the license plate. I'm sure the coward was intimated by Dick and was pointing out the license plate as a way of saying "I hate the Niners thats why I followed you" and than shot after Dick told him to get the blank out and rightfully so. One thing about this is the actor that played the killer looked just like the sketch of the killer.

Maybe he is a Raiders fan that was envious of the 49ers success. The Raiders are known for having mentally unstable fans. I doubt if he were a random thrill killer because he hasn't been linked to other murders through ballistics. Or maybe he tossed that gun and used another one, possible but I think highly unlikely.

The David Merrifield case reminds me of another case where a real estate guy was meeting another guy to look at a house in a wealthy isolated neighborhood so the unidentified suspect could kill him. I don't think either will be solved since there are no solid clues or leads to go on in either case, unless the killers strike again and screw up.

It's a shame cell phones were uncommon back then. She might have been able to call the police and have them chase that psycho off.

Yes, how many of these cases would never have happened in the cell phone era? Obviously the telephone booth abduction for starters.

Right. Whenever I watch TV shows from the eighties or earlier that revolve around a car breaking down on the road, I have to remind myself that they didn't have cell phones back then.

When watching this one today, for the first time I thought, "What if this has nothing to do with Jane's 49er's plate? What if the killer is pointing in Jane's general direction, not just the back of her car?"

The show said that Dick was recently divorced and he called "Jane" (not her real name) up to go out for drinks with him. Later, they were both followed by the crazy killer guy. When they pulled over to the side of the road, Dick walked back to the guy, to ask why he was following them or what he wanted or something like that.

Then, the guy gestured toward Jane's vanity plate on her car, according to her. And she's the only one talking. What if the guy was pointing not at her car, but at Jane herself? What if he was saying, "WTF are you doing at the bar with my wife?"

Or what if he said, "You want to know what I'm doing? Your ex-wife sent me because of her!" And then he points to Jane, and a few seconds later, bang bang bang.

IMO, "Jane" wasn't shielding her identity from just the killer by going incogneto onscreen. She doesn't want to be connected to this case because she IS connected to this case.

When watching this one today, for the first time I thought, "What if this has nothing to do with Jane's 49er's plate? What if the killer is pointing in Jane's general direction, not just the back of her car?"

The show said that Dick was recently divorced and he called "Jane" (not her real name) up to go out for drinks with him. Later, they were both followed by the crazy killer guy. When they pulled over to the side of the road, Dick walked back to the guy, to ask why he was following them or what he wanted or something like that.

Then, the guy gestured toward Jane's vanity plate on her car, according to her. And she's the only one talking. What if the guy was pointing not at her car, but at Jane herself? What if he was saying, "WTF are you doing at the bar with my wife?"

Or what if he said, "You want to know what I'm doing? Your ex-wife sent me because of her!" And then he points to Jane, and a few seconds later, bang bang bang.

IMO, "Jane" wasn't shielding her identity from just the killer by going incogneto onscreen. She doesn't want to be connected to this case because she IS connected to this case.

I'm of that opinion myself---that is, that the license plate had absolutely nothing to do with Dick's murder at all. As in many UM segments, I think there was a lot of critical information left out---the precise nature of the relationship between Dick and his date, and anything else she may have noticed about the exchange between Dick and the killer besides his gesturing towards the back of her car---which could've meant any infinite number of things. I just don't find it at all plausible that a vanity plate could have incited such a cold killing (certainly nothing's impossible, but if that were the case, why did the killer not shoot her as well?). I personally don't think she's telling the full story, and I think Dick either knew his killer or knew someone who knew his killer. There was some discussion in another thread about Dick being possibly involved in drug dealing, which makes far more sense to me than a vendetta against the San Francisco 49ers.


And the actor does look very much like the composite sketch. It's eerie.

I saw this one as well and I remember it from the first time around. I want to say that in no way WHATSOEVER am I blaming the victim but why oh why do poeple feel the need to confront others? Lord knows who has a gun or pipe or whatever. Just ignore them!!

"I'm going to teach him a lesson!" is what the woman in the segment said. Whatever lady, now your friend is dead.

Just drive to a police station or something similar. Don't go home - they'll follow you there.

I saw this one as well and I remember it from the first time around. I want to say that in no way WHATSOEVER am I blaming the victim but why oh why do poeple feel the need to confront others? Lord knows who has a gun or pipe or whatever. Just ignore them!!

"I'm going to teach him a lesson!" is what the woman in the segment said. Whatever lady, now your friend is dead.

Just drive to a police station or something similar. Don't go home - they'll follow you there.

I agree. there was another UM segment that was devoted to road rage cases. Some people are much more apt to doing something nefarious when they're behind the wheel - they feel more in control when they're driving.

Ok, I just saw this case for the first time the other day and seriously - how f'ing scary does it look the first time they show the guy sitting in the car behind them, just looking at the couple in their car? It's vintage scary as hell UM! The guy's face didn't look real - it almost looked like a paper mask or something....so creepy. If someone could get me a screen cap of that, that would be great.

This case should have been on the bizarre murders DVD set.. as it is truly a bizarre murder. I have to agree with most who say that the killing did not have to do with the license plate at all, I feel that if he was so offended by the plate then he would have killed (Jean) as well and its odd that he would leave her alive knowing that she can possibly identify him and relay the details of the murder, with that there is a infinite number of reasons why this lunatic was out an and about.. It could be that he just wanted to kill someone sad it had to be Dick. This kind of reminds me of the case with the crazy stalker that was riding around up and down the interstates in VA telling women that sparks were coming out there cars.. But in this case It is possible that Jean was the target or at least her car was... Because the killer followed her directly.. or at least he did in the reenactment... the strange thing is that when Jean tells the story she stated how she tried to signal Dick to go to the police department.. and Dick could not hear her.. here is the smartest thing to do was to take the lead and have Dick followed her. Then she could have drove to the Police Department or to a populated place. I am not going to say she was involved but there are certainly some missing points..... The bad thing about this case is it will probably never get solved there is no DNA no fingerprints, HELL Jean did not even get the killers license plate.

I'm not buying the idea that he was killed over the license plate. The guy pulled up to their car right when he got there and then followed them. After he killed Hansen, he stared down the witness. To me this sounds personal like as if he's saying "if you talk, you're next." The whole situation sounds like someone who has an axe to grind with Hansen or the witness and spotted the witnesses car and decided to wait for her to come back. Sounds way to personal to me. Also, for people suggesting Raiders fans did this, the Raiders were in LA at the time, not Oakland. I really think there is a lot more to this case than a random guy thinking "Hey I don't like the 49ers"

I could not agree more...UM117.. I have searched the far ends of the internet and have found nothing regarding this case.. but i will continue to dig...

David Merrifield was a lawyer who seemingly had no known enemies. I can accept that. Except for the fact that lawyers DO have enemies even if they are not crooked. No doubt the man wanted to meet David early on so no one was around. To me it is either a contract killing or a disgruntled person who dealt with him in court.

Dick Hansen has always struck me as strange. I too have heard the drug theory. That would explain a lot. But this is a classic case of a contract hit IMO. The shooter lets "Jane" go unscathed and even gives her the opportunity to identify him and grab his licence plate. Despite the fact that the 49ers were winning the Super Bowl at this time I have never leaned towards the fact that it was a disgruntled fan. Why not kill Jane in that case?

Something also tells me Jane might not be completely honest either. Despite how terrified I was of the shooter I would get the licence plate. She also tried to revive Dick for 15 minutes apparently. Why not run for help, a MURDER just happened, I wouldn't be hanging around there. I am not saying Jane is guilty, but am not ruling out she might know more.

Well, that is easy to say when you have never been in that situation. If someone just shot a person I was with, I would just duck down. Remember, she was sitting in the car, and Dick got shot, he just looked at her for a moment, backed up the car and sped off. It was dark, she was thinking someone she loved just got shot. I imagine being in the vicinity of anyone getting shot would be a traumatic experience so I can see why she did not take down the license plate. It would be very difficult to track it down at night, in an area that was not the best lit, and other conditions.

She is not guilty, that is not an issue. It was 1991, there were no cell phones, there was no pay phones in the area. The area was largely deserted at night, what else was she supposed to do? Leave Dick alone to die? She sat there and waited with him until a passerby drove by and the passerby was the one that called for help while she sat there with Dick and waited for the paramedics and cops to come by. I see nothing unusual about that or anything to indicate that she might be hiding something.

The drug theory might be possible, but to me, just the way everything was done. It came off as a random attack to me. Dick did not act like he knew the man. I am not saying this literally means 100 percent for sure he did not know him but I would say the odds are against it. The case is bizarre but it could be that it was road rage or some perceived slight. Remember it was the woman that the guy was actually tailing, not Dick. So in that regard, only one of two possibilities makes sense to me. Either she really did know this guy, or it really was a disgruntled fan. As weird as it sounds, there is a lot of crazy people out there. Ever heard of people being beat up and even murdered at baseball games, basketball games, football games, hockey games? It does happen. Sometimes these fights and even killings have happened over arguments about the teams and which one is better and which one sucks. At Dodger Stadium, a year or two ago a guy was murdered after a fight with a fan of another team. At the San Francisco Giants stadium, the same thing happened in a fight between two fans of opposing teams.

David Merrifield, in my opinion it was not someone that was disgruntled with him. A contract hit might be a possibility, in fact it is the only one that makes sense but I think he was into something more. I do not think it had anything to do with law or his practice. Merrifield was not a criminal lawyer and was not even a civil lawyer, in fact I believe he practiced real estate law. In an area of law like that, it is not outside the scope of possibility that he had never even been inside a courtroom as a lawyer.

David Merrifield, in my opinion it was not someone that was disgruntled with him. A contract hit might be a possibility, in fact it is the only one that makes sense but I think he was into something more. I do not think it had anything to do with law or his practice. Merrifield was not a criminal lawyer and was not even a civil lawyer, in fact I believe he practiced real estate law. In an area of law like that, it is not outside the scope of possibility that he had never even been inside a courtroom as a lawyer.

The fact that he was killed at work and not at home or elsewhere is a huge clue.

1. Almost like this guy only knew of David via his workplace. That he didn;t know where he lived at home or where he frequented regularly.

2. Killing someone in an office (even early) is a huge gamble. There's always a chance that there could be cameras, security guards or other witnesses. It is easier though if you know the office routine.

3. Killing David at home, would lead to potentially having to kill family members in the house. Something that the killer may have wanted to avoid at all costs.

This is either a professional hit or someone with a grudge against David Merrifield's work.

I believe the license plate theory.

Random killings happen all the time. Henry Lee Lucas randomly killed alot of people (maybe even hundreds).

I believe the license plate theory.

Random killings happen all the time. Henry Lee Lucas randomly killed alot of people (maybe even hundreds).

Serial killings are not that common. The most common murder is crime of passion.

The majority of murders are committed by someone the victim knows.

Although it's been awhile since I've seen the segment, am I right in remembering that David Merrifield was a divorcee who had recently remarried? I wonder if anyone looked into his ex-wife hiring someone, or maybe a jilted lover of his new bride?

Interesting.

I wonder if there is anything special about the family of the ex-wife or the family of the current wife.

Like maybe the ex-wife's new boyfriend is an ex-con.

Still, I hardly think Dick knew the guy.

If he did, wouldn't he have approached him when he first saw him outside the bar?

Still, I hardly think Dick knew the guy.

If he did, wouldn't he have approached him when he first saw him outside the bar?

Isn't all that dependent on the witnesses story being accurate?

I suppose there's no reason to doubt Jean (right name?)...she didn't strike me as lying.

I suppose there's no reason to doubt Jean (right name?)...she didn't strike me as lying.

Well there could be plenty of reason to doubt Jean if she was responsible for killing Dick Hansen.

IMHO, Personally I believe there is a lie somewhere in her story.

Didn't they give her a lie detector test?

Didn't they give her a lie detector test?

If they did give her a lie detector test, that would be curious in and of itself.

That would mean the police were skeptical of her story and requested one.

I would have done it just for curious purposes.

But, if they didn't, it would mean they believe her story entirely...like I do.

I've poked around a bit on the internets re: David Merrifield's murder but couldn't find much.

Hey kadrmas15, do you know much about it? I ask because you always have those well written out summaries of what happened. I'd be interested in learning whatever else there was to learn.

This one seems like a pure "hit" done by a pro. The killer has deliberately set himself in the situation of being able to kill the victim, for whatever reason, and didn't display any passion or frenzied sort of attack. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a pro killer but I think that's important.

I noticed somewhere above (or perhaps it wa sin the Matt Flores post) wondering why hitmen would kill people at their place of business as opposed to ambushing them in their homes. I would suppose that's quite often done (some possible examples might be: Jack Davis, Matt Flores, Roger Wheeler, & David Merrifield) because of openness and accessibility in both getting to a victim and getting away from a victim. Also, as in the Mickey & trudy (I forget their last names darnit) hit, if hitmen stake out their intended victims around the victim’s homes for an extended period they are more likely to be repeatedly spotted and possibly identified. Also most people arrive at their place of business on a specific time schedule and routine and hitmen can maneuver around those times.

So anyway, hopefully you’ll be able to illuminate me a little bit, kadrmas15?

I because of openness and accessibility in both getting to a victim and getting away from a victim



1. The problem with a work place is that there could potentially be more people at the site of the crime. At a persons home, the only people you have to deal with are the victims family, if any.


2. if you kill someone at home you have them in a secure location where the body can be left indefinitely. A person could be dead in their home for days without anyone finally coming across the body.

3. In a place of business you have something that rarely exists in homes....security and security cameras.

4. A person's home also allows you a good place to do interrgate the subject before you kill him.

5. A further advantage of killing someone in the home is that you can very easily disguise it as a burgulary by simply stealing a few things.

This one seems like a pure "hit" done by a pro.

I have seen nothing to suggest that this was a professional hit.

IMHO, I think this could easily be done by a lone acquaintance of David's who had a beef with him..

1. The problem with a work place is that there could potentially be more people at the site of the crime.

“could be” and “potentially”. Not really a “problem” if the killer studies the comings and goings and plans ahead to get the victim to the scene ata time he knows no one else, or maybe a couple of people, will be there. Pretty much exactly like David Merrifield's killer did.

At a persons home, the only people you have to deal with are the victims family, if any.

LOL...yeah "...the only people you have to deal with"…so that makes it a veritable cake walk, right? In someone’s home, which a pro wouldn’t really have access to like a public office park for instance, there are all manner so f unquantifiable variables. The intended victim might have weapons stashed, have animals, and…like you so readily dismiss…family who may throw a monkeywrench in any plans.


2. if you kill someone at home you have them in a secure location where the body can be left indefinitely. A person could be dead in their home for days without anyone finally coming across the body.

But that’s usually directly opposite the desired result when someone has opened a contract on someone else. They want to know that the person’s dead. The killer wants to the people paying them to know that the person’s dead. In the Jeanne Tovrea murder, which was done at her home, it was theorized that the killer purposefully opened the sliding glass door to set off the alarm just to signal that the deed was done. Unless the killer knows ahead of time, through whatever methods, that he victim(s) will be alone at home I think the house is a far far less likely place to hit someone.

3. In a place of business you have something that rarely exists in homes....security and security cameras.

Sometimes. But since we’re discussing a specific example here…security and security cameras really didn’t do anything to help track Mr. Merrifield’s murderer. Maybe his killer realized it was safer there due to the lack or ineptitude of those things?


4. A person's home also allows you a good place to do interrgate the subject before you kill him.

Why? How? And what does that have to do with whoever killed Mr. Merrifield? Obviously they had no desire for interrogation. They just wanted to be in a somewhat secluded spot to put two bullets behind his ear.

5. A further advantage of killing someone in the home is that you can very easily disguise it as a burgulary by simply stealing a few things.

That could happen, yes. Although I don’t consider that possibility an “advantage”. Someone could just as easily, if not easier, take a wallet, or jewelry, or anything off a victim out in public to try and disguise it as a mugging or robbery.


I have seen nothing to suggest that this was a professional hit.

What would you see that would suggest a professional hit? You've brought out theories of hitmen, jewelry rings, and “practice” hits before…what did you see there that made you think they were the work of a professional hitman? What would you expect to see here to suggest it?

IMO, a professional hitman has done his job when all that’s left is a body laying in an elevator with two bullets in the head and no one has seen or heard anything helpful.


IMHO, I think this could easily be done by a lone acquaintance of David's who had a beef with him..

Based off what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. The problem with a work place is that there could potentially be more people at the site of the crime.

“could be” and “potentially”. Not really a “problem” if the killer studies the comings and goings and plans ahead to get the victim to the scene ata time he knows no one else, or maybe a couple of people, will be there. Pretty much exactly like David Merrifield's killer did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
At a persons home, the only people you have to deal with are the victims family, if any.

LOL...yeah "...the only people you have to deal with"…so that makes it a veritable cake walk, right? In someone’s home, which a pro wouldn’t really have access to like a public office park for instance, there are all manner so f unquantifiable variables. The intended victim might have weapons stashed, have animals, and…like you so readily dismiss…family who may throw a monkeywrench in any plans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
2. if you kill someone at home you have them in a secure location where the body can be left indefinitely. A person could be dead in their home for days without anyone finally coming across the body.

But that’s usually directly opposite the desired result when someone has opened a contract on someone else. They want to know that the person’s dead. The killer wants to the people paying them to know that the person’s dead. In the Jeanne Tovrea murder, which was done at her home, it was theorized that the killer purposefully opened the sliding glass door to set off the alarm just to signal that the deed was done. Unless the killer knows ahead of time, through whatever methods, that he victim(s) will be alone at home I think the house is a far far less likely place to hit someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
3. In a place of business you have something that rarely exists in homes....security and security cameras.

Sometimes. But since we’re discussing a specific example here…security and security cameras really didn’t do anything to help track Mr. Merrifield’s murderer. Maybe his killer realized it was safer there due to the lack or ineptitude of those things?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
4. A person's home also allows you a good place to do interrgate the subject before you kill him.

Why? How? And what does that have to do with whoever killed Mr. Merrifield? Obviously they had no desire for interrogation. They just wanted to be in a somewhat secluded spot to put two bullets behind his ear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
5. A further advantage of killing someone in the home is that you can very easily disguise it as a burgulary by simply stealing a few things.

That could happen, yes. Although I don’t consider that possibility an “advantage”. Someone could just as easily, if not easier, take a wallet, or jewelry, or anything off a victim out in public to try and disguise it as a mugging or robbery.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I have seen nothing to suggest that this was a professional hit.

What would you see that would suggest a professional hit? You've brought out theories of hitmen, jewelry rings, and “practice” hits before…what did you see there that made you think they were the work of a professional hitman? What would you expect to see here to suggest it?

IMO, a professional hitman has done his job when all that’s left is a body laying in an elevator with two bullets in the head and no one has seen or heard anything helpful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
IMHO, I think this could easily be done by a lone acquaintance of David's who had a beef with him..

Based off what?

My apologies.

I had thought that the single bullett was to the chest. Looking at the casefile, the bullet was to the back of the head.

The way the segment showed the body, it was positioned consistently with a frontal shot.

Bullets to the back of the head. Usually the sign of a professional hit

Can anyone confirm that it was one bullet or multiple? or whether this shot was to the back of the head.

The wallet was also found form the body. Made to seem like a robbery.

Ok, I'll go with the hit theory.

Someone posted something about Dick Hansen's murder over on youtube. He named someone, and alleged a connection to Kurt Sova. Has anyone seen this?

1. The problem with a work place is that there could potentially be more people at the site of the crime. At a persons home, the only people you have to deal with are the victims family, if any.


2. if you kill someone at home you have them in a secure location where the body can be left indefinitely. A person could be dead in their home for days without anyone finally coming across the body.

3. In a place of business you have something that rarely exists in homes....security and security cameras.

4. A person's home also allows you a good place to do interrgate the subject before you kill him.

5. A further advantage of killing someone in the home is that you can very easily disguise it as a burgulary by simply stealing a few things.



I have seen nothing to suggest that this was a professional hit.

IMHO, I think this could easily be done by a lone acquaintance of David's who had a beef with him..

I agree w/ you Mastermind.
This was a very unprofessional hit.

Let's see:

1) The potential hitter called the victim and spoke w/ someone that could have remembered his voice.

2) He arranged an early morning at the victim's workplace that
required the victim to have been there at/around a specified time. If the victim had been late it would have upset his plans and potentially introduced unwanted witnesses.

3) No attempt was made to conceal the body. Even dragging it from the elevator to a nearby stairwell or office could have bought the killer time to aid in a getaway.

4) Even if the killer had known that there weren't cameras, that knowledge wouldn't have been 100% like it would at the victim's place of residence. Or on the street while the victim was driving to work.

5) A pro probably would have done the job in the parking lot or parking structure thus allow him/her easier access to their own vehicle for escape.

6) I agree that killing the victim at home would have probably been a much better place than their office, not only for ease of making the crime look like something other than a hit, but it also allows the killer time to potentially misdirect the police by planting false "clues" to his/her identity.

7) The potential killer allowed himself to be seen waiting for the victim outside of his workplace. This was very amateurish and,if the killer is still alive, could lead to his arrest.

Given that Merifield's family wasn't interviewed for the segment and given the rather pitiful amount of a reward being offered for this case, it isn't any wonder that this case has gone cold. This killer was,IMHO, was an amateur that benefited from an apparent lack of concern by the family, what appears to be police incompetence and from a great deal of luck.

After rewatching the Dick Hansen episode today, a few things stuck out at me:

1. The murderer seemingly came out of nowhere and parked behind the Jean's car. So if this is a case of disgruntled fan upset over the license plate, then it should be assumed that he would have staked out Jean's vehicle before they arrived back at his car. It's unlikely the murderer came across Jean's car as they were parked there, saw the tag, and decided to pull behind them and murder someone.

2. The murderer wanted to play a game of cat and mouse. He had the opportunity to kill Dick while he was sitting behind them in the car. The street was deserted afterall. He could have simply walked up to Jean's car and shot them both or waited until Dick got out to switch cars. This makes me think it's not a contract hit and instead the murderer was out for revenge and wanted to terrify Dick and his date in the process.

I like the theory that TracyLynnS brought up in another thread about a drug buy gone bad. Basically the theory goes like this: Dick and "Jean" had just left the bar, and perhaps wanted to keep there party going. They found a dealer and then drove to a remote location to handle the transaction. Dick got out to score the drugs, the guy named a price that Dick deemed too high and then he motioned to the license plate basically saying, "Your a football player, you have plenty of money" and that's when Dick said "Get the blankety blank out of here" which pissed the guy off and he shot him in a rage. Out of fear for being found out that she was a known drug user, "Jean" makes up the whole random crazy stalker story.

It's even possible that she herself shot Dick. There are no other witnesses to this stalker other than "Jean", and I wonder if LE ever even looked into her being a suspect. She would have had plenty of time, and if they were in fact lovers she would definitely have a motive. She may have even hired someone to kill Dick.

If this wasn't a botched drug deal and if "Jean" wasn't involved, I tend to think she did something at the bar that night that really pissed this guy off. Maybe she turned down his advances, stepped on his foot, spilled a beer on him, who knows? When someone is intoxicated and pissed off they make some very irrational decisions. That actually seems more likely than the "49er Hugs" license plate theory. I still can't make up my mind on this case, though.

I like the theory that TracyLynnS brought up in another thread about a drug buy gone bad. Basically the theory goes like this: Dick and "Jean" had just left the bar, and perhaps wanted to keep there party going. They found a dealer and then drove to a remote location to handle the transaction. Dick got out to score the drugs, the guy named a price that Dick deemed too high and then he motioned to the license plate basically saying, "Your a football player, you have plenty of money" and that's when Dick said "Get the blankety blank out of here" which pissed the guy off and he shot him in a rage. Out of fear for being found out that she was a known drug user, "Jean" makes up the whole random crazy stalker story.

It's even possible that she herself shot Dick. There are no other witnesses to this stalker other than "Jean", and I wonder if LE ever even looked into her being a suspect. She would have had plenty of time, and if they were in fact lovers she would definitely have a motive. She may have even hired someone to kill Dick.

If this wasn't a botched drug deal and if "Jean" wasn't involved, I tend to think she did something at the bar that night that really pissed this guy off. Maybe she turned down his advances, stepped on his foot, spilled a beer on him, who knows? When someone is intoxicated and pissed off they make some very irrational decisions. That actually seems more likely than the "49er Hugs" license plate theory. I still can't make up my mind on this case, though.

The drug angle does have a degree of plausibility. That would explain why a guy would have been in a random area, armed, and have confronted an obviously large guy like Mr. Hansen.
The rest of the story could have been "filled in" by "Jean" to fit the details of why she did what she did after the shooting.

It would also explain why w/ all of the available evidence that they had/have that police have been unable to solve this crime. If they have been looking in the wrong direction all of the time, then they would be unlikely to find the killer.

hi, a long time ago you asked on here if anyone had a face cap of dick hansen sitting in the car behind the other car. did u ever get that sent to you? cause i want one too.

i agree, he was very scary looking and when he mumbled something or moved his lips slightly that was really scary as if he were saying come on people get into your car so i can chase the hell out of ya. did u notice when his lips/mouth moved slightly?

Ok, I just saw this case for the first time the other day and seriously - how f'ing scary does it look the first time they show the guy sitting in the car behind them, just looking at the couple in their car? It's vintage scary as hell UM! The guy's face didn't look real - it almost looked like a paper mask or something....so creepy. If someone could get me a screen cap of that, that would be great.

i didnt think about your view of the dick hansen case. you seem correct. perhaps she or dick pissed this guy off intentionally or unintentionally at that bar. cause when they left the bar together, the killer may have left their bar30 seconds later, then that would explain why he pulled up right behind them, when they just pulled up behind dicks car.

UM made it seem like this killer pulled up out of nowhere (which could be true), but in real life perhaps he followed them from their bar to the two cars, so he wasnt just some guy pissed off or from road rage.

now dick and this lady went to a bar, most people usually go to the same bar or same few bars in town. even if they were bar hopping they may have went to bars that they usually go to - (what city was this in, how big is the city?) so perhaps this killer had an 'incident' with one or both of them a long time ago at the same bar, thus there were no witnesses at the night of the killings cause the incident happened along time ago at the same bar or bar nearby. and the killer stalked them out at the bar, but this time decided to kill them.

the only thing that makes me 'go against' my own theory is they never found a car similar to the killer. if the killer lived in the same city, he would have sold his car, but then police could link the purchaser to the killer, so the killer would not sell his car, but rather sink it in the river to get rid of evidence. also, people from the bar would quickly realize if the killer went to that bar, cause sometimes people in a bar know someone from the car they drive since people come and go all the time and see others pulling up to the bar.

and since the killer didnt kill the woman, he knew she would eventually give police a physical description of him and his car. a local resident killer would not do this in fear of getting caught by his car model, but perhaps some pyscho on vacation or driving around country would not care if police got a description of his car cause once he leaves the state, there are so many cars like him, that he is scotch free.

I like the theory that TracyLynnS brought up in another thread about a drug buy gone bad. Basically the theory goes like this: Dick and "Jean" had just left the bar, and perhaps wanted to keep there party going. They found a dealer and then drove to a remote location to handle the transaction. Dick got out to score the drugs, the guy named a price that Dick deemed too high and then he motioned to the license plate basically saying, "Your a football player, you have plenty of money" and that's when Dick said "Get the blankety blank out of here" which pissed the guy off and he shot him in a rage. Out of fear for being found out that she was a known drug user, "Jean" makes up the whole random crazy stalker story.

It's even possible that she herself shot Dick. There are no other witnesses to this stalker other than "Jean", and I wonder if LE ever even looked into her being a suspect. She would have had plenty of time, and if they were in fact lovers she would definitely have a motive. She may have even hired someone to kill Dick.

If this wasn't a botched drug deal and if "Jean" wasn't involved, I tend to think she did something at the bar that night that really pissed this guy off. Maybe she turned down his advances, stepped on his foot, spilled a beer on him, who knows? When someone is intoxicated and pissed off they make some very irrational decisions. That actually seems more likely than the "49er Hugs" license plate theory. I still can't make up my mind on this case, though.

i didnt think about what you said - it could simply be a friend or some guy of flores that had a beef with him. some people hold onto grudges for long periods of time, whether that be 3 months or 3 years. maybe it was a guy that along time ago wanted flore's beautiful blonde wife, but she turned him down and later married flores. and if this was the case, once the killer found out that the media and police thought it was a murder-4-hire, then this friend knew he was free for life.

1. The problem with a work place is that there could potentially be more people at the site of the crime. At a persons home, the only people you have to deal with are the victims family, if any.


2. if you kill someone at home you have them in a secure location where the body can be left indefinitely. A person could be dead in their home for days without anyone finally coming across the body.

3. In a place of business you have something that rarely exists in homes....security and security cameras.

4. A person's home also allows you a good place to do interrgate the subject before you kill him.

5. A further advantage of killing someone in the home is that you can very easily disguise it as a burgulary by simply stealing a few things.



I have seen nothing to suggest that this was a professional hit.

IMHO, I think this could easily be done by a lone acquaintance of David's who had a beef with him..

did anything ever come of the guy following you home? i am assuming nothing later on happened, so thats good. i had a guy follow me home on foot after 1am at the bar. was the first time someone followed me on foot, extra scary, but my house was 2 blocks away from the police station, so i headed towards that route later in my walk home and the guy walked off. its extra scary when someon is following your car at night time, but something about that happening during broad daylight is really scary too, cause u would think a stalker would prefer to stalk at night time.

I had occasion to think of the Dick Hansen case this weekend. I finished playing golf at a public course w/ a friend. As we were talking by our cars, I noticed a black sedan pull into the lot and begin circling our parking aisle, w/ the driver looking directly at us w/ a blank stare each time he passed. After my friend got in his car, I noticed the sedan pull quickly around so it was directly behind my car. The car proceeded to follow me about 90% of the way home (w/ scores of intersections it was difficult to believe it was just a coincidence). I eventually lost him at a traffic light that was turning red. Although I'll never know if he was following me, it was an unsettling experience.

It's cases like Dick Hansen's that make me wonder how many disturbed persons are out there simply riding around looking for opportunities to select random people to go after.

It's even possible that she herself shot Dick. There are no other witnesses to this stalker other than "Jean"This is what I'm thinking. She says there are no witnesses but people say a lot of things. If she hired someone to kill Dick, not revealing her face in an interview on national television is pretty pointless because he could always find her and silence her. If someone really was following them that night, it isn't likely he would have let someone go. Especially not after she got such a good look at his face. If she killed him herself, hiding her face makes sense because she doesn't know who saw what. Someone who saw what really happened could see the interview and nail her. Of course, it is also possible that it wasn't a hired hit. She could have just had a friend kill Dick and they've both kept quiet about it all this time. But whether it's that or she did it herself, she is clearly not telling the whole truth and she has more to do with it than she said.

I've always felt that it was a nutty person who got ticked off for one reason or another. It does not look like a hit. There's no evidence of drugs or that the woman herself was involved. Of course there's no evidence that there wasn't drugs or that she wasn't involved either.....I do think the segment would have mentioned either of those theories. Then again maybe not, to keep some things confidential to see if tips would come in to collaborate. My gut says that it was some random nutjob.

My gut says that it was some random nutjob.

There was an article posted in one of the previous posts that stated police believed the suspect was angered because Hansen's car was blocking some mailboxes he was trying to use. Of all the theories presented on here, this one makes the most sense IMO. This would explain the killer motioning to Jean's car, basically saying "You were leaning in her car blocking the mailboxes!", which of course would have meritted a "Get the blankety blank outta here" statement from Hansen.

There was an article posted in one of the previous posts that stated police believed the suspect was angered because Hansen's car was blocking some mailboxes he was trying to use. Of all the theories presented on here, this one makes the most sense IMO. This would explain the killer motioning to Jean's car, basically saying "You were leaning in her car blocking the mailboxes!", which of course would have meritted a "Get the blankety blank outta here" statement from Hansen.

That theory does make sense. I seriously doubt it was drugs or that "Jean" had anything to do with his death. And since people have killed others for very petty reasons I don't think it's that far-fetched. The license plate theory may have been used because of its creepiness factor but considering there have been crimes committed over sports rivalries (such as the SF Giants fan beaten near death by possible Dodgers fans and the Alabama fan who poisoned the Auburn trees) it's not a stretch that someone who's not in their right mind would snap over someone being a fan of a team they can't stand.

That theory does make sense. I seriously doubt it was drugs or that "Jean" had anything to do with his death. And since people have killed others for very petty reasons I don't think it's that far-fetched. The license plate theory may have been used because of its creepiness factor but considering there have been crimes committed over sports rivalries (such as the SF Giants fan beaten near death by possible Dodgers fans and the Alabama fan who poisoned the Auburn trees) it's not a stretch that someone who's not in their right mind would snap over someone being a fan of a team they can't stand.

The license plate theory was always far-fetched IMO. I wish the UM segment would have touched on the possibility that this psycho was possibly set off because Dick and Jean were blocking a set of mailboxes.

There was an article posted in one of the previous posts that stated police believed the suspect was angered because Hansen's car was blocking some mailboxes he was trying to use. Of all the theories presented on here, this one makes the most sense IMO. This would explain the killer motioning to Jean's car, basically saying "You were leaning in her car blocking the mailboxes!", which of course would have meritted a "Get the blankety blank outta here" statement from Hansen.
This would make sense.....I can easily see this. Someone who is unbalanced will get pissed off at the most bizarre things. People kill for very petty and weird reasons. They don't have to make sense to people in their rational mind.

I think that it is hard to believe no one else was on the roads even the freeway at the time! Someone else must have saw something if her story is correct.

i agree!

While i did not think about the empty interstate that u mentioned, i thought the road where dick was shot was not busy at all. i can believe that. because some of those small highways or roads off the interstate exits might not be as busy. but u would think there would be other drivers on the interstate. plus when she stopped her car for a second on the interstate and that killer stopped also, right behind her. wouldnt someone have caught up if they were driving way behind them on the interstate?

Someone could have been driving behind them but far back, at 60 or 70 miles per hour. especially at night time there are some who speed over 70 or 80. for dick and the woman scenario - i can see one instance where there is no one driving on the highway, such as the exit hwy... but dont think both roads would be completely empty. what do you think?

I think that it is hard to believe no one else was on the roads even the freeway at the time! Someone else must have saw something if her story is correct.

lets say someone did see both cars stop on the highway or someone was walking nearby when dick was shot, maybe they did not want to get involved because they would fear for their lives. and if there would be a court case eventually, they would have to sometime appear in court and would be a pain in the butt for them to take off work, have their names put in the paper, ect. but if i were a silent witness, i would have written a letter to the police, type it and dont put my return address on it and mail it from another city. that way they cant call me up for a court appearance or talk with the police and the killer would not know my name. but the police would still receive credible witness testimony or somewhat credible.

remember when the killer took off and the woman ducked in her car cause she was afraid she would get shot too, instead she should have written down the guys license plate or at least the first couple digits. but she was probably too scared to think that. when one is in that situation they are not thinking clearly like we are here on this chat log.

I think that it is hard to believe no one else was on the roads even the freeway at the time! Someone else must have saw something if her story is correct.

when the killer drove past the woman after he shot dick, too bad the woman could have written down his license plate, but she ducked because she was afraid of being shot i guess. if she did not duck and gave the police the license plate number or part of it, do u think they would have a better chance at catching the guy? do you think he was caucasian or latino? in the police sketch he kind of looked latino. they could look in the internatinal dmv listing. or check with other states too. then again, this guy could have stolen a license plate from an old car at a dump yard and no one would have ever noticed.

The license plate theory was always far-fetched IMO. I wish the UM segment would have touched on the possibility that this psycho was possibly set off because Dick and Jean were blocking a set of mailboxes.

there was a guy that kind of looked like dick hansens killer when i went to college in oregon. he was clean cut, had similar glasses, was latino, and oregon is not too far from northern california - san francisco. but i dont think he looked exactly like him. do any of you have any friends or relatives that look like any of the past scary police sketches from um?

actually today i saw the dick hansen segment again on unsoved mysteries. then i received an email from someone who posted about dick hansen this evening. maybe that person watched the show today too. the dick hansen case is so much scarier on the old robert stack segment. the dennis ferina one is not as scary because it has like rock music in the background and not scary music at all.

If there were any witnesses it would be a scary place to be- no doubt about it. It's just to bad no one got even a partial license plate. The woman was in a really tough situation and if I place myself in her shoes I don't know if I could of gotten a plate number.
I also thought the suspect in the sketch looked Native American, maybe Hispanic/mixed.

hey guys,


i think its worth mentioning last sunday, a 49ers fan killed somebody who wore a "f the niners" shirt somewhere around the stadium. Also, there was a brawl during the game...... After sipping some california kool-aid, it now doesnt seem strange that this guy might of shot hansen due to what was on his license.

hey guys,


i think its worth mentioning last sunday, a 49ers fan killed somebody who wore a "f the niners" shirt somewhere around the stadium. Also, there was a brawl during the game...... After sipping some california kool-aid, it now doesnt seem strange that this guy might of shot hansen due to what was on his license.

Yes, but that was at the game and they were most likely wasted when they killed the 49er fan. There's no evidence that there was an actual football game going on before this murder involving the 49ers, there's no evidence that the man who shot Hansen was inebriated, and it was on Jean's license plate not Hansen. Also, the killer made no attempt to shoot at Jean, and he only killed Hansen when he got out and approached him. Had this been an angry football fan, he would have at the very least shot at Jean, but instead he just drove by her.

With regard to Dick Hansen I always figured it was a random act of violence by some psycho who didn't personally know Dick or his date. Never really had reason to suspect otherwise.

i knew he had kids, they must be all grown up by now. maybe the guy was watching an old niners game aat a bar or something? most likely, i think jean knew the man or seen him before at a bar.

also, who gets outta their car to confront someone at an isolated area? why not go to a police station?

Regarding the last two posts before me, I agree. Nothing about Dick Hansen's murder is logical or rational. This guy just shows up and starts following Jean and Dick, and then shoots someone that he doesn't even know. In all probability he was mentally unstable.

also, who gets outta their car to confront someone at an isolated area? why not go to a police station?

I'm sure the last thing on Hansen's mind was that this guy was going to shoot him. He probably figured he'd scare him off based on his physical stature.

Is it strange that there were no other witnesses? would other drivers have seen the car following them? it doesn't say so in the segment, not that I think Jane killed him but maybe she hasn't revealed the real story.

Is it strange that there were no other witnesses? would other drivers have seen the car following them? it doesn't say so in the segment, not that I think Jane killed him but maybe she hasn't revealed the real story.

I think Dick and Jean left the bar they were at in the wee hours of the morning. This could account for the reason why there were no other witnesses. Especially if they pulled over to a desolate side road off of the highway.

Dick Hansen was killed by a random psychopath in the middle of the night.

The end.

One thing that has always just puzzled the hell out of me about this case is the fact Dick got out of his car and confronted the guy. I would NEVER under any circumstances get out of my car and walk up to someone else's car and confront them. There is simply too much at risk. Somebody could be driving around with an arsenal in their car for all anybody knows. Dick clearly didn't think that through. Why chance it? If I had some crazy following me like that, I would just drive right into the parking lot of a police station and then seen how brave they were.

When watching this one today, for the first time I thought, "What if this has nothing to do with Jane's 49er's plate? What if the killer is pointing in Jane's general direction, not just the back of her car?"

The show said that Dick was recently divorced and he called "Jane" (not her real name) up to go out for drinks with him. Later, they were both followed by the crazy killer guy. When they pulled over to the side of the road, Dick walked back to the guy, to ask why he was following them or what he wanted or something like that.

Then, the guy gestured toward Jane's vanity plate on her car, according to her. And she's the only one talking. What if the guy was pointing not at her car, but at Jane herself? What if he was saying, "WTF are you doing at the bar with my wife?"

Or what if he said, "You want to know what I'm doing? Your ex-wife sent me because of her!" And then he points to Jane, and a few seconds later, bang bang bang.

IMO, "Jane" wasn't shielding her identity from just the killer by going incogneto onscreen. She doesn't want to be connected to this case because she IS connected to this case.

That is an excellent point.

I actually sent in a tip on this one for a suspect, never heard back from investigators.

I actually sent in a tip on this one for a suspect, never heard back from investigators.

That's unfortunate. You'd think that if the tip was about someone they already suspected and cleared, they'd at least thank you and tell you that they're looking in a different direction.

I have heard of a few cases tho, where the perp was ID'd early on by a tipster, but the info got buried in all the stuff the investigators had to check out. Sometimes it was years before they were finally able to get to that info and realize that they had the name of the right person all along.

I first saw the Merrifield case on UM years ago and have tried to follow it ever since, but every time I try to gather more info, I always seem to come up short. Just the other day however, I re-watched the segment and it contained an update that stated, "the main suspect in the Merrifield case is now deceased. The police consider this case closed." That's all there was to it and because I found this clip on the internet, I'm not sure how reliable it is. Has anyone heard anything to this effect? Does anyone have any further info on this case? Thanks in advance!

Yeah the Hansen case was strange. Im not so sure about the license plate theory. I figured there would be at least one credible witness that would have come forward.

Had a guy follow me one time and I decided to drive into the roughest part of town. He didn't follow which i assumed would happen so I drove home after that. Some people are just crazy for no reason and I think that was a prime example in the Hansen case.

Yeah the Hansen case was strange. Im not so sure about the license plate theory. I figured there would be at least one credible witness that would have come forward.

Had a guy follow me one time and I decided to drive into the roughest part of town. He didn't follow which i assumed would happen so I drove home after that. Some people are just crazy for no reason and I think that was a prime example in the Hansen case.

I too had someone follow me about 10-11 years ago. I took them on a tour all over town and ran their fuel tank out.

One thing that has always just puzzled the hell out of me about this case is the fact Dick got out of his car and confronted the guy. I would NEVER under any circumstances get out of my car and walk up to someone else's car and confront them. There is simply too much at risk. Somebody could be driving around with an arsenal in their car for all anybody knows. Dick clearly didn't think that through. Why chance it? If I had some crazy following me like that, I would just drive right into the parking lot of a police station and then seen how brave they were.

Eh, for me it's not that hard to understand Dick's behavior. He'd been drinking, which tends to make many people foolishly brave. And I've seen plenty of men (and yes, to be fair, some women) who get all macho and start posturing when even a small conflict arises. Common sense and the notion that it would be better to just walk away doesn't occur to people when they are in that frame of mind.

i just watched the Hansen case again for the first time in a while. it gave me the creeps, especially after the man shot Dick and shared a cold stare with the woman!! This is one of those cases that ticks me off because the murderer was never caught... all i can do is hope the man went to jail or is still in jail for another crime

Ok, I just saw this case for the first time the other day and seriously - how f'ing scary does it look the first time they show the guy sitting in the car behind them, just looking at the couple in their car? It's vintage scary as hell UM! The guy's face didn't look real - it almost looked like a paper mask or something....so creepy. If someone could get me a screen cap of that, that would be great.


Not great quality but is this the pic you mean?

A lot of posts are quite old, but it's interesting to note that in response to Post #7, the case of the real estate agent being killed was solved through DNA evidence decades after the crime.

That said, there was apparently no contact between the killer and Dick Hansen which would allow for DNA evidence.

But I certainly do find it possible that Jane was involved. She says that the killer was able to read her mind, because maybe she was his accomplice.

But the likelier scenario is that the killer was crazy and killed due to a football rivalry. This theory would be bolstered by evidence of a game or a broadcast of an earlier game that night. The killer, filled with a crazy sense of sports rivalry would have just happened to see the license plate which enraged him, so he struck.

I think the woman in this case I can't remember her name but I think she had at least some involvement why would he not shoot her as well??? and I also found her behavior a little suspicious

I think the woman in this case I can't remember her name but I think she had at least some involvement why would he not shoot her as well??? and I also found her behavior a little suspicious

She did not do it! Sometimes the killer wants to off the witness too, which makes sense in their minds. Other times, like in the hanson segment, the killer probably is in shock too for killing someone for the first time and is not clearly thinking and wants to just get the heck out of there.

"Jane" now appears as herself but in a fake wig on a new segment from ID. just google it. It is called Dates from Hell. Long kiss goodnight or something. If she did it, why would she relive it by going back onto a new show? doesn't make sense.

It appears so random because it is. I bet the guy is not from that city. Perhaps in another nearby big city or out of state. (you and your car blend in so much more in a huge city compared to lets say a tiny town where your cool looking bright blue car stands out on old main street, for instance). Since the killer is not from there he could care less if a witness sees him. Plus its a thrill kill for him! And he wanted a witness to see the crime, live it, re-live it, and remember him for the rest of her life. And look at Jane....she is still in fear and pain.

Maybe she is not telling us information could she have had a secret boyfriend a jealous ex boyfriend or husband or something like that??

Maybe she is not telling us information could she have had a secret boyfriend a jealous ex boyfriend or husband or something like that??

Why would she go on a show 25 years later to bring it all up again then?

Maybe because the boyfriend threatened her life if she ever told anyone why don't you people use you're intelligence.

Maybe because the boyfriend threatened her life if she ever told anyone why don't you people use you're intelligence.
:rolleyes:

Look, I don't think it's a terrible theory that she had an ex-boyfriend who threatened her from talking. But SageSlowDive has an excellent point: If she was being threatened, why go on a show at all, especially 25+ years later still under duress/threats from this guy? So her life is threatened if she tells, but if she keeps talking about it years later and speaking out about what she saw it's okay? This mystery man doesn't mind her calling attention to the case after it's been cold for so long? I highly doubt that.

Maybe because the boyfriend threatened her life if she ever told anyone why don't you people use you're intelligence.

hey little ceasers pizza don't be so snippy! as if you are intelligent above the rest. u dumbass. She didn't have another boyfriend at the time. (And no she wasn't secretly cheating). She and Dick were not dating but had thoughts of getting back together at the time of the murder. use ur brain 4 1once.

Maybe because the boyfriend threatened her life if she ever told anyone why don't you people use you're intelligence.

ehehehe you said YOU'RE. BUT it is supposed to be your like the other person pointed out to you too.

I haven't read this entire thread but just in case no one knows the Dick Hansen case is shown on the show 'Dates from Hell' the episode is called 'long kiss goodnight' and apparently 'Jean' shows her real identity

One thing I don't understand about the Dick Hansen case is, if the killer was planning to kill Dick, why didn't he just shoot him when he got out of Jean's car to go to his truck? Why follow them and then shoot him later? It makes me wonder if Dick really did say something that pissed him off and he just shot him, spur of the moment.

Also, wasn't this case featured on another crime show?

Also, wasn't this case featured on another crime show?
Dates from Hell on Investigation Discovery. Jean is interviewed and shows her face.

sounds like a drug deal gone bad. Even if he was a stranger following them, It would be rather easy to avoid or get away on a highway especially with experienced drivers.

Maybe this was a dealer who knew who hansen was thus it would be easier to follow him because he knew where to go. A stranger following you for that long on a highway?

Lady covered her face during the segment. Drug dealing is done at the very local level maybe she was scared?

sounds like a drug deal gone bad.

Interesting. Very interesting.

I don't think its as simple as a drug deal gone bad. If that were the case, the killer would have just shot Dick when he got out of Jean's car and into his truck. Why follow them across town and risk them going to the cops?

lots of drug dealers have networks and associates especially the higher ranked they are. Why go to the cops when the dealer can just get someone after you? Or maybe this guy was after hansen for an unpaid debt?

The murder was relatively clean, even the witness had a "foggy" description of the killer. Maybe the killer knew the area.

Theres also no portrayal of dick as some sort of virtuous family man, kinda odd because it mentions he has 2 kids I believe and divorced.

Can anyone tell me the street and area Dick's murder actually happened? Also does anyone know where he was laid to rest?

The Dick Hansen case was very sad. I had searched a few other threads and another poster had pointed out maybe the shooter was upset that the "49er Hugs" license plate was taken. The theory the police came up with that Hansen had the build of a football player and the killer assumed he was a member of the team makes the most sense. I was also thinking that maybe the two had met before, at a football game. They could have had an altercation at the game, then Dick could have just forgotten about it, not remembering the guy when he approached the car. It was nighttime, so perhaps he did not get a good look at his killer. Although, the way he confronted the guy right before he shot him leans me toward him not knowing his killer.
It happend in Oakland that was the motive.

It happend in Oakland that was the motive.

It did not happen in Oakland. It happened in Sunnyvale which is not near Oakland (it is in the south bay near San Jose). This incident started in downtown San Jose abd ended in Sunnyvale wear the murder took place.