Ronald Porter California serial murderer in 1980s

Just above, in the "File This Under..." content area, my intention was to include the recurring events that episodes share. The classic "Fake 911 call" like that made by Dr. John Hamilton when he supposedly found his wife Susan murdered in the episode Deadly Valentine (s10e16), or an occurrence of a "Strip club" as seen in Summer Obsession (s10e27) featuring Craig Rabinowitz and the poisoning murder of his wife Stephanie, were clear categories to include. With the knowledge that several episodes, mainly older ones, feature "Graphic content", this category was also included.

The crime scene pictures from Dawn Bruce's murder by Robert Knight in Soft Touch (s06e09) and a photo shared in Dancing with the Devil (s13e06) of the bloodshed during Patrick McRae's 1999 murder in Des Moines were jarring enough to warrant this classification. But the various shots of Sandra Cwik's decomposing body were unsettling. Their recurrence felt almost gratuitous, and the close-ups unnecessary. Throughout the episode, it did seem the editors might not have had much footage to work with, which may also explain the repeated shots of live maggots. As a fan of the true crime genre, I've seen a fair share of disturbing content – I have pretty thick skin. But these scenes, and the photos of Jack Wilson's body in The Wilson Murder (s01e08), solicited a few ‘turn-away' moments for me.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Also rarely seen, but likely a byproduct of season one's methods, was two different shots of interviewee Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek. He's seen at two different profile angles, and these were not a simple reversal. The subject seems to be wearing the same outfit in both shots, and he's likely even in the same room. But something caused the segment producer to reset the shot. This could've been anything from a simple retake for better sound or lighting to capturing additional content.

What was Ronald Porter's motivation?

Given that serial offenders like Ronald Porter often demonstrate a reliable M.O. (modus operandi), some of the variety in these cases seemed odd. On one hand, Porter included common elements in his crimes. He targeted lower-risk victims including prostitutes and transients. He had a friendly look and demeanor, quickly gaining his victims' trust. His initial interaction with each followed almost a script in describing the limitations of the assistance he could provide. He also surveyed each victim to assess if he'd be able to control them during his attacks.

Only one incident described Ronald Porter assaulting two victims. The reenactment showed Porter picking up the pair of young hitchhikers outside a restaurant ("I can take you as far as El Centro"). It seems one of the victims was able to escape, but her friend had been strangled by Porter. Luckily, both women survived their ordeal, and they provided the police with a detailed description of their attacker and his car. But why did Ronald Porter kill some of his victims and not others? Sandra Cwik had severe lacerations from Porter and bled to death, indicating he may have used a weapon. Additional research implied Porter may have used only his hand/arm to cause Cwik's injuries. Other victims were strangled, but it's unknown if Porter used a ligature or his hands or both.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

The narrative suggested that the remote dump sites as a "signature element" of Ronald Porter's crimes. But criminalists differentiate between the M.O. and signature elements of offenders. In a 2015 article, Psychology Today suggests that "The MO is what the offender must do in order to commit the crime," and a signature "serves the emotional or psychological needs of the offender." Calling Porter's offenses "choke and dump" crimes was a little disturbing, but I suppose it accurately describes the incidents.

The insect clues of Porter's crimes

Speaking of narration, the choice to have Peter Thomas repeatedly describe the fly larvae (maggots) recovered from Sandra Cwik's body as "worm-like creatures" was awkward. I imagine most folks, especially true crime fans, would know that flies are attracted to a decomposing body, and that flies begin their lives as maggots. But it wasn't until two-thirds through the episode while depicting David Faulkner's role in the investigation that Thomas finally refers to the critters as maggots. If the writers were going for a late-episode reveal, it wasn't a good choice.

I'd always believed that flies laid eggs, but the narrative twice spoke of the adult flies giving birth to baby maggots. My research found that some fly species do in fact have live births instead of laying eggs. However, I couldn't discover which type of offspring these particular flesh-flies (genus Sarcophaga) have.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Investigators had Ronald Porter dead to rights on several of his crimes. The physical evidence included footwear and tire impressions, carpet fibers, and even his DNA. But the statute of limitations on most of these assault cases had run out by the time police arrested Porter. Their best opportunity to protect the public was to charge and convict Ronald Porter of Sandra Cwik's murder. But the solid evidence in the other cases was unavailable in the Cwik case. The developmental stage of the larvae found with Sandra Cwik's body suggested her time of death. This correlated to a period where Ronald Porter was not working and had opportunity and no alibi, but it was still circumstantial.

I understand the conventions of and reasons behind the principle of statutes of limitations in our justice system. But I thoroughly disagree with its application in certain cases. There is typically no statute of limitations in a potential murder charge. But lawmakers are still catching up in ridding these limitations for egregious crimes. A few states have fully abolished a statute of limitations for felony sex crimes, and several have an exception for the statute when there's DNA evidence. But these exceptions don't always remove the limitations, and some have strict requirements. I learned quite a bit (some good but mostly disappointing) from this state-by-state guide of sex crime statutes.

Questions and relationships

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

I couldn't find a reliable source to gather the names of all of Ronald Porter's victims. And since mine is essentially a site about Forensic Files, I decided to only list the victims featured (Sandra Cwik and Betty Bass). The episode was also unclear about weapons that Porter may have used – it suggested a garrote, and it indicated Cwik suffered lacerations. Again sticking to the episode's content, I only suggested a knife as the offender's weapon.

A rare feature of early episodes, an eerie guitar (or keyboard?) lick is played during various scenes throughout. This is usually used to embellish the seedy atmosphere of San Diego's red-light district and its patrons. Also not frequently used was this episode's outro music. Rather than signal conclusion, this track produces tension and question, giving the viewer an almost unsatisfied feeling. I'm not sure why this closing sequence was changed, but I think it was effective – after the events (and sometimes even the conclusion) of these cases, it's appropriate to leave the viewer with a lingering feeling of haunting unrest.

An astute visitor made me aware of an interesting relationship between the Ronald Porter case and that of David Westerfield, also in San Diego. In 2002, Westerfield was accused, charged, and convicted of the kidnapping and murder of his seven-year-old neighbor Danielle van Dam. The cases' relationship: Both were prosecuted by Jeff Dusek, and both featured timeframe determination from insects that colonized the deceased.

Westerfield's defense included multiple forensic entomology experts – two of which are Forensic Files alums: Neal Haskell and this very episode's David Faulkner. Prosecutor Dusek claimed that Westerfield deposited Danielle's body in the desert (only about 20 miles from Cwik's) on or around February 2nd. But the defense's experts used the insect evidence to suggest the victim hadn't been exposed to the elements until nearly two weeks later – long after Westerfield was under police surveillance.

There was additional physical evidence against Westerfield in this case, but it's interesting to note Dusek's agreement with Faulkner's assessment in achieving a conviction against Ronald Porter, and ten years later taking the opposite opinion of Faulkner's valuation to convict David Westerfield. Does this suggest Jeff Dusek has more interest in convicting suspects than in determining the truth?

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Where is Ronald Porter now in 2024?

While Cwik's was the only murder Ronald Porter has been charged with, it's suspected that he might have been involved in over a dozen earlier murder cases in the San Diego area. The episode's closing suggests that Ronald Porter "continues to maintain his innocence" after he was convicted of second-degree murder in 1992 and sentenced to 28 years to life in prison. According to forensicfiles.fandom.com, "Porter has been denied parole in 2008, 2013 and 2017, each time for 5 years. Next hearing is in December 2022. He'll be 75 then."