Responding To Your Comments and Questions

Hello Blog Readers!

I wanted to check in with you guys and let you know I have been busy writing the book. It means a lot to me when commenters say they are looking forward to reading it. I wish I could write it faster. It would nice to have all the time in the world to work on it. It will be done, though… I promise.

Killing for You

I know there was another book recently released about Daniel Wozniak and the brutal murders of Sam Herr and Julie Kibuishi. It’s called Killing for You, by Keith Elliot Greenberg.

Have any of you read it yet? I plan to. I’m writing more than I’m reading these days, but I did buy it for my bio-mom. She said, It’s written well,” but his style, “isn’t very exciting.” Also, she didn’t learn anything new about Daniel or the case. In Greenberg’s defense, she does have some insider knowledge.

The Author’s Visit

During Daniel’s Wozniak’s first year of incarceration at the Orange County Jail, Keith Elliot Greenberg contacted him about writing a true-crime book. Mr. Greenberg did not make a great first impression with Daniel when he showed up one day, without warning, during Daniel’s visiting time at the OC Jail. Daniel was brought in for his visit expecting to see his mom and dad, and instead saw this “Jim Henson look-alike” waiting for him.

Reporters are supposed to go through a specific process to visit with inmates. They are expected to identify themselves and, if an inmate agrees to be interviewed, the reporter will not take up regular visiting time.  Sometimes a writer hopes to surprise an inmate and perhaps catch him off guard.

Daniel suspected this was the case with Keith Greenberg and immediately ended the visit. He told Mr. Greenberg to go back to check in and tell them Daniel Wozniak had refused to talk to him.

Killing for You is not going to give you any insights into Daniel’s motive or his account of the murders of Sam Herr and Julie Kibuishi. However, Mr. Greenberg most likely had a great deal of access to the friends and loved ones of Julie and Sam. That’s the part of the story where I’m sadly lacking, and maybe Keith Greenberg’s book will give me some insight.

What To Expect From My Book

As for my book, well you’ve probably already figured out it is not going to be a typical true crime book. I am going to piss some people off, and hurt some people emotionally. I don’t take this fact lightly.

Maybe that’s why I’m so slow to finish my book. Plenty of people will read it and call me (well…Daniel Wozniak) a total liar. It will be up to you what you choose to believe in this story, but I’m guessing many of you will, as I do, find Daniel’s explanations to be believable…

My book will not try to convince you that Daniel isn’t a murderer. My friend is a murderer. I understand and accept that fact. There is nothing that can be done to change that. But I’m also going to try to show you there’s more to Daniel Wozniak than the worst thing he ever did, and that he was found guilty of some crimes he did not commit.

Who (Else?) Done It?

“But Murderer Musings, if Daniel didn’t do something, then who did?”

“Good question, Clever Reader. But you know I’m not going to tell you that in the blog. That’s for the book.”

I have to admit; you readers are coming up with some pretty accurate scenarios with your comments. I’m impressed.

My daughter is binge watching Game of Thrones. She wants to be caught up before the final season airs. I’ve been watching from the beginning and know everything that’s happened up to now. When she talks to me about episodes from early seasons, and makes predictions about the future of the show’s characters, I’m not allowed to say anything in response. I can’t even make a facial expression because she’s worried I’m somehow going to give something away.

This is the same reason I don’t answer your questions about motive, and the possible involvement of other people in this crime.


Readers often comment on the blog and Facebook page that my writing isn’t “objective.”

Objective (of a person or their judgment) – Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I might as well just set this straight right now: My book will not be objective. It will most definitely be influenced by my own personal feelings and opinions. I’m also completely aware that Daniel could be lying to me about everything.

Has he possibly stretched the truth or misremembered a piece of the story? Maybe. But I think he’s been truthful with me. You guys will have to read and judge that for yourself.

The ultimate truth is, Sam and Julie are dead. Neither of them did anything to deserve being murdered. That, I do know. There is nothing that can bring them back or stop the pain felt by the Herr and Kibuishi families. I also don’t believe they’ve received all the justice they deserve.

By the way, it appears Rachel Buffett’s trial (accessory to murder after the fact) has been pushed back to October sixth, 2017.

My Identity

To answer another common comment: I am definitely going to reveal my identity when the book is published. Not that it’s such a big deal, but at this point I might just as well wait and spill that information when I spill everything else.

A Recommendation

Hey, if you’re a podcast listener, I highly recommend checking out Ear Hustle. It’s from inmates in San Quentin. It’s not from death row, it’s the mainline, but it’s a great podcast. It’s funny, touching and informative.

In the next post, I’ll tell you all about the recent nearly three-week long lock down at San Quentin (which they mentioned on Ear Hustle).

24 thoughts on “Responding To Your Comments and Questions”

  1. “My book will not try to convince you that Daniel isn’t a murderer. My friend is a murderer”
    “he was found guilty of some crimes he did not commit”

    It seems to me that those two statements are somewhat contradictory.
    He clearly committed murder, he confessed to it. The evidence backs up his confession.

    Was Rachel Buffett more involved, in say, Julie’s murder ? Probably. But, Dan Wozniak had a chance to tell the whole truth when he confessed. He chose not to, not even when his own life was on the line,. By the time his trial rolled around he knew that Rachel was no longer in love with him, or anything else with him.

    I have read your numerous posts and it’s pretty clear that Wozniak is playing you while you play him.

  2. I didn’t think I’d be “commenting” again, as I find you so prejudiced towards your convicted murderer friend, it’s hard to read your blog. However, I just finished “Killing for You,” and wanted to comment about people claiming they didn’t hear any revelations they hadn’t heard before.

    I DID. I read that DW stole money from his parents, stole the gun, which was later identied as the gun involved in the killings. The people, whose theater was the place the killer used to kill Sam, had to close it down because of the awful stigma associated with it. They invested thousands of dollars to improve and refurbish it to make it a place for families to see community theater. It was their dream, and it was destroyed because of the murder committed by your friend. The author talks about visiting the killer in jail, but YOU make it appear as though he did something egregious.
    He makes it perfectly clear he was not invited and the killer didn’t speak to him. YOU attack this author, but your friend killed two people, decapitating and dismembering one of them, destroying their lives and the lives of their families and affecting other collateral victims’ lives.

    Your character assassination of this author’s character in light of what your killer friend did to two innocent people is truly laughable. It’s more disgusting than laughable.

    1. Where in her post is she assasinating Mr, Greenberg’s character? She said she didn’t get a chance to read his book yet and explains what’s NOT included in his book. And clearly, she’s telling you what DANIEL told her about first ‘meeting’ Mr. Greenberg. Not HER opinion or something she made up, she got that info from Daniel. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out!

  3. I went to New York over the summer and saw four plays, all musicals, and saw and enjoyed many actors in Dan’s age group. If he had hopes he could make a living performing, why wasn’t he in New York waiting tables, cleaning toilets, doing any job, no matter how menial, to try to get an agent and break into Broadway. L.A. is only 40 Plus miles away, and there is no indication anywhere he had an agent and was trying to find an acting or singing job.
    To me, he is just an unambitious fat, lazy slob who made the worst choice possible to solve his monetary problems.

  4. Hi there!
    Any news on Racheal’s trial?
    I know it’s only a couple of days ago but I WANT TO KNOW GODDAMNIT!! Lol, or is the trial ongoing? Can’t wait to read your book too
    Take care.

  5. Did you know that you are mentioned in “Killing For You”?
    Chapter 31 is literally all about you.

    You might want to read it.

  6. Also trying to make Rachael involved in the myrders has become ludicrous.
    Steve Herf had pushed Rachael’s involvement. She was a protected Disney star who is in a mess so deeply she emotionally shut down years ago. She was always a good girl with acting and singing being her focus for most of her life.
    No drinking no drugs not a lot of boyfriends. Is it that difficult for people to not see her? Does there always have to be more to someone? Rachael is what you see, but a lot more, that’s okay too.

    1. Calipatti, Rachel got herself involved when she lied to the police. She did drink and she used Ecstasy. Trial testimony showed she like to hurt people’s feelings and she fantasized about getting away with murder.

      If Rachel did not have “a lot of boyfriends,” then why did she make a point of telling police that Dan did not please her sexually, either physically or in her performance? Rachel is not “a good girl.”

      Most people discussing Rachel online and in interviews I have read describe Rachel as “odd,” “difficult” to work with, and suggest that she is very conceited.

      1. Any woman who gets involved with Daniel Wozniak has character problems. I’m tired of women who get involved with bad men then play the victim; taking no responsibility for their choice to date or marry a man of low character. I wonder what Rachel’s parents thought of Dan? Not holding a job down, being broke all the time. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty and she is entitled to a fair trial.

  7. So the whole reason for this blog and all the crap you’re saying about your “friend” is so you can write a book.
    Have you really put any thought into the people who died because of this man? How would you feel if that was your child? Think he’d be your “friend” then? Seems only fair if you talk about “him” then you also need to talk about them. You can go visit your “friend” but their parents go to a different spot to visit them.

  8. Hey, G[irl]. Do you plan to sell your book or give it away? There are legal liabilities for the profits and proceeds of book sales of the book you are you writing. Have you talked to anyone about that or given the potential royalties much thought? Son of Sam laws apply to the type of book that you have described.

    Under federal law according to what people call a Son of Sam Law, a court may order Daniel to forfeit all or any part of proceeds received or to be received by him or his transferee (you) from an agreement between you both relating to a depiction of the murders of Sam Herr and Julie Kibuishi in your book or other work of any kind, or an expression of Daniel’s thoughts, opinions, or emotions regarding the brutal and heinous murders of Sam and Julie.

    Under California state law in its current version (its got a history) of a Son of Sam Law, all profits and proceeds from Daniel’s story as you have described “shall be subject to an involuntary trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries” of Sam and Julie and the heirs of the beneficiaries. “Any beneficiary may bring an action against a convicted felon, representative of the felon, or a profiteer of a felony to recover his or her interest in the trust.” Because the story is about murder and because Daniel is condemned to die, there is no statute of limitations for when the beneficiaries may sue for the profits. Otherwise, the limitation is 10 years after parole has ended.

    G, you are writing this book with M and you are married to J. If you and M receive profits from your book and the book is as you have described that it is Daniel’s story, then a court may place the proceeds and profits of the book in an involuntary trust and beneficiaries of Sam and Julie may bring actions to recover their interests in the trust.

    If, for some reason, the profits and proceeds did not enter a trust, then it could be the case that the beneficiaries may sue you and M as transferees of Daniel. If a lawsuit is successful and the profits and proceeds are gone by the time that a lawsuit is successful, then it could be the case that the beneficiaries may attach liens to any earnings or assets you and M have or may receive.

    Since you are married and your husband is the primary wage-earner in your marriage and California is a community property state, J’s income and assets may be attached to pay the costs of successful litigation against you and M as a co-defendant and that may include lawyer’s fees.

    Your particular case could get complicated and expensive very fast, depending on the aggression of the beneficiaries and any lawyers they may use. Your statement, “I am going to piss some people off, and hurt some people emotionally,” could inspire a lot of aggression.

    Sometimes, a judge orders a sentenced defendant to not write a book or work on any other project to profit from the story of the crime. I called Judge Conley’s office and spoke with a woman who was the law clerk during the trial. I told her about your blog, who you were, and that you working with M. She asked for your name and the name of your blog and I provided that, your Twitter handle, and M’s name and company name. She said that she remembered you attending the trial. She also said that she did not know of any order that Daniel should not write a book.

    A lack of a judge’s order will not prevent the beneficiaries from suing for profits later or from seeking that profits and proceeds be placed in an involuntary trust.

    1. “a court may order Daniel to forfeit all or any part of proceeds received or to be received by him or his transferee (you)”

      No worries. Daniel Wozniak will not recieve a penny in any possible procedes.

      Appreciate the concern.

      1. Neither will you or MWS. No one can receive proceeds from Daniel’s story. You will not be able to keep any money from this. You disregarded what I said about you being his transferee but a court will not ignore that fact. Daniel can tell his story all he wants but no one may profit from that story.

        You will not get a commercial publisher for your book because the law is clear in California that you may not receive proceeds from Daniel’s story. If you self-publish the book as MWS has done with his 10+ books, then the victims of the families may sue for the profits. Upon a successful lawsuit, the court will order any and all proceeds placed into an involuntary trust for the victims and their families.

        So you and MWS *are* writing Daniel’s story for free.

        1. The Son of Sam law in California is very narrow and only applies to the criminal, if they convicted a felony. However, there’s nothing stopping the families of the victims from suing if they believed that the book is serving as a mouthpiece for Dan Wozniak or if there are falsehoods in the final text. Other parties in this case could also sue if they feel they are portrayed inaccurately. Even if they don’t win, defending the cases can get expensive.

          1. You are almost right, Ashlee. The law applies to the convicted felon and to any “representative” of the felon under CA CIV 2225(a)(3)(A), ““Representative of the felon” means any person or entity receiving proceeds or profits by designation of that felon, on behalf of that felon, or in the stead of that felon, whether by the felon’s designation or by operation of law.” The “representative” in this case is GWA if the substance of her book is Dan’s story in his own words.

            Relevant to this and in response to dagny is the fact that her editor, MWS, has his financial needs and cannot be expected to work for free. He too, would be prohibited from earning proceeds from the sales of any book he works on for Dan. He would not even be able to sue for proceeds of a book of Dan’s story in his words as that “operation of law” is prohibited in the CA statute.

    2. Admittedly, my first thought when I read and saw the reproduction and promotion of Daniel’s letter (on this site, from death row) was concern, specifically about the author publishing it (liability with promotion and/or profit?) for him/as his platform.

      I didn’t suspect the author of attempt to financially capitalize in that moment, rather, I’d wondered if she was aware/had considered (her editor/proofreaders have entirely failed her, so would anyone else tell her?).

      No disrespect intended as I’m very much the empathetic soul that the author seems to be (which is part of why I’m reading), but my personal self awareness (thus vulnerability and naivete) is also what makes me want to read/hear contrary opinions to keep me in check (I’m not sure if the author feels the same on that).

      Additionally, throughout this blog the author comments that (Daniel/Rachel) being 1000.00 overdrawn on accounts in addition to being multiple months in arrears of rent isn’t that much (paraphrasing), indicates to me that the author is in such a great financial state that they don’t relate to how much in debt that actually is to an average person (wedding, honeymoon, bills, notwithstanding). While nothing in my post indicates the myriad thoughts I want to share (I’m *trying* to wait til I finish reading), my point is that I’ve gathered that she (the author) has zero financial NEED for this. FWIW.

      (To the author: CYA, consult an attorney. I want to know the answers to which you have not (yet) responded, mainly the “inaccurate” motive, because “they’ll be in the book”.)

      For the record, I ended up finding this blog because I was searching Tim Wozniak’s role in things. So far, that seems to be off limits due to wanting to “respect” Daniel and his mom. Disappointing. I feel his story is as crucial as Rachel’s and fear of disrespect has not spared certain family members of the actual victims from being opined about here. Food for thought. I hope this comment gets approved.

  9. Any information on how Daniel and his brothers had first attempted to kill their parents. I have heard that they initially wanted to murder their parents for money. Sam was not the first choice. Dan’s older brother was somehow eventually responsible for the death of their father, Daryl, however, their mother wanted to keep this on the down low maybe for appearances or because they had already had one profile murderer in the family.

    If this is true then I must say the Wozniak boys are the ideal of what parents would want in their children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *