01 / Remembering Bob
Bob, before April 28, 1981
Robert Bruce Hardesty was born on Halloween, October 31, 1954. He grew up in Walteria, in Torrance, California, and graduated from South High School in 1972. He loved dirt bikes, music and working on vehicles.
Kim and Bob had a relationship before Bob and I were together. Our relationship and our life together began in the mid-1970s. If you knew us during those years, roughly 1975 through 1980, you may remember Bob’s yellow truck, my yellow 1960 VW Baja Bug, and then my white 1976 Chevy Chevette. Like many people, I often place a memory in time by the car we drove, the home we lived in or where we were working. Those details help me remember the period, even when I can’t recall the exact date.
Bob and I married on June 16, 1978, in Long Beach, California. Jamie’s first birthday was in December 1979.
Read our privacy-redacted marriage certificate →When Jamie was born, we were living in a tiny house Bob owned on Newton Street in Walteria, a neighborhood of Torrance in Southern California. I remember making that little house work for us: putting up a privacy fence and changing the bathroom to fit two closets and a vanity. At our small desk, I painted dolphins on a table base that Bob and I gave Edee for Christmas. I also made Bob a dirtbike-rider lamp, with “HARDESTY” painted on the rider’s clothes.
Bob later sold that house so we could buy our family home, a larger house on Newton across the street from my parents. There, he could tinker in the garage off the alley.
Bob and I separated in April 1980 and were getting a divorce. He returned to Kim, who continued to live with Bob’s mom a few blocks away.
Years later, Kim shared memories with Jamie of drives along the beach, splashing in the water, and a birthday when Bob sat on the floor opening gifts with his daughter.
“Your dad and I would take you for drives along the beach and take you to splash in the water.”
On October 31, 1980, Kim and Bob celebrated his 26th birthday. Halloween was always his day. Less than six months later, he was killed.
I remember Easter in 1981. Bob and Kim came to pick up Jamie in the two-seat Lotus he had rebuilt for his brother Dick. Both seats were occupied. There was no seat for Jamie, but that was okay. I just took her over to Bob’s mom’s house, where they were having Easter dinner.
Nine days after Easter, on April 28, 1981, Bob was killed in the home he had newly rented on Avenue A in Redondo Beach, California. That was a different home from either of the two Newton Street houses.
Read the death certificate →Decades later, messages and public posts about Bob’s death reached our family. They led me back to the photographs and papers I had kept, and to a search for more information.
The relationship dates in the different accounts
I remember our separation in April 1980 and Bob returning to Kim then. In her September 28, 2021 account, Kim wrote that she and Bob had parted for only one year. In a separate comment, she described involvement through April 1978 and a reunion at the very beginning of 1980. The one-year description does not fit neatly with the April 1978 and early-1980 dates, and her reunion date differs from my recollection. I have kept the different dates with the accounts that supply them.
The separate comment retains the annotation visible in the archived capture; it is not a complete surrounding discussion.
Read Kim’s relationship account →
Read the separate comment →
In separately preserved comments, Kim described a confrontation and removal of belongings. I disputed that account. The captures preserve both statements; they are not court or police findings.
Read the disputed belongings account and my response →
02 / The accounts that followed
When the accusations reached us
“Did you ask your mom?”
That question was in Edee’s email to Jamie, decades after Bob’s death. She had sent photographs and asked whether Jamie or I recognized the people pictured. I recognized them.
The first redacted image showed Leo’s Facebook page, including his photograph. The second included his brother, Mike. Leo was my live-in partner when Bob was killed.
Her email said: “Those are the [surname redacted] brothers: Leo (apparently with sons?) and Mike, who very probably played an integral part in your dad’s death.😡 Did you ask your mom?”
Their connection to Bob was through me. I understood what that question suggested. My answer is unequivocal: I had no involvement in Bob’s murder.
Correspondence — readable exchange and original pages
The November 7–10, 2020 exchange is preserved in messages forwarded in October 2021. The eight-page printout retains its original page layout, with privacy redactions. The four-page reading copy presents the distinct messages once, then a separately dated November 28, 2023 letter from Sherri. These are separate sources, not one continuous conversation.
The reading copy includes available quoted history rather than treating repeated forwards as new messages. It covers this exchange and the separate letter, not all correspondence. Photographs and identifying private material remain withheld.
Edee’s correspondence and Kim’s posts are separate sources. Similar wording led me to compare them, but does not establish coordination. In a later email, Edee denied responsibility for other people’s posts and said she did not use Facebook.
The messages contain attributed allegations and responses, not findings of responsibility for Bob’s death. The original wording and emojis are preserved in the retained passages.
An offer to help
In a separate preserved comment, I offered Kim my support in seeking justice for Bob. I also raised the possibility that I could help with legal matters because Bob and I had not yet divorced.
Read my preserved offer of help →
In 2021, Kim’s post about the Robert Durst verdict turned from that case to her demands concerning Bob’s death. She said she would request the death penalty and then “request to personally push the button.”
Why I was concerned for my family
In a separate comment, Kim described “three conspirators” and offered help seeking a plea deal. Kim referred to “the 3 of you” and said she and the Hardesty family would ask for the death penalty “against each of you.” Her comment also referred to refusing to come forward and remaining silent. It ends with repeated “TIC TOC” and coffin and house emojis.
Edee had named Leo and his brother. I understood Kim’s accusations to involve those same men. When Kim referred to “three conspirators,” I read that as pointing to me as the third.
Read Kim’s preserved comment — both captures →Read the separate personal-comment capture →
A separate Facebook discussion
In a separate exchange on Ronnie’s post, Richie wrote, “This jerkoff who killed Bob has to go bro.” Ronnie said Bob’s friends should continue searching for “the hitman,” and Kim replied to Ronnie, “Absolutely!”
Read the preserved Ronnie/Richie/Kim exchange and edit history →
Kim’s death-penalty passage concerned punishment through the courts, but alongside these exchanges and the allegations involving my partner and his brother, it raised a personal concern: that anger over Bob’s death could be directed toward me or my family.
Jamie’s response
Jamie also called on everyone—including me—to stop the argument. Her reply appears in a separate preserved capture from Ronnie’s post. She expressed sympathy for Kim and urged people not to pursue someone themselves.
Not a single one of you are going to go out, with your walkers and bad hips, and catch the big bad wolf. More than likely, they are no longer with us. And if they are, I doubt any of us want anything to do with them.
Moving forward and living well is the best revenge. It is also the best way to honor our dear friend and loved one.
Taking information to investigators
“I may know something about the case that could be important.” One of Bob’s friends told me that publicly and asked me to message him privately.
In my preserved message, I urged him to give any information directly to the authorities. I wanted his own account to reach investigators, rather than rely on someone else saying they had already passed it along.
He replied, “Firstly, you should have never given my name to the police.” He said his information had already been given to police years earlier and asked to be left out of the loop. My attempted response explained that I had passed on that he said he might know something. The screenshot shows “Couldn’t send.” I remember that he blocked me then; the screenshot records the failed send, not its cause.
Read the public invitation and two preserved Messenger excerpts →
On October 18, 2021, I wrote cease-and-desist letters to Kim and to Sheri, addressed in the letter as Sharon Lee Jones.
How I responded in writing
In October 2021, I put my objections in writing. My preserved cease-and-desist letter to Kim is dated October 18. It explains what I believed the posts were implying and why I wanted them to stop. These are my allegations and legal characterizations, not findings by a court or the police.
Read the October 18 letter to Kim — two pages →Read the three-page letter file and unsigned proposed assurance →
I also preserved an October 18, 2021 letter addressed to Sharon Lee Jones, explaining my objections to posts I believed implicated me. Two captures survive in this archived item; the second is marked “2 of 3.”
Read the letter to Sharon Lee Jones — two preserved captures →Read the related three-page version and unsigned proposed assurance →In my public response, I denied the accusations and explained why I was worried about my family. I asked anyone with information to take it to investigators.
Read my October 7 public response →03 / Returning to April 28
Bob’s last day, as Kim described it
Kim’s account of April 28, 1981, begins at the courthouse. She wrote that she went with Bob while he gathered documents, then accompanied him to his attorney’s office. She said she was present for their discussion at Bob’s request, but did not disclose what was discussed.
Afterward, she said, they went to Bob’s mother’s house. Kim cooked dinner, and they watched television. Around 10 p.m., Bob first asked her to get Randy, who was asleep, then told her to leave him there until morning. They drove to Bob’s rented home in Redondo Beach without him.
Kim wrote that a man was already inside the house when they arrived, and that Bob was shot. In her message to Jamie, she described what happened at the bathroom door.
She said she had been getting into the shower, got out of the tub and was going toward Bob when she opened the door. A man was trying to get into the bathroom. She said they struggled with the door and she managed to shut it, fearing she would be killed. In the same message, she wrote: “I want you to know I had nothing to do with his death. I could never hurt him.”
She said a woman next door heard her screams and called out that they were coming. According to Kim, the woman’s husband ran past the man in the front yard and saw him run to a truck across the street, where a driver was waiting.
Jamie and I have always felt compassion for Kim and for the terror she describes that night.
The courthouse visit and the divorce claim
Her account brings me back to the courthouse visit and to the papers I kept from our separation.
Kim also said our divorce had been delayed “to straighten out finances” and was to be finalized two days after Bob died. The court files I obtained do not confirm that finalization date. Bob and I were not divorced when he died.
Our court records already included a May 1, 1980 order setting child support at $200 a month and dividing responsibility for community obligations equally. A May 9 court sheet records “Amicable Settlement.” The pages available here document child support and community obligations.
My understanding was that Bob and I had resolved our divorce-related arrangements amicably.
I have also wondered whether the visit to the attorney’s office that fateful day concerned a workplace matter I learned about from his employer after Bob’s death. That possibility remains unconfirmed; I do not know what Bob discussed with his attorney.
Kim’s claimed presence during Bob’s consultation with his attorney raises a question about confidentiality. An unnecessary outside observer can jeopardize attorney–client privilege.
Supporting accounts and context
The courthouse visit and the divorce claim
Kim wrote: “Once he retrieved what was necessary, we went to his attorneys office.” What documents Bob gathered and what business he addressed remain questions. Earlier court records showing Bob and me appearing without lawyers do not rule out his consulting an attorney later.
Kim says she attended the discussion at Bob’s request. Her account leaves her role in that meeting unexplained. A third person’s presence can affect attorney–client privilege, depending on the circumstances.
California law allows some third persons to participate without destroying confidentiality—for example, when they further the client’s interest in the consultation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to its purpose. Without knowing the circumstances, her presence alone does not establish a loss of privilege or show that the meeting did not occur.
The May 1 minute order records particular support and community-obligation terms. The May 9 sheet preserves the typed entry “Amicable Settlement”; it is not the complete settlement agreement. Neither page is a final divorce decree. The financial papers do not establish a motive or connect money to the murder.
Kim’s later account and her message to Jamie
Kim’s longer public account opens with a September 28, 2021 date. The associated continuation describes the courthouse, attorney’s office, evening and shooting. The two preserved captures are not a verified complete platform thread. In the opening, she describes Bob as her partner and best friend, recalls his love for Randy and says they planned to marry and have children together.
The message to Jamie is preserved in eleven related captures. Its opening displays August 31, 2012, at 2:34 a.m. Several joins are cut or hidden, so the available captures are not described as a complete continuous conversation. The reading copy masks a private contact detail; it replaces the edited quotation image as the source readers can open.
The bathroom-door description and the neighbors’ response appear in that message. The neighbor’s observation is reported by Kim, not presented here as an independent witness statement. Her 2021 account also describes a truck and places it on Prospect.
“He and I struggled with the door. I was able to shut it, but I thought I was going to be killed.” This is a separate excerpt from the same message as her denial, not a continuation of that quoted sentence.
The clothing description and school-group questions
In another post, Kim described the person she said she saw and shared examples of clothing she said resembled what he wore. Her description is preserved here alongside the other accounts of that night.
Read the clothing-description post →
When the account was shared in a South High school group, Brenda asked about the shooter, the neighbors and a composite drawing. Kim’s reply described what she said she had seen and what she believed investigators knew.
Read the school-group questions and reply →
The clothing illustrations are examples Kim supplied, not recovered evidence or a police composite. The question-and-reply captures come from the South High School Torrance California group, not a verified copy of the In Remembrance thread.
Questions for the Sheriff’s Homicide Investigation
The original witness statements and investigative records could help clarify the entry into the house, the sequence at the bathroom door and the physical evidence. Kim’s description of what the neighbors saw is not a substitute for their own statements.
The longer account also alleges a planned killing and reports what Kim says detectives told her about the danger to her. Those are claims in her account, not findings independently established here. Her statements about what would have happened had Randy been there are hypothetical; I have not turned them into events.
Differences between accounts are reasons to look more closely, not proof of who killed Bob. A later retelling or an explanation that seems logical cannot fill the gaps in the records.
Read the partial comment about alleged evidence →Read Kim’s separate comment about motive →
04 / What the records can tell us
What the records reveal—and leave unanswered
The court papers take me from our separation to what followed Bob’s death. I administered his estate. I requested, paid for and obtained the complete court files supplied to me for both the divorce proceedings and the probate of Bob’s estate. These are the files the court provided, not a claim that every historical document remains in the courthouse record.
One entry still leaves me with a question. The probate inventory of Bob’s estate lists a savings account valued at $19,892.67 as of April 24, 1981—roughly $75,000 in 2026 purchasing power. In the records I have, I have not found an accounting showing where that money went.
Court Documents and Official Records
Open a source below to read it, then close it to return to this spot. Privacy-redacted copies retain the preserved pages; reading copies and summaries are labeled separately.
| Document | Date | What it shows | Source type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage certificate → | June 16, 1978 ceremony | Marriage of Bob and Sherri in Long Beach, California; later copy-certification stamp May 7, 1981. | Full preserved registry page, privacy redacted; not a newly certified copy |
| Order to show cause and supporting declaration → | April 15, 1980 | Procedural order and Sherri’s supporting declaration; allegations are not court findings. | Two preserved court pages, privacy redacted |
| Court minute order → | May 1, 1980 | Child support and equal responsibility for community obligations. | Full preserved court page, privacy redacted |
| Conciliation court sheet → | May 9, 1980 | The typed entry “Amicable Settlement”; not the complete settlement terms. | Full preserved court page, case identifier masked |
| Bob’s death certificate → | Death recorded April 28, 1981 | Recorded death, marital status and surviving spouse. | Full photographed certificate page, privacy redacted; not certified |
| Inventory and appraisement attachment → | Savings balance as of April 24, 1981 | The listed savings-account value and tax refunds; not a record of distribution. | One preserved estate-inventory attachment, identifiers masked |
| Letters of Administration and related probate pages → | June–July 1981 | Sherri’s July 31 appointment as administrator, with the preserved petition and related pages. | Four selected court pages, privacy redacted; this reader is not the entire file supplied to me |
| PRA 24-1222RE — request and LASD responses → | May 10–28, 2024 | The request, withholding decisions, reconsideration and final referral—not the homicide investigation file. | 12-page privacy-redacted request/response packet |
| July 1980 attorney–client privilege opinion → | July 30, 1980 | The court’s discussion of third-person confidentiality and its exceptions; not a ruling on Bob’s meeting. | Complete re-typeset annotated opinion, not an official scan |
The links below open the reviewed, privacy-redacted records displayed on this website. They are selections from the court files I obtained, not a statement that I have yet to obtain those files. The withheld homicide investigation records are separate.
Marriage, separation and the estate
One fact is straightforward: Bob and I were still married when he died. His death certificate records him as married and names me as his surviving spouse. Probate papers also identify me as his spouse, and the July 31, 1981 Letters of Administration appoint me administrator of his estate.
There were separation proceedings. The papers in my archive include an April 15, 1980 Order to Show Cause and a May 1 minute order recording child support of $200 a month. Those proceedings must not be described as a completed divorce. I was his widow.
The May 1, 1980 minute order also records that each party was responsible for half of the community obligations. These entries address particular obligations; they do not establish that every financial question had been resolved.
His death certificate identifies the area at the time as “Redondo Beach Uninc.” and records the injury at 10:15 p.m. and his death at 10:41 p.m.
The full photographed certificate page is available with privacy redactions. Its original layout is retained; this is not a certified copy.
That legal status is distinct from the fact that our relationship had ended.
Return to the death certificate →Read the preserved probate pages →
The savings-account figure — and what it does not establish
The financial papers need equal care. One page that I previously described as a bank record is an attachment to an estate inventory and appraisement. It lists $19,892.67 in a savings account as of April 24, 1981, four days before Bob died.
The purchasing-power comparison uses the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ all-items CPI-U, U.S. city average, not seasonally adjusted: $19,892.67 × 336.940 ÷ 89.1 = about $75,226, rounded to $75,000. The comparison is April 1981 to September 2026, the latest available month when this note was prepared; monthly CPI does not measure a particular day. This is an inflation comparison, not interest or evidence of what happened to the account.
BLS historical CPI-U table, page 3 → · September 2026 CPI-U, Table 1 → · BLS purchasing-power method →
The inventory entry records the amount as of the date shown. I obtained the complete divorce and probate files supplied by the court. The unanswered question is what those records show about where this money went.
05 / Seeking the missing accounts
The homicide records I asked to see
What did witnesses tell investigators at the time? What did investigators find? Those answers were not in the papers I had. On May 10, 2024, I submitted a California Public Records Act request to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for records of Bob’s murder investigation. The department assigned it PRA number 24-1222RE.
The department withheld the requested records, describing an ongoing and active criminal investigation. I asked it to reconsider. The department’s final response maintained its decision to withhold the records and directed questions to Lieutenant Modica of the Homicide Bureau. That response, dated May 28, 2024, closed the records request.
Those letters tell us the department’s position in May 2024, not the investigation’s status today. I still do not have the witness accounts and findings I hoped the request would provide.
The May 2024 request and responses
I emailed the request on May 10. The signed request itself bears an April 10 date, but the email and the department’s letters establish May 10 as the submission and receipt date. The department assigned it PRA number 24-1222RE.
LASD acknowledged the request on May 13 and issued an extension letter dated May 14. On May 23, it withheld the requested records, citing exemptions and describing an ongoing and active criminal investigation. I asked for reconsideration the following day.
The final response, dated May 28, maintained that decision and concluded the records request. It directed questions to Lieutenant Modica of the Homicide Bureau.
Read the redacted request and response packet →06 / Questions about priorities
Forty-Five Years Later, Why Are We Still Waiting for Answers?
Sheri Hardesty Jones celebrated Betty’s 102nd birthday in a post that Kim shared. Bob’s mother had reached a remarkable age, yet the questions surrounding her son’s murder remained unanswered. Read the preserved birthday tribute →
I have long wondered whether Bob’s involvement with drugs made it easier to overlook the person he was and give his murder less urgency. I cannot know how investigators weighed his case, but I worry that the label “drug dealer” overshadowed his humanity. His life was no less valuable, and his family deserves answers no less than anyone else’s.
In its May 28, 2024 response, LASD described the investigation into Bob’s murder as ongoing and active. The letter did not disclose the investigative work, staff time or resources devoted to his case. What investigative attention has “active” meant in practice, and has his case received the urgency it deserves?
Read LASD’s May 28 response — pages 10–12 →Records on responsibility, resources and boundaries
LASD’s October 21, 2020 release documents the unit’s furlough and reinstatement. A March 10, 2005 County Auditor-Controller report describes Homicide Bureau’s countywide role, including services to independent cities. These sources provide context, not evidence of a staffing or funding decision about Bob’s case.
LASD’s 2020 account of the Unsolved Case Unit’s funding → · County Auditor-Controller report, PDF pages 6–7 →
His death certificate describes the location as “Redondo Beach Uninc.” Official records describe a disputed annexation of Clifton Heights in 1980–1982. I have not yet established whether Bob’s address was included, when policing responsibility changed, or whether his case was transferred. A boundary change by itself would not establish that LASD stopped investigating or reduced resources for his case.
Read the privacy-redacted full-page death certificate →The City’s Historic Context Statement reports County approval on November 26, 1980, followed by court decisions on December 15, 1981, and February 11, 1982. The County’s annexation table lists December 10, 1980 as the effective date for the Clifton Heights annexation; the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element describes the annexation as occurring in 1982.
These are the dates recorded in those sources, not a verified timeline for Bob’s exact address or a record of when policing or responsibility for his case changed.
City Historic Context Statement — open official PDF in a new tab →
County annexation map and table — open official PDF in a new tab →
City 2021–2029 Housing Element — open official PDF in a new tab →
07 / When remembrance became an argument
Bob’s South High Remembrance Page
Bob’s senior year at South High School, 1972.
View Bob’s post in South High School In Remembrance on Facebook →A photograph with her father
Jamie has very few photographs of herself with her father. She shared one on Bob’s South High remembrance page, where Kim answered with memories of beach drives, birthdays and the time they had spent together.
“He brought you into mine and Randy’s life just as you turned one,” Kim wrote. Her memory ended with Bob placing Jamie in her arms: “I was overwhelmed with love. I truly felt blessed.”
But when Jamie turned one, in December 1979, Bob and I were still together. Our separation was still roughly four months away, in April 1980. That part of Jamie’s childhood was missing from the story Kim was telling.
Jamie began her reply with compassion for what Kim had experienced the night her father was killed. She challenged Kim’s timeline and turned to the childhood being described: “I have and always have had my own mother, who loved and cared for me.”
And the family memories were not her only objection. “I am most upset about claims you have made that you know the ‘three murderers’”, Jamie wrote. She challenged the suggestion that evidence should go to Kim or other family members. Information about her father’s murder belonged with investigators.
Near the end of her reply, Jamie returned to the photograph: “Why not allow me to have one moment that you don’t take and make yours?” She closed by directing anyone with information to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or LA Crime Stoppers.
Read Kim’s comment and Jamie’s response →
The memorial’s boundaries—and my response
“The family comes first.” That was Brenda’s position as the page’s administrator in the preserved moderation exchange. She offered to remove anything Jamie did not want on her father’s memorial. Kim’s reply defended her memories and her reasons for posting: “It is not my intention to ever upset her.”
Read the moderation exchange — six preserved captures →
A separate preserved response shows how Kim answered objections to the implications of her words: “I am not responsible for what others conclude.” She said she wanted the correct perpetrators brought to justice and that arresting the wrong people would not serve that purpose.
Read the separate preserved response →
In my public Facebook response to Kim, I wrote: “All of your accusations are totally untrue.” I described my concern for my family’s safety and asked anyone with information to take it to investigators. About Kim’s relationship with Bob, I wrote: “I acknowledge your love for him, and won’t compare the two relationships.”
View my Facebook response
My public Facebook response, preserved in a separate screenshot. Tap the image to open the larger source reader.
Open larger source reader →Read the exchange’s context
The disagreement also reached Bob’s South High remembrance page. In the South High exchange, Jamie shared a rare photograph with her father. Kim responded with family memories. Jamie acknowledged Kim’s trauma but disputed the relationship timeline and objected to the way her mother and personal memories were being represented. She asked that information about the case go to investigators.
Brenda, the South High remembrance page’s administrator, said the memorial should put the family first and offered to remove material Jamie did not want there. Kim said she did not intend to hurt Jamie and defended her memories and purpose. She also claimed that someone else—not Jamie—was interfering with the justice effort. That was an allegation, not an established finding.
Read the moderation exchange — six preserved captures →In my own preserved response, I denied involvement, described how the accusations affected my family, acknowledged Kim’s love for Bob and urged anyone with information to give it to investigators. A place meant for remembrance had become another setting for disputed accounts, grief and efforts to set boundaries.
This account summarizes separate preserved captures, not one continuous authenticated thread.
Kim said she had not named perpetrators or their sex and was not responsible for conclusions others drew. She said finding the correct people and evidence mattered, and that wrong arrests would not serve justice. In the later response, she said she had not intended to upset Jamie, offered a conditional apology if she had crossed a boundary.
Kim’s separate post is dated October 22, 2021. Sherri’s pinned response is a separate item. The sources are kept distinct rather than presented as one continuous exchange.
Read Kim’s October 22 post and visible comments →Read the separate preserved response →
08 / Someone may still remember
Could something you know help bring answers?
Something you saw, heard or were told about Bob’s death may still help, whether you knew it at the time or learned it years later. You do not have to remember every date or have the whole story for it to be worth sharing.
If you feel ready to share what you know, you can speak with investigators or ask someone you trust to help pass it on. There is also a way to report anonymously.
I remember the young man from Walteria who loved music, rode dirt bikes and worked on vehicles. Jamie’s photographs preserve the brief time she had with her father. Bob would have turned 72 on October 31, 2026. He never had the chance to see her grow up.
The direct and anonymous reporting options are below.
