Overview

• Full name: Rachel Hanna Ziselman
• Age at disappearance: 11 years old
• Date of birth: September 30, 1965
• Date last seen: September 5, 1977
• Approximate time last seen: 4:00 p.m., according to later case profiles
• Last known location: Near the former Bay Theatre, returning from Hughes Market toward her family’s home on Monument Street
• City: Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles
• County: Los Angeles County
• State: California
• Case classification: Missing person; non-family abduction classification
• Current status: Missing; disappearance unsolved
• Primary investigating agency: Los Angeles Police Department
• California DOJ case number: 830811002
• NamUs reference: 7586, reported in secondary case listings

Main circumstances: Rachel disappeared while carrying groceries home from a supermarket approximately two blocks from her residence. Witness accounts placed her near her neighborhood, but investigators were unable to establish where she went afterward. No confirmed recovery, identification of remains, or resolution of her disappearance was located in the reviewed sources.

Detailed Case Breakdown

Rachel Hanna Ziselman: The Unsolved 1977 Disappearance of an 11-Year-Old Girl in Pacific Palisades, California

On Labor Day, September 5, 1977, 11-year-old Rachel Hanna Ziselman disappeared while returning from a neighborhood supermarket in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California. She was carrying groceries and was reportedly only a short distance from her family’s home when she vanished.

What should have been an ordinary afternoon errand became a decades-long mystery. Despite an extensive search involving police officers, helicopters, search dogs, rescue volunteers, and local residents, investigators found no conclusive evidence explaining what happened to Rachel.

Nearly half a century later, her disappearance remains unresolved. Her case has been classified as a non-family abduction by missing-child organizations, but the circumstances of her disappearance have never been conclusively established.

The Charley Project

+2

Case Summary

• Full name: Rachel Hanna Ziselman
• Age at disappearance: 11 years old
• Date of birth: September 30, 1965
• Date last seen: September 5, 1977
• Approximate time last seen: 4:00 p.m., according to later case profiles
• Last known location: Near the former Bay Theatre, returning from Hughes Market toward her family’s home on Monument Street
• City: Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles
• County: Los Angeles County
• State: California
• Case classification: Missing person; non-family abduction classification
• Current status: Missing; disappearance unsolved
• Primary investigating agency: Los Angeles Police Department
• California DOJ case number: 830811002
• NamUs reference: 7586, reported in secondary case listings

Main circumstances: Rachel disappeared while carrying groceries home from a supermarket approximately two blocks from her residence. Witness accounts placed her near her neighborhood, but investigators were unable to establish where she went afterward. No confirmed recovery, identification of remains, or resolution of her disappearance was located in the reviewed sources.

Sources: The Charley Project; California Department of Justice; Palisadian-Post.

Rachel Ziselman’s Background and Life Before Her Disappearance

Rachel Hanna Ziselman was born on September 30, 1965. She grew up in Pacific Palisades, a coastal community within the city of Los Angeles, near the Santa Monica Mountains.

Rachel lived with her mother, Rosemarie, and had two siblings, an older brother named Sam and a younger sister named Sarah. Her father, John A. Ziselman, who also used the professional name John Zee, lived in Santa Monica.

At the time of her disappearance, Rachel had recently completed sixth grade at Pacific Palisades School and was preparing to attend Paul Revere Middle School.

According to interviews published by the Palisadian-Post in April 2015, people who remembered Rachel described her as cheerful, sociable, and energetic. A childhood acquaintance recalled her laughter and her enjoyment of spending time with neighborhood friends.

Rachel was approximately 4 feet 8 inches tall and weighed about 65 to 70 pounds. She had blue eyes, long blonde hair reaching her waist, and distinctive high cheekbones.

These physical characteristics became important identifiers in missing-person notices circulated after her disappearance.Historical photographs and age-progression imagery associated with Rachel’s missing-person case.

Labor Day, September 5, 1977

The day Rachel disappeared began as a family holiday.

According to the Palisadian-Post’s 2015 investigation, Rachel and her siblings had spent part of the afternoon swimming at their father’s apartment complex in Santa Monica.

They returned to their mother’s home on Monument Street in Pacific Palisades.

Rachel subsequently left the house to visit Hughes Market, a neighborhood supermarket located approximately two blocks away.

Her brother Sam later recalled that she asked whether he wanted anything from the store. He requested potato chips but decided not to accompany her.

In his March 24, 2015 interview with the newspaper, Sam reflected on that decision with lasting regret.

Rachel went to the supermarket, purchased groceries, and began walking home.

Store employees reportedly remembered her buying bread, hot dogs, and cold drinks.

Witness accounts placed Rachel near the former Bay Theatre, carrying a grocery bag that appeared difficult for her to manage.

She was only a short distance from home.

That was the last reported sighting before she disappeared.

The precise time of her last sighting varies between historical newspaper reporting and later case profiles. Contemporary reporting placed it around 3:00 p.m., while The Charley Project lists approximately 4:00 p.m. Neither time should be treated as an independently established exact minute.

Source: Still Searching: Rachel Ziselman Missing From Palisades Since 1977.

When Rachel Failed to Return Home

As the afternoon continued, Rachel’s mother became increasingly concerned.

Initially, the family contacted Rachel’s friends and checked places she might have visited.

Sam recalled being awakened by his mother, who asked him to search several nearby locations, including Palisades Park.

Nobody had seen Rachel return.

Her mother contacted police, and the family’s concern quickly became an emergency.

In his later interview, Sam described difficulties obtaining an immediate police response because of confusion over Rachel’s age. Her mother initially said Rachel was 12, although she was still 11 and would not turn 12 until September 30.

This account comes from Sam’s recollection, not from a publicly reviewed police dispatch record.

By the following morning, Rachel was still missing, and an extensive search was underway.

Investigation History and Evidence

The Initial Search: September 1977

The Los Angeles Police Department organized a major search beginning immediately after Rachel’s disappearance.

On September 6, 1977, a command post was established at the Palisades Recreation Center.

According to historical reporting reviewed by the Palisadian-Post, the search involved approximately 15 LAPD officers, two helicopters, and a bloodhound accompanied by a search-and-rescue handler.

Officers conducted door-to-door inquiries throughout Rachel’s neighborhood.

Search-and-rescue volunteers examined the surrounding Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, and remote terrain.

County lifeguards searched Will Rogers State Beach.

A bloodhound named Belle Starr reportedly followed a trail toward Potrero Canyon, but the search produced no confirmed evidence explaining Rachel’s disappearance.

By September 15, 1977, historical reporting indicated that more than 1,600 person-hours had been devoted to the search.

Additional rescue teams from surrounding communities and volunteers participated.

Despite these efforts, investigators did not publicly establish a confirmed abduction location, a vehicle involved in the disappearance, or a reliable account of what happened after Rachel’s last sighting.

Further Searches and Community Response

Investigators expanded their search efforts during September.

Later that month, police searched Big Tujunga Canyon. Historical newspaper coverage characterized this effort as a remote possibility rather than a search based on a publicly confirmed link to Rachel.

No evidence connecting the canyon to her disappearance was reported.

The community also mobilized to help the family.

By October 1977, local businesses had organized a reward fund for information.

Palisades Letter Shop reportedly printed approximately 5,000 pledge sheets featuring Rachel’s photograph, while community members and businesses contributed to the fund.

By October 13, 1977, more than $3,000 had reportedly been pledged.

The reward effort demonstrated the local community’s concern, but it did not produce a publicly documented resolution.

Source: Palisadian-Post Historical Investigation.

Conflicting Clothing Descriptions

One important discrepancy in Rachel’s case involves what she was wearing.

Early missing-person notices described Rachel as wearing a white T-shirt over a yellow, blue, and pink checkered swimsuit.

However, later reporting questioned that description.

According to Sam Ziselman’s 2015 interview, the family discovered Rachel’s swimsuit in her bedroom after she disappeared.

He believed she may have changed clothes before leaving for the supermarket.

The Charley Project specifically cautions that the swimsuit description repeated by numerous agencies is incorrect.

Consequently, the original swimsuit description should not be treated as a confirmed description of Rachel’s clothing at the moment she disappeared.

The exact clothing she wore remains uncertain in the publicly reviewed record.

Witness Statements and Physical Evidence

The most significant publicly reported witness information places Rachel walking toward home with groceries.

The fact that she was reportedly having difficulty carrying the bag has appeared in missing-person summaries.

However, no witness was publicly confirmed to have seen Rachel enter a vehicle.

Historical reporting also indicated that investigators found no obvious signs of a struggle.

This absence of publicly documented physical evidence made it difficult to reconstruct her final movements.

There is no verified public account in the reviewed material of a recovered weapon, identified crime scene, confirmed suspect vehicle, or forensic evidence establishing how Rachel disappeared.

Family Interviews and Polygraph Examinations

Sam Ziselman told the Palisadian-Post in 2015 that LAPD investigators administered polygraph examinations to family members, excluding his youngest sister, who was seven at the time.

That account reflects Sam’s recollection.

The results of those examinations were not established in the reviewed sources, and a polygraph examination is not proof of involvement or innocence.

No family member should be identified as responsible based on speculation or the fact that investigators conducted interviews.

Theories and Unresolved Questions

Was Rachel Abducted by Someone She Encountered?

Rachel’s disappearance is classified as a non-family abduction in The Charley Project’s case profile.

An abduction is one possible explanation for how an 11-year-old child could disappear while walking such a short distance home.

However, the publicly available evidence does not establish precisely how an abduction occurred, whether a vehicle was involved, or whether Rachel knew the person who might have approached her.

No eyewitness account reviewed for this article conclusively establishes that Rachel was forced into a vehicle or taken by a particular individual.

The Rodney Alcala Investigation

One of the most significant investigative leads explored decades after Rachel disappeared involved convicted serial killer Rodney Alcala.

Alcala committed murders in California and New York during the 1970s. Investigators examined whether his activities could have overlapped with Rachel’s disappearance.

The possibility attracted renewed attention during the Palisadian-Post’s 2015 investigation.

A woman named Lisa Sutton recalled encountering a man who introduced himself as “Rod” in Pacific Palisades during the summer of 1977.

Sutton said the man photographed her and a friend near the Village Green and offered to take additional photographs.

Years later, she came to suspect that the photographer might have been Alcala.

This was a retrospective identification theory, not a confirmed identification.

The photograph she preserved became the focus of additional investigative work.

According to reporting published June 25, 2015, LAPD detectives collected the photograph on April 24, 2015, to examine it for possible fingerprints and DNA.

Rachel’s brother Sam publicly expressed interest in examining Alcala’s photographic collection and investigating whether Alcala had been in the neighborhood.

Those suspicions did not establish Alcala’s involvement.

Source: STILL SEARCHING FOR RACHEL | A Serial Killer Connection.

Detective Luis Rivera’s Cold-Case Review

LAPD cold-case detective Luis Rivera was assigned Rachel’s case in 2012, according to his statements to the Palisadian-Post.

Rivera pursued the possible Alcala connection during 2015.

He reported that investigators had reviewed photographs and jewelry associated with Alcala and that testing had not established a DNA match to Rachel.

On October 9, 2015, Rivera interviewed Alcala at Corcoran State Prison.

In an update reported on February 11, 2016, Rivera stated that the interview had not produced information advancing Rachel’s investigation.

He also said there was no established link between Alcala and Rachel’s case at that time.

The Village Green photograph underwent forensic examination. Two fingerprints were reportedly detected, but investigators did not identify a match.

Rivera subsequently confirmed that DNA and fingerprint testing had not produced matches in the databases searched.

There is no verified evidence in the reviewed sources establishing that Rodney Alcala abducted or killed Rachel Ziselman. The Alcala connection remains an investigated but unsubstantiated possibility, not a solved aspect of the case.

Sources: Still Searching For Rachel: Detective Follows Leads; Cold Case Detective Visits Palisades.

Questions That Remain Unanswered

Several central questions remain unresolved:

• Who was the last person to see Rachel after she left the supermarket?
• Did she encounter someone she knew or someone unfamiliar?
• Was she approached on foot or in a vehicle?
• Did any overlooked witness observe unusual activity near Monument Street?
• Could preserved evidence, photographs, or historical investigative records provide new information?
• Could modern forensic methods help investigators reassess evidence collected decades ago?

These are investigative questions, not claims that particular evidence or events have been established.

No confirmed suspect, criminal charge, or explanation for Rachel’s disappearance was identified in the reviewed records.

Latest Publicly Available Investigative Updates

March 11, 2016: Detective Revisits Rachel’s Route

On March 11, 2016, Detective Rivera returned to Pacific Palisades to retrace Rachel’s last known route.

He walked from the area of the former Hughes Market toward the family’s former home on Monument Street.

He also visited the Village Green, where the photograph associated with the possible Alcala lead had reportedly been taken.

The visit allowed Rivera to examine the short distances between the locations described in historical accounts.

The Palisadian-Post reported on March 24, 2016, that forensic examination of the photograph had not produced a DNA or fingerprint database match.

The visit was a documented cold-case investigative activity, not a breakthrough establishing what happened to Rachel.

Source: Cold Case Detective Visits Palisades.

Age-Progression Imagery and Missing-Person Databases

Rachel’s case continues to appear in missing-person resources.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children maintains a poster showing an age-progressed image of Rachel at approximately 53 years old.

Age progression is intended to help members of the public recognize how a missing child might look as an adult. It is not a verified representation of the person’s actual present-day appearance.

The NCMEC poster identifies Rachel’s missing date as September 5, 1977, and includes official case references.

The California Department of Justice also lists Rachel in its missing-person database, identifying the Los Angeles Police Department as the investigating agency.

The continued presence of these records supports the conclusion that her disappearance remains unresolved in the publicly available listings.

Sources: NCMEC Rachel Ziselman Poster; California DOJ Missing-Person Listing.

DNA Testing, Genetic Genealogy, and Recent Developments

The publicly documented forensic work includes the examination of the Village Green photograph and the comparison of potential evidence associated with Rodney Alcala.

Those examinations did not produce a publicly confirmed match linking Alcala to Rachel.

No verified announcement was located establishing that forensic investigative genetic genealogy has identified a suspect or resolved the case.

Likewise, the reviewed sources did not establish a recent arrest, prosecution, identification of Rachel’s remains, or confirmed discovery of new physical evidence.

As of October 18, 2026, no publicly confirmed recent investigative breakthrough was located.

The most recent substantive investigative activity verified in the reviewed reporting dates to 2016. More recent database entries and awareness listings should not be mistaken for new investigative findings.

This does not mean law enforcement has stopped investigating. It means additional activity could not be confirmed from the publicly accessible information reviewed for this article.

Conclusion: The Search for Rachel Hanna Ziselman Continues

Rachel Hanna Ziselman was only 11 years old when she disappeared on September 5, 1977.

She was close to home, carrying groceries after a short trip to a familiar neighborhood supermarket.

Her disappearance prompted an extensive search, widespread community concern, and decades of unanswered questions.

The investigation has included searches of nearby terrain, witness interviews, reviews of historical leads, and forensic examination of a photograph associated with a possible serial-killer connection.

None of these efforts has produced a publicly confirmed explanation for what happened.

Rachel would have turned 61 on September 30, 2026.

For those who remember her, the case concerns more than a missing-person record. Rachel was a daughter, sister, schoolmate, and young member of a close-knit community whose life was interrupted without explanation.

Anyone with credible information about Rachel’s disappearance, unusual activity near Monument Street on September 5, 1977, or relevant historical evidence is encouraged to contact law enforcement.

Information that seemed insignificant decades ago may still be valuable when assessed alongside investigative records.

Information can be provided to the Los Angeles Police Department at (877) 275-5273 or through the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Rachel’s case remains open to answers, and the public can help by sharing verified information rather than speculation.