A View To A Kill Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Paul Stine » A View To A Kill « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 2:50 pm:   

Stine

The view from the window where the teen witnesses observed Zodiac in and around the cab of Paul Stine. Circa 1969.

Stine 2

An idea of how the view looked at night.

Forget how the sketch turned out. How much facial detail could the witnesses really have seen under such conditions?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:14 pm:   

Interesting pictures, Tom, but let's point out a few things here:

1. What focal length was the photo taken with? It certainly looks fairly wide-angle to me: wider than what the human eye would see that's for sure.

2. Two of the teen witnesses watched Zodiac from the ground level, not the upper level.

3. The human eye can see more detail at night than any photographic lens, unless the lens is extremely fast (somewhere in the neighborhood of T1.2) and the film is not only fast (let's say ISO 1000) but has been push processed by 4 - 5 stops, which certainly isn't the case with your bottom photo.

4. Even if very little facial detail could be observed, one could still reasonably determine the general features of the individual, i.e., hair style, height, weight, body type (fat, skinny, muscular), etc.

5. Finally, let's not forget that the teen witnesses observed Zodiac for some period of time in the dome light of Stine's cab.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:17 pm:   

Great pics Tom. It was probably even darker than that in October!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:21 pm:   

Scott, I have no info regarding the camera.

When I lived in San Francisco, it was on a street even more narrow than where Stine was parked on Washington. At night when a car would pull to a stop at the opposite curb from my apartment window, I could not make out facial detail -- just somewhat vague generalities about the person I was looking at. (Yes, I actually did this quite often.)

I encourage others to try it too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:13 pm:   

Tom, if you don't have any information regarding the camera, then how can you be using your photo to demonstrate what the view was? The clear implication is that your photo is an approximation of the teens' view, but if you don't even know what focal length was used, then we have no idea if it's an accurate representation or not, in my honest opinion. Furthermore, the darkened photo is purely speculative unless you figured out a way to quantify the amount you darkened it.

You wrote:

"At night when a car would pull to a stop at the opposite curb from my apartment window, I could not make out facial detail -- just somewhat vague generalities about the person I was looking at."

I wrote:

"Even if very little facial detail could be observed, one could still reasonably determine the general features of the individual, i.e., hair style, height, weight, body type (fat, skinny, muscular), etc."

And let's not forget, as I pointed out above, two of the teens were at ground level and Zodiac was seen in the dome light of the cab.

VD wrote: "It was probably even darker than that in October!"

What are you saying, Dave, that 10pm in October is darker than 10pm in July? The sun has either set or it hasn't, and it had.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:36 pm:   

Scott, having been to that spot more than 100 times (both day and night), I can say with certainty that it doesn't matter what lens was used in the window -- facial detail is not possible to see from that distance. Even on the ground floor. (And to anyone who wants to argue that point, go try it yourself first.)

So: If we agree, then we must also agree a suspect shouldn't be written off based purely on facial appearance.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:03 pm:   

I haven't been to that site as many times as you, Tom, but I have been there numerous times and have video that I can play over and over again.

Like I said, I tend to agree that minute facial details can't be observed under those circumstances, but those details aren't needed to distinguish such differences as fat/skinny, crew-cut/bald, tall/short, etc. For example, though somewhat hyperbolized, no eyewitness in their right state of mind who has decent vision could possibly mistake Ed for me. In my opinion, the same type of thing applies when it comes to Allen and Bruce Davis; I definitely believe that these two men can be excluded based on what the eyewitnesses described.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:31 pm:   

Scott, you haven't seen a picture of Allen from 1969. And, since you didn't see what the witnesses saw in the first place, I don't see how your statement has much logic. And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, either.

My understanding is the witnesses weren't shown a pic of Allen until just a few years ago. Now, even if the pic they saw showed Allen in 1969, which I doubt, the fact that so many years had passed makes their opinion rather meaningless IMHO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:42 pm:   

Scott, yes, that is what I am saying. It is darker at 10:00 pm in October, than it is in July. Plus, you had the fog rolling in at that time of year.--very hard to see in those conditions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:13 pm:   

"Scott, you haven't seen a picture of Allen from 1969."

How do you know, Tom? Would you care to explain to me how you know what pictures I've seen and what pictures I haven't? Besides, I don't need a picture of Allen from 1969; I have Lynch's report from October 6, 1969, five days before the Stine murder.

"And, since you didn't see what the witnesses saw in the first place, I don't see how your statement has much logic."

Tom, you didn't see what the witnesses saw either, so what's your point? You've clearly drawn a conclusion that contradicts the testimony of five eyewitnesses who were there, but how? I don't think it's my logic that should be questioned.

"Now, even if the pic they saw showed Allen in 1969, which I doubt, the fact that so many years had passed makes their opinion rather meaningless IMHO."

I suppose that it should come as no surprise that my opinion is completely the opposite. What the witnesses saw and have said with regard to every suspect, no matter when they saw them, is entirely relevant. It's not like one or more of the witnesses were in disagreement with the others. Instead, they all said the same thing, including Fouke. How can that possibly be described as meaningless?

Dave, there wasn't any fog that night; that's a literal 'smoke screen' employed by Graysmith to diminish the validity of the eyewitness testimony. Care to guess how I know?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:34 pm:   

"Scott, yes, that is what I am saying. It is darker at 10:00 pm in October, than it is in July."

Fair enough, Dave. So tell me, all things being equal, how many lumens are we talking about here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 9:58 pm:   

Scott, let me see if I understand your opinion --

The witnesses couldn't see facial detail, but even so, Allen couldn't have been the man they saw.

Correct?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   

By the way Scott, all I need to know is if you've seen pics of Allen other than those displayed at Zodiackiller.com. If not, you haven't seen what he looked like in 1969.

If you're going to attempt to use his hair as a reason he couldn't have been Zodiac, keep in mind the witnesses couldn't see detail. Still, they pegged Z has having short hair and a receding hairline.

Allen had short hair and a receding hairline.

So, you're essentially ruling Allen out because the witnesses didn't see his face and because he had hair as described by the witnesses.

Sounds reasonable to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:31 am:   

Great perspective for those of us who have never been to the location. How the hell does Tom find this stuff?!

I guess I can see both sides of the debate here but I now have a better understanding why Tom & Ed feel that the composite sketches are "suspect" at best.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:40 am:   

Scott,
1. What picture of Allen was shown to the teens and when was it taken?
2. Where was Zodiac positioned before the teens left for the ground floor?
3.Where was Zodiac positioned when they arrived at the ground floor?
4.For how long did they see Zodiac full on?
5. Despite registering that Z was heavy/set stocky, why did they not give a weight estimation?
6.How did they gauge his height?
7. How many of the teen witnesses were interviewed by Mike and/or Jim?
8.Are all of them in absolute agreement?
9.What prompted them to change their minds less than a week later, changing jaw, hairline, and age(upped 20 years)
10.What were the ages of the witnesses in respect to their viewing position?
11.What is their recollection of Z's exact movements?
12. How do they compare the view they got of Zodiac's features (upstairs versus downstairs)
13. Mike indicates that one in particular had the best look, where was this person positioned?
14. One of them had "an emotional response" when shown a photo of Z, where was this person positioned?
15. Do the others agree?
16 If they were to try to recall a weight estimation now, what would that be?
17.How did the witnesses upstairs gauge Z's height?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:19 pm:   

Tom wrote:

"Allen had short hair and a receding hairline."

Short hair and a receding hairline, Tom? Allen was bald, Tom, at least five days before Stine was killed at any rate. You can argue against that fact all you want, but Lynch's report clearly states that Allen was bald. So, unless you can find something to contradict Lynch's report, it's a moot point.

"If you're going to attempt to use his hair as a reason he couldn't have been Zodiac, keep in mind the witnesses couldn't see detail. Still, they pegged Z has having short hair and a receding hairline."

Tom, his hair is but one of many reasons why Allen wasn't the Zodiac. However, let me get this straight, you're saying that the witnesses "couldn't see detail" but that they "pegged" that Z had short hair and a receding hairline? That's completely contradictory and self-serving. Either they could see that Zodiac had hair or they couldn't. If they could, which seems to be the case because they described it, then the man they saw wasn't Allen, because Allen was bald.

Sean, here's an idea: Contact the witnesses! You're the one who has a problem with their descriptions, not me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:22 pm:   

Scott: The teens couldn't see facial detail. Fouke, on the other hand, claimed Z had short hair and a receding hairline, remember?

I have been in contact with plenty of people over the years who knew Allen in late 1969 and he was not bald. He had a buzz cut.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:33 pm:   

Tom, Fouke was the one who said that the man he saw had even more of a traditional crew-cut than what the teens described. Secondly, if Allen had a buzz cut five days before the Stine murder, I'm confidant that is what Lynch would have described. But that's not what Lynch described, he said Allen was bald. Lynch didn't mention a word about a buzz cut or short hair with a receding hairline, he wrote "bald."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:39 pm:   

Confident not "confidant."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:53 pm:   

Scott, a crew cut and a buzz cut are the same style - hair that's sheared so it's one length all over. Some call it a crew cut, some a buzz cut. But they are the same.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:00 pm:   

No, they are not the same. But even if they were, Allen was bald at the time of Stine's murder, so again, it's a moot point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:11 pm:   

They're not the same style? Please explain the difference.

Scott, it's extremely obnoxious of you to keep claiming Allen was bald when you don't know it to be true. You have never seen a pic of Allen from 1969 and -- believe it or not -- "bald" to Lynch might simply have meant extremely short hair. Nobody knows for sure what Lynch meant, but considering that I have several sources who have stated that Allen had short hair in 1969, that suggests to me that he wasn't so "bald" that he couldn't have been the man that nobody saw too well in Presidio Heights that night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:22 pm:   

Tom, what's really getting obnoxious is your incessant need to keep Allen a suspect at all cost, even to the point of ignoring blatant facts. What is even more obnoxious is you continually telling me what I have and haven't seen and what I do and don't know.

Do you have something other than pure speculation that Lynch's description wasn't dead-on?

When you are ready to debate this issue honestly let me know. We've been over these things a million times, so it's growing very tiresome.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:29 pm:   

"What is even more obnoxious is you continually telling me what I have and haven't seen and what I do and don't know."

Well, have you seen a pic of Allen from 1969? I've asked you before and you've elected to ignore my question -- I'll take that as a no.

"Do you have something other than pure speculation that Lynch's description wasn't dead-on?"

Yes: The statements of several people who knew Allen in 1969. Some thought he could be Z, some didn't. But they all said he wasn't bald.

By the way, you forgot to explain to me the difference between a crew cut and a buzz cut.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:31 pm:   

Like I said, when you're ready to debate these issues honestly, let me know.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:33 pm:   

"Tom, what's really getting obnoxious is your incessant need to keep Allen a suspect at all cost, even to the point of ignoring blatant facts."

Actually Scott, you're wrong. I'm more than willing to recognize the true evidence against Allen, such as the writer's palm not matching. However, for some reason, you prefer to wallow in the mud of the weakest evidence: eyewitnesses.

The statements of several people who didn't see Zodiac very well are not a logical reason to rule in or out a suspect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:35 pm:   

Hmmmmm--Was there anyone in the house pictured right behind the mail box and phone booth? It is much closer to the scene. Maybe that's why Z had Stine pull up to that location. He may have had advance knowledge that that house was vacant that particular night.

Allen could have appeared hairless in the dark, if indeed he had a buzz cut.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:36 pm:   

Sorry I'm asking such tough questions, Scott.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:47 pm:   

Dave, if Zodiac had been worried about being seen, he could have simply directed Stine around the corner to the little tree-lined turnaround at the northern end of Cherry two blocks away.

Lynch saw Allen during daytime. I would think that a balding/buzz-cut man would probably appear to have more hair at night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 6:24 pm:   

No worries, Tom, your questions aren't tough at all.

It's very obnoxious when you demand that I answer your questions when most of the time you ignore mine completely. I've asked you many times, probably at least three or four times on the public message board in the threads you deleted, and once in this thread so far: Would an eyewitness be able to differentiate between me and Ed? However, for whatever reason, you've yet to answer me.

Furthermore, you keep contradicting yourself and making claims that aren't an accurate representation of the facts or are completely irrelevant. Here are some examples:

"If you're going to attempt to use his hair as a reason he couldn't have been Zodiac, keep in mind the witnesses couldn't see detail. Still, they pegged Z has having short hair and a receding hairline."

The witnesses couldn't see details except for the detail that Z had short hair and a receding hairline. Well Tom, could they see details or not? Or, are you just using their descriptions when it suits you?

"At night when a car would pull to a stop at the opposite curb from my apartment window, I could not make out facial detail -- just somewhat vague generalities about the person I was looking at."

That statement implies that you know how well the witnesses could see based on how well you can see, and ignores the fact that at least two of the witnesses -- three, if we are to count Fouke -- saw the Zodiac at ground level.

"H)aving been to that spot more than 100 times (both day and night), I can say with certainty that it doesn't matter what lens was used in the window -- facial detail is not possible to see from that distance."

Again, you are stating something as a fact that you don't know is a fact. The picture you posted was an attempt to show that the teens couldn't have possibly seen facial detail, but you don't care that the picture may or may not be an approximation of what the human eye sees. Furthermore, it ignores the witnesses at ground level, and it assumes that the witnesses never saw Zodiac in any light, which isn't true.

"Scott, you haven't seen a picture of Allen from 1969. And, since you didn't see what the witnesses saw in the first place, I don't see how your statement has much logic."

First of all, you are making an assumption. Secondly, you weren't there either, so your logic must be as faulty as you claim mine is.

"The teens couldn't see facial detail. Fouke, on the other hand, claimed Z had short hair and a receding hairline, remember?"

Again, you're making an assumption that you don't know to be true. Secondly, Fouke described Zodiac's hair as being even more of a traditional crew-cut than what the teens described.

"You have never seen a pic of Allen from 1969 and -- believe it or not -- "bald" to Lynch might simply have meant extremely short hair."

Or, if we use Ockham's Razor, we could also conclude that when Lynch wrote "bald" what he meant was "bald."

"Nobody knows for sure what Lynch meant, but considering that I have several sources who have stated that Allen had short hair in 1969, that suggests to me that he wasn't so "bald" that he couldn't have been the man that nobody saw too well in Presidio Heights that night."

I'm sure Lynch knew exactly what he meant. If he really meant that Allen had short hair, then why didn't he write that instead of saying Allen was bald?

In response to my question as to whether you had anything to contradict Lynch's observations, you wrote: "Yes: The statements of several people who knew Allen in 1969. Some thought he could be Z, some didn't. But they all said he wasn't bald."

I've met at least four different people who knew Allen who claim that he was bald, and you were with me on two of the occasions, so it surprises me that you'd make such a blanket statement. Obviously, not everyone who knew Allen described him as 'not being bald'.

"The statements of several people who didn't see Zodiac very well are not a logical reason to rule in or out a suspect."

That's strictly your opinion, Tom, nothing more. Here's what you are ignoring: 1) I've stated numerous times that the eyewitness testimony is only compelling in that it corroborates the other direct evidence. 2) You are the one who is attempting to discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses by starting this very thread. Do you want honest debate, or just for people to agree with you? 3) There were five eyewitnesses at Presidio Heights (including Fouke) that all agreed on Zodiac's general description; that lends weight to their testimony whether you agree with it or not. 4) Again, that is your opinion but you are stating it as fact. The teen witnesses in particular claim to have seen Zodiac very well, it's just your opinion that they couldn't have.

To answer your question as to whether or not I've seen pictures of Allen from 1969, all I can say for certain is this: I've seen pictures of Allen that aren't on this website, I've seen movie footage that has never been shown publicly, and I've seen pictures of Allen that predate 1969 that definitely show that he was bald. I've never once seen a picture of Allen that was taken relatively close to the Zodiac murder dates that would come close to depicting him as having a crew-cut. Perhaps you have. If so, and you have a copy of it, post it and settle this hair debate once and for all. If not, then I'm going with what Lynch wrote in his report dated October 6, 1969, since that is as close to the Stine murder as I've ever seen where Allen's hair -- actually, lack thereof -- was specifically mentioned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 6:25 pm:   

Tom, you are right. Z could have directed the cab to that turn around area on N Cherry. Why did he pull up to that house in your pic?

I posted a long time ago that I was in one of those houses, near there for a party. I'm not saying it was that house, I can't remember, but it was within 5 blocks of there on Washington St.

I think the Army, DOD, had a safe house in that area. A guy from Vallejo, who worked at the Presidio as an Intelligence Analist, had his girlfriend put up in one of those houses on Washington.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:06 pm:   

In 1969, Allen was white, in his 30s, average height, stocky build, no facial hair, and capable of wearing glasses as a disguise like anyone else. Therefore, even if Allen resembled a cueball at the time of the Stine murder, it would be the only part of the witnesses description that doesn't fit.

Considering the environment the witnesses saw Zodiac in, and the fact that other witnesses in other cases have made far bigger description blunders under much better circumstances, I feel Allen could still have been the culprit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:09 pm:   

1) Yes, I would expect most anyone could differentiate between you and Ed

2) It doesn't matter which floor the teens were on, the distance is still too far to make out facial detail

3) They saw him in light? You mean the dome light of the cab? Gimme a friggin' break

4) Fouke was not at ground level (compared to the teens), he was lower...plus Z was coming down a hill and Fouke was going up. Totally different angle
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:19 am:   

Could different Phases of the Moon be a factor in that area a far as lighting is concerned?

That picture puts you right there in the teens shoes. Kinda eeerie.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:03 am:   

Before I get accused of being Z again, lol, that party was in early 72. My point is that the neighborhood consisted of a lot of military dependants living in the apartments. I met someone there and she invited me to her place to "wash windows". It was about 4 doors behind the big house on the corner. (either on Cherry, Spruce, Maple, or the next one down Washington.)

She was a dependant, her husband was in Nam. Maybe the killer knew he had orders for active duty when he killed Stine, thus the possible end to his spree.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 5:32 pm:   

View

Here's a pic from October 1969 looking east on Washington. Zodiac's location is marked with a red Z; the witnesses a red X.

They obviously were not close. Now imagine the viewing conditions at night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:08 pm:   

I sure it is somewhere on this board, but what time did Z kill Stine?

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:20 pm:   

They were close enough to get the generalities, and nothing more.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:52 pm:   

As for Allen and the compsite sketch. Who cares if Allen represents the sketch or not. It wasn't his bloody print on the cab, correct?
ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:06 pm:   

The print wasn't made in blood; hence it wasn't a "bloody print." It was described by the FBI as a latent "showing traces of blood."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:14 pm:   

Stine was killed at approximately 9:55 PM.

If the prints recovered from the cab belonged to Zodiac, Allen is ruled out. However, it's hard for me to believe the Zodiac left his prints.
The best evidence against Allen is the fact that his palmprint didn't match the writer's palmprint recovered from the Exorcist letter. Therefore, I just can't figure out why Scott never mentions it. Instead, he chooses to continually harp about the "eyewitness testimony," even though he knows that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate and the witnesses in this case very well could have been looking at Allen, Kaczynski, Baby Huey, or virtually anyone else.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:22 pm:   

Here's what needed to happen for the sketch of Zodiac to actually look like the killer:

1) The people who didn't see him very well needed to accurately describe what he looked like to someone who didn't see him at all (the artist)

2) The artist, who didn't see Zodiac at all, then needed to somehow interpret to paper the accurate likeness of Zodiac, as instructed by the people who didn't see him very well

Describing what someone's face looks like is extremely difficult. I'd imagine it's even tougher for young people. Also, keep in mind the witnesses were not studying Zodiac's face like trained FBI agents might; they were just excited kids trying to figure out what was going on. And it's not like the Zodiac just stood still for them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:24 pm:   

Tom, where do you find these pics? They are great. That looks like the house I was in. It was a Sunday, and I walked all the way down Washington to Sacramento and Kearny to get my company car.----What is that oil tanker truck in the pic?--Who was driving it, and from what company? It may be a clew!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 9:22 pm:   

After seeing the pics, which are great, I must say I disagree with the premise that the teen witnesses could not have made out any facial details. Remember that it was not a static image like the pictures but that Z was moving around in and out of the cab, allowing views from various angles and various lighting conditions (in and out of the dome light etc.) over a period of several minutes. They most likely saw him face on and in profile. These circumstances make me believe that facial feature recognition over those distances is VERY possible. Maybe not to the point of how long a worry line over one eye is (yes, I remember that thread, unfortunately) but shape of the face, shape and size of the nose and ears, general hair style, type and size of any glasses, are the types of things I would not be surprised that the witnesses WOULD be able to see. And as I have said before, we forget just how good our eyes were when we were young. I have plenty of examples from my amateur astronomy hobby where kids and teens see things most adults cannot.
I do not know if the witnesses ever saw a pic of ALA, nor do I know just what he looked like in 1969, so I am not joining that part of the argument. Nor am I joining the bald vs buzz cut vs receding hairline debate as I know that for most people around age 30-35 all of these can be very temporary, depending on how fast your hair grows.
I usually hate to bring up my professional education as it sounds like I have the big head symdrome, but I have several psychology classes on sensation and perception, and my hobby of strgazing has given me over 25 years experience at what people can and cannot see.
Tom, I love ya, but the teens COULD and probably did make out facial features.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:26 pm:   

Okie Mike, I've been to that exact location many times and tested it. From that distance at night, you can't see details. Ed couldn't either, not to mention the others I tried it with. And, we were specifically trying to see facial details; the teen witnesses would have had no reason to do so and were probably just trying to figure out what exactly was going on.

(No, I don't think a group of 14 and 15 year-old kids would actually have the presence of mind and knowledge to study his face for a future composite drawing.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:20 pm:   

Here's a link to a larger version of the pic showing the view from the witnesses perspective.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 6:20 am:   

Doug,
How do you reconcile the FBI's statement regarding the prints with Pelissetti's claim about seeing bloody prints on the cab?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:25 pm:   

Tom,

Do you have a copy of the FBI report Doug is refering to about the latent prints on the cab?

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:54 pm:   

The most likely scenario is that Pelissetti saw prints made in blood on the cab ... they simply didn't contain any ridge patterns. Given the amount of blood in the cab, I would expect there to have been quite a few such prints.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:59 pm:   

Check FBI PDF documents 1:37, 3:25, 6:22, 6:29, 9:38, 11:25-26, 14:26-28, 14:36, 16:43, and 21:8.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 6:48 am:   

Hi-

I want to give everyone here something to consider with regard to the Stine eyewitnesses. The photo at the beginning of this thread is, IMO, very misleading. It makes everything look damn far away. Let me give you some perspective on what 6o feet is:

A baseball pitcher stands 60 feet 6 inches from home plate. I think that at that distance, a batter could tell the difference between David Wells and a lean pitcher like Pedro Martinez. He also has to be able to tell the difference between a fastball and a slider. In fact, a baseball player must pick up the flight and spin of a baseball coming at him at 90 miles and hour as it leaves the pitcher's hand at about 55-60 feet. A baseball is about 3 1/2 inches in diameter.

A bowling alley is 60 feet long. Everyone can clearly tell a 7-10 split from a five pin spare at that distance. Don't you think that a teenager with 20/20 vision could tell the difference between Arthur Leigh Allen and someone who is 5'9" and maybe 180 with brown hair, as opposed to someone who is as massive and "threatening" as Allen was, bald and six feet tall and 250 pounds? The kids say they can!

The kids say they were "only" 60 feet away, and were probably closer when Z came around the other side of the cab. The lighting was great, they were under no sense of being threatened by the man and there was no fog.

I think that this adds up to having a pretty good view of the person who killed Paul Stine. When I've stood outside the first floor window of that house and looked across the steet, I've had no problem making out details of various items 60 feet away from me. I think even I could tell the difference between someone like Allen or Marshall and someone like MOH or Kaczynski from that distance...

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 7:38 am:   

60 feet is also very often third and twenty for our Texans, but David Carr has a lot of problems picking out his receivers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:09 am:   

Hi Warren-

Well, I guess that I can't reach my goal now and convince EVERYONE that they had a good vantage point. (Or maybe the Texans just need a new quarterback. Manning has the same problem for the Giants.) ;)

I can only repeat what they told Jim, and that is they were ONLY 60 feet away, had 20/20 vision and a great vantage point. They brushed off the distance issue...So as far as the Allen vs. "smaller person" issue is concerned, I am in the camp that says they would not have mistaken ALA for one of the other suspects of "less generous" proportions.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:11 am:   

Hi-

BTW, the photo on this thread of the view at night completely ignores the bright dome light that was burning in the cab. The scene was bathed in light, again according to someone who was actually one of the principals.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 9:46 am:   

Hi Mike,
I've not been to Washington & Cherry over a hundred times, like Tom & Ed. I've only been once. They're brilliant guys, and I have a difficult time faulting any of their research, but I agree with you. That photo is really wide angle, and makes it look like a greater distance than it is.

I couldn't look down from the second story window, so I stood where Zodiac was standing, and looked up at the window. If there was a face in that window, I am confident that I could recognize it. Granted, lighting would have an affect on the situation, but the area is clostrophobic and much closer than I ever imagined it to be from photographs.

Incidentally, that brings up another aspect of the situation that I've never seen anyone address... How terrified must those teens and that family have been after being eye witnesses to a Zodiac murder, and being spotted by him in thier own house? That must have completely freaked them out. It would be bad enough to know that you're a rare witness, but to also know that Zodiac knows your home address and has seen you... wow.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 1:52 pm:   

When I lived in SF, my bedroom window was about eight feet off the ground and the street it faced was a hell of a lot more narrow than Washington St.

One of the Zodiac-related things I'd do regularly was -- at least once a week in the evening or night -- watch people park across the street from my window and attempt to see details of their faces. Then I'd leave my apartment and walk past them. Needless to say what they looked like up close was far different than from a distance...and I hadn't even been 60 feet away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 2:45 pm:   

I imagine it's like seeing people on stage. You think you see how they look, but up close, they always look particularly different. However, I would still recognize them, or their pictures. Cheerleaders are dressed alike, and about the same physical size, but are still recognizable from way up in the stands.
Im not saying that it's an ideal situation, but I still think the teens are a priceless inclusion to Z's description.

Tom, which description do you think is most accurate? Which drawing?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 2:52 pm:   

Hi-

I guess that the truth is that we can argue this point, as other points, ad nauseum and never solve anything. That is why the only way to get to the truth is with more forensics analysis. However, the basic face and features of the SFPD sketch did not vary widely from one iteration to the other and certainly, neither of them looks like Allen to me. I just want fairness to the witnesses and not photos that are blacked out with no light in them whatsoever being proposed as what the kids were looking out at that night. Clearly, such is not the case based on their statements.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 3:06 pm:   

Davidmm, I think Zodiac had short hair, glasses and no facial hair that night in SF. He wasn't tall or short, wasn't fat or skinny. Facially, I doubt he's a ringer for the composite.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 3:29 pm:   

Hi Tom-

Everyone is certainly entitled to his opinion and I do not in any way begrudge you yours. But let's not give new visitors to the site the impression that the reason the sketch may not be reflective of what Z looked like is that when the kids looked out the window, they saw a sea of blackness like the photo you posted at the beginning of the thread.

We are always talking about Graysmith distorting the truth and not presenting the facts. The fact is that the cab was bathed in light, and that comes directly from the witnesses. Let's at least give them a shot at being right and not stack the deck against them unnecessarily.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Socal
Username: Socal

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 3:30 pm:   

I have never trusted the composite drawings.

When I met with Toschi as a high schooler I could tell he didn't really believe in them to much either.

I remember telling Toschi that my suspect was much bigger and didn't look a whole lot like the Z drawing (facially he was more round faced). Toschi told me to ignore the poster, that it would be possible that the suspect looked quite different.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:07 pm:   

I doubt the cab was "bathed in light". How could the witnesses have noticed such detail in the face? A droopy left eyelid, a wry, half- smile with parted lips, the hairline, perfectly formed ears.

I was at the Presidio in the day time that day, and had been around there in the dark on other occasions in the past. Believe me, it was sparsely travelled, dank and dim, after dark. If the teens vision was so good, what about their hearing? You could hear a pin drop in that neighborhood after dark, not to mention a gun shot.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:12 pm:   

Mike, I've never seen a dome light illuminate someone's face standing outside of the cab, unless we are talking kids or midgets. If Zodiac's face was above the roof of the cab, I can't really see a dome light helping much.

But even if Zodiac's face was illuminated, the bigger problem as I see it is the difficulty in explaining someone's face to an artist who didn't see it, and explaining it accurately enough to create a worthwhile likeness. Not to mention the passage of time before working with the artist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:42 pm:   

Hi Tom-

I am just telling you that the kids said they had no problem seeing him. He was inside the cab initially and they were obviously able to see him through the windows with the light on. It is one thing to draw conclusions based on words on a message board. Jim spoke to them and could hear the certainty about what they had seen at that time in their voices.

What individual people want to believe when they read these accounts is, of course, up to them. I can tell you that one of the detectives who, unlike Toschi, spent considerable time with the kids (and who knows one of them socially to this day) and got them together with the artist, said that he has a lot of faith in their sketches because they were "damn sharp."

I think we've beaten this one to death for now. I'm just telling you what they said and how they said it. People have to decide for themselves...

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Socal
Username: Socal

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 7:02 pm:   

Have these "kids" been interviewed in the last 20 years? I wonder if the story has changed?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 6:01 pm:   

Perhaps Mike could fill us in on that question, since he knows one of the detectives who knows one of them socially to this day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 6:07 pm:   

Hi-

Yes, they have been interviewed recently. My info in this thread comes from a retired VPD detective, who interviewed them in late 2003 and early 2004.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 9:26 pm:   

Vallejo Dave, I like your angle (July post), that was a risky location if Z didn't know the house was vacant. That is info that might be on record I imagine as the police would have to have knocked on their door to ask if they saw anything. He may have had his first choice on Washington and Maple (where he also knew about vacant houses) and this was his second choice.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 9:30 am:   

Thanks Stew. There were a lot of military dependants moving in and out of rental properties in that area. The one guy I mentioned in a July post--his girlfriend worked at I. Magnin as a sales clerk. She knew various people in the neighborhood. Maybe she could be tracked down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Socal
Username: Socal

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 9:51 am:   

Thanks MikeR.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:59 pm:   

I don't recall ever seeing a vacant house in that neighborhood. At least, none that looked vacant. Every home is extremely well maintained and has some kind of regular activity, even if its just landscapers.

If Zodiac wanted to avoid being seen, he would have simply directed Stine into the Presidio. Or, around the corner to the little turnaround at the end of Cherry Street.

If he was familiar enough with the neighborhood to know of vacant houses, he probably would also have known about the Presidio and turnaround.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 2:26 pm:   

Vacant - meaning perhaps the occupants were away, not necessarily that the house had no residents who lived there. If he didn't at least check to see that the lights were off he was taking a risk. If he just wanted to kill a cabbie he could have stopped anywhere secluded without houses.

Wouldn't the amount of time that the cab was parked out front have the effect of drawing anybody passing by a window, in a very close house to take a curious look? Going on from what Vallejo Dave said, its just a lead. If the house was vacant, it could mean he knew something about military personnel movements or it could be that all the lights were off.

It seems he didn't know the area extremely well going on his reference to Washington/Maple in his letter which implied he knew that corner (the one intended first from Stine's cab record) as his intended drop off/crime site, but didn't know or remember Cherry. However in previous references to his crime scenes he had been particularly vague so this may have been an intended ruse. Maple would be an ideal dropoff if you wanted to go thru the JK playground without being too close that it was obvious where you were headed next from the cab. W/Cherry would be plan B if for some reason there were potential witnesses when you stopped at W/Maple.

BTW, having the get-away car parked on the other side of the park allows a buffer between the crime and the car so a following eyewitness would have difficulty identifying the car and registration. It would also allow a quick route to the Gateway Bridge. I think the police probably racing up Presidio Blvd and the sighting by Foukes/Zelms would have made him wary of a road-block on the bridge so he would perhaps stay put in the park.

Just another humble speculation that hopefully has some calorific value for more thought.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:10 pm:   

Again -- if his motive was to not be seen, and he had searched out spots in front of houses, someone needs to come up with a logical reason why he didn't just have Stine park in the Presidio, the turnaround at the end of Cherry, the dead ends on the south side of the wall, etc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:16 pm:   

As mentioned above - if Z had parked nearer the Presidio it would have made that escape route more obvious. By leaving the scene at Washington, he left no clues if the body was discovered as to which direction N,S,E or W, he had headed. He had not intended the teenagers to see him or Foukes and Zelms to see him heading towards the park.

Just MHO
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:24 pm:   

Who says Zodiac escaped into the Presidio? He was last seen heading east on Jackson. For all we know, he kept going in a straight line all the way to Chinatown.

If he had left Stine in the Presidio, how would the police have known which direction he was headed without witnesses to tell them?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:45 pm:   

I thought a man resembling the description was witnessed crossing the playground, going towards the rest of the park, in a deliberate manner. Is this another RG fantasy fact? I'm sorry if it is.

Notwithstanding any other proof beyond Z's letter (which by the way IMO he took a huge risk on his credibility if he made up all that siren stuff that he seemed quite detailed with), I also can see Z's possible thinking by putting the park buffer between his car (speculating he intended to drive away) and the crime as I explained earlier.

However I don't have the familiarity with the scene like you have Tom so I would be glad to quit this line of thinking if its fallacious/rediculous.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:53 pm:   

Zodiac wasn't a stranger to taking huge risks with credibility. His first letter claimed he would kill a dozen people in a weekend if his cipher didn't make it on the front page. It didn't make the front page, and Zodiac didn't react like he said he would. Then there's the threat to shoot children, blow up school buses, etc. He claimed he would do those things and he never did. With that in mind, making up stuff about dogs, sirens and motorcycles wouldn't be that out of character IMHO. Not to say he made it up. Perhaps he drove through the area after he cleaned up and observed the scene from his car.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 3:56 pm:   

There's a published claim of someone seeing an individual running in the Presidio the night Stine was murdered. However, as is the norm for that author, he has never backed it up with any proof.

Regardless, there's activity in the Presidio day and night. Of those who are there after hours, it's pretty easy to imagine why they might run upon hearing sirens.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:12 pm:   

The motivation for those other baseless threats would be to terrorize/scare people into doing what he wanted and to give them "bussy work" in the case of the attack on a school bus. Needless to say, his threats were baseless as discovered.

The other letters though, where his motivation was to embarass the police, were a little different IMO. Any evidence that he was baselessly creating stories would have defeated the purpose of humiliating them in the first place, as the police would have been the only ones laughing. If he wasn't there during the search, why go to the level of detail he did, with directions of cars travelling etc. I think he was deliberately specific so that the police would know he was at least in the vicinity, and would feel somewhat disappointed at him being able to laugh at their perceived ineptitude.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:29 pm:   

On a slight tangent Tom, were those streets just east of Presidio Blvd there in 1969? I'm referring to the development that includes Sibley St, Portola St, and El Polin Loop? Appreciate any help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:32 pm:   

All I know is that I personally visited 2 residences on Washington in 1969, within 4 or 5 blocks of the Stine scene, and they were both occupied by temporary tenants, maybe 6 months residence there at the most. I think that is a big rental area--the one lady's husband was in Nam.

IMO, Z intended the GGB to be his escape route. Washington and Cherry is closer to Arguello, and a straight shot to the bridge. Or, maybe he had his car parked on the Presidio, and intended to go N on Mason St. and follow that Rd to the bridge. He may have gotten hung up by search parties, and had to stay nearby to witness the dogs and motorcycles.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:33 pm:   

The Stine killing, in my opinion, was an incredibly brazen act on Zodiac's part. I believe he was "tempting fate," and must have known that his actions; particularly the deliberate nature of those actions, might lead to a showdown with the police.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:50 pm:   

Its incredible on this site to get input from people who were in the Bay area at the time of the crimes. Vallejo Dave and Sandy, plus others no doubt. For the amateur (very amateur in my case) sleuths trying to make a dent on the case from wherever, it is invaluable. I have a million questions for Vallejo Dave, but they probably need to be on another thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 4:59 pm:   

Stew, those streets are west of Presidio Blvd. According to my research, they were there in 1969. So was Quarry Rd, which leads right up near Julius Kahn.

Doug--I think Z wanted to do a male cabbie to offset opinion that he was a wuss, preying on young couples who were enjoying each other's company.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:03 pm:   

Doug, I agree it was brazen. Why not find a secluded spot to send the cab to? It possibly strengthens the rational as being to include the SFPD in the investigation and stick his middle finger up as well.

Possible justifications (in no particular order) I can think of for the Stine murder:

1. He began to realize he had the opportunity to humiliate the police and as yet, he had not involved the SFPD.

2. He wanted to show everyone he didn't have problems killing a guy.

3. He wanted to geographically widen the net of his crimes to include SF and widen the suspect base.

4. He wanted to increase the Z terror in SF.

5. Stine wasn't very complimentary of the Zodiac in the cab when Z brought up the subject in conversation.

6. He needed to include a cab driver in his group of slaves in Paradice to get everyone around to the parties, etc.

Sorry for getting off thread Tom.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:05 pm:   

Sorry Dave, I got my East and West mixed up. I thought my wife was the one who was directionally challenged.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:07 pm:   

Tom, in your pic posted Saturday, July 15, How come this is a wide angle shot? Are you trying to infer that the buildings were farther apart than they actually were?--LOL.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:16 pm:   

Looks like 60yds to me not 60ft. Maybe it was the only way to get the two houses on each side in the picture.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:20 pm:   

Am I correct in inferring that there are no street lights at Washington and Cherry?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 5:30 pm:   

The measurement function of Google Earth puts it at just under 50 feet.

My take on the whole thing is that the kids got a good enough look at the suspect to have a good general impression implanted in their minds. The fact that they amended the original is an indication, to me at least, that they weren't absolutely certain of what they'd seen.

In evaluating the scene, a number of factors need to be taken into consideration, such as the angle of view, possible obstructions, the degree of lighting, emotional effects on the witnesses, and probably a number of other things. It's not cut-and-dried either way. Heck, the Ted Bundy composite is probably one of the closest I've ever seen, and the witnesses who helped produce it saw him in full daylight, yet it's still far from perfect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 6:15 pm:   

Yes Doug I agree, and the "Son of Sam" (David Berkowitz) composite didn't look anything like him in the end IMO (more like a chinese guy). I think its very possible (or likely) the face structure is different. The sketching abilities of the artist is also questionable. Though four different eyewitnesses, not including Foukes, got to put their stamp of approval on the likeness.

Its hard not to imagine, given what Tom found out in his interview of Don Cheney, that anyone who saw ALA would have any doubt as to his characteristic uniqueness (he would impersonate Hoss from Bonanza according to Don). His physical presence was such that he stood out from the crowd it seems. Nearly all the witnesses seem to be struggling to give any uniqueness to their description other than "looked stocky, but he had a parka on so it was difficult to tell". Most of the height descriptions seem to come in the 5ft 8in - 5ft 10inch realm. I might be wrong.

However if Foukes got a good enough look to see that Z was possibly of Welsh ancestory, you'd imagine that Toschi and Armstrong would have at least shown him a picture of ALA, which suggests that Foukes (and possibly Zelms) thought ALA could possibly be the man.

BTW, though its already been mentioned, either the seemingly well referenced Cheney is lying or its hard to imagine the coincidence of ALA not being Z.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stew
Username: Stew

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 6:20 pm:   

BTW Tom, if ALA was bald in 69, what a perfect foundation for wearing a wig, or two. Even a crew cut one. Hmmmm....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 11:57 pm:   

Actually, Stew, I believe the reason the authorities kept after Allen was that they didn't have sufficient faith in their fingerprints or descriptions to warrant doing otherwise in the face of the circumstantial evidence against him.

The fingerprints, however, are good for keeping the riff-raff away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 6:26 am:   

Hi-

Don Fouke states categorically and unequivocally that Allen was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the man he saw that night. He was not shown a photo of Allen, according to him, until the 1980s, and that was by VPD. Why his own department apparently never showed him a photo is a great mystery to me.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 6:19 pm:   

Just for a fresh photo perspective (so to speak), I went to Washington and Cherry and snapped a pic.
my picture
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 6:44 pm:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration