|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:27 am: |
Watch how easy it is to eliminate a suspect; Arthur Leigh Allen IS NOT ZODIAC. PERIOD. Why you say?:
1. He failed the DNA tests(unless someone here is a DNA expert or is currently employed as a forensic anylist with a known LE agency, then you need not reply or give an uneducated guess/opinion).
2. The prints dont match...real simple.
3. He(Allen) has never fit or matched any of the eye witness descriptions or any of the police sketches/composites.
4. He has been officially eliminated as a zodiac suspect(and I'm not talking about the ABC primetime show).
5. His handwriting samples did not match that of zodiacs.
I will say that in and of himself, Allen makes for an interesting case study for a totally separate case, but it has been soundly proven that he has been long since eliminated as a zodiac suspect....he was a pedaphile and rarely does a pedaphile venture outside of their own classification; in other words he would be more likely to attack(however that may be) children and I doubt that he would ever resort to killing anyone....its just not in his psychological profile as a onetime child molester. Quite simply put, Allen lacks the natural proclivity of a serial murderer. End of story....Allen is now off the short list.
You see how effective this process can be when you simply accept fact and look at things from a logical point of view? Now I know all you "Allen-Buffs" are going to respond with all kinds of conspiricy theory bunk, but it will be all for not....sometimes the hardest thing to do, is to accept that your long standing theories and agendas have become irrelevant and obsolete....you just have to move on.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:56 am: |
The fault I find with your point #1 about DNA is that I am not an "expert on DNA," nor am I employed as a forensic scientist. However, that is not necessary in order to comment on science in general. I do have a Master's in biology and know my way around a lab. I also know a little about sampling regimens for scientific papers. I do think that mine is an educated opinion; you don't need to be a "DNA expert" in order to comment on the principles of the basic work SFPD did.
I say that SFPD owes us a much better explanation of the way in which they extracted their DNA, as discussed in another thread. Either that or they owe us proof that the DNA they obtained is consistent across several letters that are very likely contaminated. What they have shown so far may be good enough for the average TV viewer and for a news organization looking for ratings. However, it should not be enough for people with a background in science (and it is not, as evidenced by the many discussions of DNA on this site). They also owe us an explanation for some other things that I won't repeat yet again but which I discuss in depth in other threads.
That having been said, I think that Allen could have been eliminated had SFPD and the venerable Mr. Graysmith made better use of the key eyewitnesses in the 1970s. SFPD never showed the kids a photo of Allen. Nor did they show one to Fouke. That seems to me to be a careless way to conduct an investigation, even to someone with admittedly no background in police matters... ;)
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 9:35 am: |
To sum it up, the DNA "probably" eliminated Allen, but the only way to really know for sure would be to test additional evidence (letters) and obtain a positive match from an additional source and it not match Allen. It seems the chances that someone else's DNA was picked up instead of the person who licked the stamp would be small, but it is a possibility nonetheless, it doesn't take much.
As convinced as I am that Allen is not the Z, I think it would be exciting if a second test matched the first test even if a suspect was not identified. At least in that case they would know for sure they had real Z DNA. Unless of course you buy into the implausible "got someone to lick the stamp for me" theory.
This seems very "do-able", if only they would do it.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:18 am: |
A postal worker could have sneezed or picked his nose and left that DNA. What we know for sure is that Allen's DNA is not compatible with the DNA found on the stamp.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:09 am: |
I wholeheartedly agree and have for some time now on all of your points.
Specifically the part about ALA's class of criminality venturing outside of their realm. I am sure it has happened historically at some point but it seems to be a rare thing.
I personally think ALA enjoyed being considered a Z suspect.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:18 am: |
You guys are all ignoring the rest of the evidence...so I'll put it this way; do you think Allen is a strong(or weak for that matter) suspect or, as the evidence has shown, should he finally be eliminated from consideration?
Even with out the DNA, the rest of the evidence points directly to his innocence. I promise that without Allen this site and this story will not go away, we will still have other suspects to talk about.....I know its hard for you people, Allen seems to be your security blanket, your default suspect, if you will, incase your candidate gets eliminated you feel you can always fall back on Allen...if for no other reason than to talk about all of the interesting theories about Allen and his life. But try to accept the cold hard reality that he(Allen) is not Zodiac.....believe me you all dont want to turn into another Graysmith....do you?
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:21 am: |
Thank you Dave! finally a voice of reason!....I too believe that Allen enjoyed the publicity....sick $#@! that he was.
You the man Dave.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:18 pm: |
I know from interviewing Sandy Panzarella in 2002 that Allen, who was an acquaintance of his, like to mess with the minds of the police as much as Z did. He told me that.
The problem with all of the discussions of DNA is that we are forced in 2007 into having the wrong discussion. That is due to the misguided work by SFPD's lab in 2002. Before they did DNA testing the lab personnel should have gotten together with the detectives and decided on which piece of evidence represented the "best evidence" for identifying the man who had sealed the envelopes and licked the stamps.
At that point, the lab may have said that they had many envelopes and that they could test the stamps and seals for DNA. But the detectives should then have reminded them that all of the Zodiac letters were received before the advent of DNA analysis and that they'd have to worry about contamination, especially since they had also been out of the chain of custody at various times and sitting in a drawer (or worse, being handled by many people) in someone's "private files."
The lab would then have said, "Well in 1996, we were peeling back the stamps on some of the letters and came across a small hair that had bene embedded in the glue. It ws completely hidden behind the stamp." "Really?" the detectives wold have replied. That is very interesting because we know from our encyclopedic knowledge of the case that the eyewitnesses to the Stine murder said that Zodiac himself had reddish-brown hair. What color was the hair you found behind the stamp? "Reddish-brown."
There is where the lab people and the detectives blew it, IMHO. Instead of analyzing a single piece of evidence that almost surely comes from the killer for mtDNA, they analyzed the letters for "standard DNA." (The alternative is that by happenstance and bad luck, the hair comes from an innocent reddish-brown haired postal clerk, which is a risk I think they should have been willing to take given the odds of both Z and the clerk having the same hair color.)
Had SFPD/ABC done the initial testing of the piece of evidence that most likely comes from the person who licked the stamp, we would not be forced to debate the odds of there being contaminant DNA that was possibly taken from the stamp by the extraction technique they may have used and then magnified from obscurity into evidence by PCR.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:49 pm: |
1. The DNA evidence is disputible, and many people would agree on that. The fact that they didnt test all evidence (including all envelope flaps, stamps, and the hair) and only got a partial print should prove that the DNA is inconclusive. If they tested everything and the print matched consistently across the board it would better serve to rule Allen out as a suspect, but unfortunately it doesnt.
2. Prints: The prints that were lifted Stines cab are able to be disputed. But Allens print didnt match the palm print from one of the letters so you have a good point there.
3. Eye Witness: Some say Allen matched Z, others dont, its up to your interpretation. But MM did pick him out of a photo lineup.
4. What LE has officially eliminated Allen as a suspect? As of his death he was still very much a suspect, enough so that they served a new warrant and serached his house one last time looking for evidence, or a deathbed confession. Aside from the disputed DNA evidence nothing in regards to Allen has really changed all that much.
5. Allens writing looks extremely similar to Z's in my opinion, but Im not an expert, I just know what I see.
The circumstantial case they have against Allen is just as strong as the circumstantial case they had against Scott Peterson and he was convicted of murder. The prosecution never produced the proverbial smoking gun against Peterson that all the Allen naysayers emphatically say has to come up before Allen is proven guilty, and they had plenty of reasonable doubt in the Peterson case, same as Allen. Bring it to a judge today and Allen would be on death row right now.
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:34 pm: |
Exiled, I agree with all your points. I have to admit that my mind's been tainted by Graysmith's assertions. I'm going to throw out those damned books, take a deep breath and say, "Arthur Leigh Allen is NOT the Zodiac!"
|Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 6:20 pm: |
I don't think ALA is the Zodiac, either. However, I think it would be presumptuous to "put it to bed." He was obviously an interesting suspect. There are a lot of coincidences and circumstantial evidence regarding Allen. My own feeling about Allen is that he enjoyed the attention he gained from being associated with such an infamous killer. Still, just because I believe Allen is the "Melvin Foster" of the Zodiac case doesn't mean that I don't stand the chance of eating crow more than anyone else with a theory. I think all this talk of putting ideas to bed and muddying the waters only serves to close doors on ideas that we don't accept. This is the type of close-mindedness that keeps many cases from being solved. We should examine all the angles until the Zodiac is found. I also think it is arrogant to say that only experts can comment about DNA. Knowledge is readily accessible to everyone in these times and some of the points regarding DNA as evidence aren't really that scientific. The "experts" sure as hell haven't solved this case. Have you?