Bruce Davis and the "LADA cover-up"... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Other Zodiac Suspects » Bruce Davis » Bruce Davis and the "LADA cover-up" « Previous Next »

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

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 4:24 pm:   

Howard, I'm wondering, since you seem to be such an excellent judge of character considering that you know Don Fouke is a liar without a single shred of proof, how can you be certain that your former brother-in-law was telling you the truth about the LADA's office cover-up of the Zodiac crimes? I mean, let's face it; your ex-brother-in-law certainly can't be characterized as credible, now can he? I mean, he was involved in a cover-up of one of the most infamous series of murders in California history, broke his vow of silence by telling you about the cover-up, and then later denied that he knew anything about it to his ex-wife. Does that smack of credibility to you?

Furthermore, your claim is that part of the reason that the LADA's office chose to cover-up the Zodiac information was because they figured it would be too expensive to put on trial, the Manson trial having cost them $1,000,000. However, one of the biggest problems with that entire line of thinking is that the Zodiac case wouldn't have cost the people of LA a red cent because the Zodiac wouldn't have been tried in LA, but in San Francisco, Vallejo, or Napa. So, why in the world would the LADA's office make this determination for these other cities? Additionally, by making such a decision, didn't it in effect cause SF, Vallejo, and Napa to spend much MORE money? I mean, SFPD just recently closed the books on the Zodiac case, and I believe it's still an open case in Vallejo and Napa. You claim that you were told the case would be too expensive to take to trial (something in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 despite the "fact" that they'd uncovered the Lake Berryessa hood, knife, and "other incriminating evidence" at one of the Manson Family's hideouts), but I wonder how much money these various police agencies have spent over the years investigating these "unsolved" murders? I'll bet anything that it was/is substantially more expensive than the $2,000,000 it would have cost to try and attempt to convict Davis.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what makes you think that your "ex-brother-in-law DA" is a credible source. You seem to have such a firm grasp on who's credible and who isn't that I figured this would be a fair question to ask. Do you care to explain how you determined that your ex-brother-in-law was/is credible or, like with most everything else you theorize, do you not have any facts to support this assertion?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 7:44 pm:   

Scott,
In 1974 we were having a very small family gathering at my place.
Since my then BIL was an Assistant DA and I was from N CA I casually asked him why he thought the 'Zodiac killer stopped writing and killing,'etc.I knew little to nothing about the case,but I was curious about Z.

The account he gave to me were his words NOT mine.I did NOTHING on the Z case UNTIL April 15 1987 when I read in the Daily Breeze about an author named Robert Graysmith(pictured in a room)who wrote a book on the Zodiac case.
This reminded me of that conversation I had years ago.I thought of it from time to time and even talked to my ex about it as she kne my source ,etc.,but I was very busy with many different projects,but the more I thought about it I wanted-I now see it was a compulsion- to read that book and see what the case was really all about.
I went and purchased a copy of Zodiac and a little later a copy of Helter Skelter as my in law had indicated that a "male member of the Manson Family"was Zodiac.
He did NOT give me his name,but did say they'had him at the time on two counts of murder'or words to this effect.
He said he got 'life' and they 'had it set so that he would never get out.'

After I read both books I had a desire to research the case to DETERMINE IF his account was correct or see if there were any connections I could find to BD/CM and Z.

My first letter-in '87- was sent to the RSPD.No answer!I phoned,but I could get nothing so I became determined to learn all I could about the Z case.
I later teamed up with Zodiac expert and police reporter Dave Peterson.He gave me many documents on the case as he knew a great many of the detectives as well as officers He had been on the case since '68 nand around '71 or 2 felt that the CM group had some connection to Z and told detectives to investigate it,or at least look into the possibility.He said they were locked in to a local guy/s scenario.

It was Dave that broke the Z Zelms/Fouke talkie event as a"scoop."He carefully investigated and soke to several who would know about this situation and he was told by certain dectives that it did happen.He told me about his work on this area and was of the very firm opinion it did happen.You don't- he did-fine!

It has been a long tough journey and very expensive one,bit I keep slowly locating information that leads me to believe I am on to something.I am doing this because I want to.If I fail it matters not.I am trying to solve the Z case just like every other Zearcher is doing.I have the same hope they do-it will be solved.

I have thought of the victims many a time and their still grieving families.It has grieved me a great deal over the years.I am totally sincere and dedicated-right or wrong!

I have said that I have great respect for law enforcement and fully support them ,but many of them have serious flaws as I found out over the years.
Fouke was nominanted Officer of the Year.I brought that out in a past post,but this does not mean he told the truth in just this one area.I am not discounting his life work.I know,for example,in '67 when he working GG park area he was chasing some criminals and they fired five shots at him.

But,I have known long time detectives that were super,but I learned by obtaining reports,etc., that some had lied to me and others respecting certain case facts,etc.
I learned the hard way.It happens,but I don't discount their life work.I keep it in context.I look at the big picture.I know each one had their reasons for affirming what they did.I disagreed in that ONE area of case fact/s,but still respected their hard and very dangerous work.

To my disappointment I found that some drank heavily and would say things about a case that I later discovered was not true.
LT. Deemer and others opened my eyes as I had some dets.set up as gods as it were.Heavy drinking over the years can take it's toll on memory,judgment and all he rest.

I feel that Fouke was a good Officer,but I think that in this ONE area DUE to the gravity of the Z case at that time did not reveal the whole truth.You do and that's fine!

I do not consider my research project finished.That is for me to decide.My money-my time.

My 'source' was CHP.Then he became an Assistant DA in LA.and was part of the CM case.He then went to the FBI in Reno and from there to the DOJ.Due to a very severe back problem he has retired.

I did not and do not agree with what he said happened behind the scenes.
An old retired detective told me that 'kind of thing happens all the time,'but not to the degree of a infamous case like Zodiac,but he knew of at least two serial cases that were 'covered up' and the killer/s was left in prison in one state and not extradited for other cases in another state due to certain legal issues that they thought were important in keeping him behind bars.
If one state did not have the death penality and they did they would 'let it ride.'I don't agree,but this does happen.Not a lot,but it is a reality.
Deals are cut too,but we only hear of a few now and then.

My job now is try and confirm his account.
You do your work and I will do mine.
Disagree,but it will not stop me!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 8:55 pm:   

Howard; that is three hundred words that have nothing at all to do with the questions I am raising. That's the same cock 'n' bull story that you've been peddling for more than 10 years. It doesn't prove a thing! If "your work" consists of proving that the Family had something to do with the Zodiac crimes, then it should have become obvious to you that 'they' didn't the first day that you started investigating.

It's not your job to prove that B. Davis was the Zodiac; it's your job to prove that he wasn't. THAT'S what theorists do, Howard; they seek to make objective and rational arguments for why their theory is correct by seeking out the stuff that could potentially show that their theory is incorrect. That's not what you have done here.

What you've done here is give me (all of us) a scenario that I have to either deny or accept, which is not the way that a legitimate theorist approaches their work. I don't have to accept or deny that A or B is the correct solution when I know beyond certainty that point C hasn't even been considered.

This is not an attempt to polarize us Howard, although I'm sure that you will see it that way. I'm on an objective search for the truth just like you, Howard, and the Zodiac/Manson "connection" reeks of more bull than a three state rodeo championship.

If you really cared about the victims and their families, you'd want to know the truth rather than find random, tenuous, and misrepresented connections that don't exist. The "work" cannot be "You do your work and I will do mine" if we're not working on the same team in an objective search of the truth. If we are on that same team, Howard, then we have to accept the idea that our "suspect" just may not be the person that we once thought they were since there's absolutely ZERO evidentiary proof to support such a notion.

My question is simple, Howard, and it is this: Is it fair to characterize your ex-brother-in-law as a credible person given the information that you have given us?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 9:18 pm:   

Scott, try to imagine the trouble you would have had accepting another suspect/theory had you been the recipient early on in your Z research of the type of info Howard received. It's just not possible to remain unbiased under those circumstances.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 11:39 am:   

Howard and all posters:
I have the utmost respect for you Howard and all the research and commend you.
I wrote to the LADA office on 4/05 and I asked about Harry Martin's story and asked specifically about what you claim that your brother-in-law told you. I do not have a scanner or I would post it. So I will type it out. I was very specific with the questions I asked and here is the response.

Dear Ms. Heath I have checked out your inquiry. The information in the article.(HArry MArtin) as best I can determine it is not true.

Because I was a reporter during the Manson trial, I had an opportunity to view Bruce Davis quite closely when he surrendered and at subsequent court appearances. Those composites are not of Bruce Davis. And I was viewing him at the time those composites supposedly were made.

This office never linked the Manson murders or the defendants to the Zodiac Killings. There simply was no evidence of that. I do not know from whom this reporter got his information for his story, but it sounds like his "source" if he had one, had an overactive imagination. This story is written as if it is true, but there is absolutley no substantiation or even a hint that this came froma reliable source of information.

It also is not true that the material I have here in Los Amgeles on Bruce Davis is sealed. I know nothing about his prison records.

If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sandi Gibbons
Public Information Officer.
213-974-3528
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 11:49 am:   

Wow JB, that's quite a detailed response, at least compared to what you'd likely get from San Francisco, Riverside or Vallejo.

The bottom line is that we simply don't know who the Zodiac is, therefore Howard's theory might be correct, regardless of the validity of what his brother-in-law said.

Howard's always been great about sharing relevant info he's dug up about other suspects with those who are investigating them, and that's more than I can say about a lot of people.

Without Howard, we'd be missing a big chunk of our current info.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 8:14 pm:   

Tom wrote:

"Scott, try to imagine the trouble you would have had accepting another suspect/theory had you been the recipient early on in your Z research of the type of info Howard received. It's just not possible to remain unbiased under those circumstances."

Tom, you have got to be kidding me. If I had been told something by a less than credible source I doubt I'd even give it a second thought, much less keep pursuing the information for over ten years when not so much as a hint of evidence had ever surfaced to substantiate the claim. True theorists, especially those who assert that they are in search of the truth and care about getting to the bottom of it for the victims' sake, know how to maintain their objectivity; it's as simple as that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 8:24 pm:   

Thanks, JB, for your post. Sandi Gibbons is the second individual in less than a week who's affirmed that the idea of Davis' case file being sealed is a bunch of BS. The first individual is a law enforcement officer with the LAPD who shall remain nameless for the time being.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 8:33 pm:   

Who says the brother-in-law isn't credible? And if it turns out that he isn't, how was Howard supposed to know that a decade ago?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 11:12 pm:   

Tom, didn't you read my first post?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 11:16 pm:   

I sure did Scott, but you didn't include any corroboration for your claims against the brother-in-law and I don't recall ever reading them elsewhere.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 12:54 am:   

I sure did include corroboration, Tom. It's called common sense. If someone conspires to cover a crime, later discloses that cover-up to a non-participant, and then later denies that he ever said anything about a cover-up in the first place, he certainly can't be characterized as a credible individual. This is not to say he's blatantly lying, as that is but one possibility.

It's also possible that what was overheard was entirely misconstrued and then perpetually retold out of context. I'm not saying anyone is a liar here, I'm asking, "What's credible and what isn't?" I've never even met Howard's ex-brother-in-law, but I know enough about him via Howard's comments to know that he is someone less than credible. Besides, you shouldn't be asking me for corroboration, you should be asking Howard. I'm simply pointing out the obvious here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Wrecknball
Username: Wrecknball

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 2:24 am:   

I don't know why the brother-in-law can't be considered "credible". If what Howard says the DA did is true, it wouldn't even be considered an uncommon practice.

Randy Woodfield, the I-5 killer, committed crimes in both Oregon and California. He was tried and convicted in Oregon first, and sentenced to life. When it came time to extradite him to CA for his next trial...CA opted not to prosecute due to the expense of such a trial.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 3:13 am:   

That is a completely different scenario, Wreck. The case you refer to is a matter of public record, not a supposed cover-up. Remember, SFPD, Vallejo PD, and the Napa County Sheriff's Department have continued to investigate the Zodiac, or did for many years. Can you say the same with regard to the agencies in California that are/were relevant to the crimes you mentioned? I didn't think so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 7:15 am:   

Tom:
I agree totally about Howard, he is and still is a wonderful researcher and with out him we would be with out a big chunk on Z case. I did ask very detailed questions. Since I dont have a scanner I will copy the letter and send it to you. Do I use the address posted for the ordering?
Howard I love ya to death. Your the best.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seagull
Username: Seagull

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 10:26 am:   

Scott, If there was a cover-up why do you think they would uncover it, to you, now? Your source said they could get the file but did they get the file?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 11:31 am:   

Seagull, what do you mean when you say "would they uncover it, to you, now?" I suppose if it was a true cover-up then, no, they wouldn't uncover it for me. But that's if we assume there was ever a cover-up to begin with. My source looked to see if the Davis file was available and it is, which seems to be corroborated by what JB's source told her. Two different sources, the exact same response. I didn't ask for a copy of the file though. However, a behind-the-scenes Zodiac researcher did ask for a copy of the file, so we'll see what happens here in the near future.

JB, I will agree that Howard is a wonderful person, but to say he's a wonderful researcher is a different matter entirely. If Howard was told that the LADA's office covered up the Zodiac crimes, Howard should have devoted himself to uncovering the truth about that situation by contacting somebody, anybody, that would help him get to the bottom of it. The CADOJ, SFPD, Vallejo PD, LA's Internal Affairs, a private investigator, the CA Attorney General . . . anybody. That's what a rational person would do given the information Howard was supposedly given; not go on radio shows, write a book, etc., without first having all of the facts.

If Howard can call someone like Don Fouke a liar without a single shred of proof, then I'm certainly within my right to attempt to get to the bottom of this scenario by using the facts and common sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 3:07 pm:   

Scott:
Howard and I go back a long way. And I admire the man. I sent documents to back up my questions and got the detailed repsonse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 3:17 pm:   

I understand, JB, and I thank you for posting the response.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seagull
Username: Seagull

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 3:39 pm:   

Scott until someone has the file in hand I think the whole thing is moot. I hope you can get the file because I for one would like to see it. Until then it would be premature to speculate on anyone's credibility.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 5:16 pm:   

"Until then it would be premature to speculate on anyone's credibility."

Perhaps you see it that way, Seagull. I don't. Besides, what is Davis' police file going to say about Howard's ex-brother-in-law? Howard's ex-brother-in-law supposedly told Howard that he was involved in covering up the Zodiac crimes. Then he relayed this information to Howard. Then he later denied that he had anything to do with a cover-up or that he knew anything about the Zodiac case. That's all the information that one needs to know that Howard's ex-brother-in-law is not a credible individual.

If you feel that the case file on Bruce Davis is so important, why don't you seek a copy?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seagull
Username: Seagull

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   

Scott you must think the case file is important, you brought the subject up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 11:12 pm:   

It would be interesting to see what's in it, but the fact that two different sources confirm that it's readily available and not sealed, there can't be much more than what we already know.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 10:18 am:   

At work,but when I have the proper time I will correct all the errors that are being posted.Amazing!

I am not referring to my postulates as to a suspect,as this is my OWN choice,but to the 'account'and what it involved,etc.

After all it's my research and premise and I will defend it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 11:13 am:   

It really doesn't matter if Howard's original source is credible or not, as Howard has since found evidence on his own that he feels supports the original theory.

Kinda like me and Yellow Book; he told me a bunch of lies about Allen years ago and got me interested in researching him, then I exposed the lies and had a mountain of good info to replace the original bs with.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 3:53 pm:   

Seagull wrote:

"Scott you must think the case file is important, you brought the subject up."

I didn't bring up the subject of the case file. But, since it was mentioned, I commented on it. Howard has always maintained that the Davis case file was sealed; now two different sources have confirmed that this isn't true.

Howard wrote:

"At work, but when I have the proper time I will correct all the errors that are being posted. Amazing!"

Errors? I can't wait for your response, Howard; I'm in need of a good laugh.

Tom wrote:

"It really doesn't matter if Howard's original source is credible or not, as Howard has since found evidence on his own that he feels supports the original theory."

He has? That's funny; I don't remember ever seeing any evidence against Bruce Davis. Even Howard himself admitted on a certain radio show that the only evidence he had against Davis, or anything that implicated The Family whatsoever, was all in the letters. Has anybody ever come across any evidence that implicates the Manson Family in the Zodiac letters? Please post it if you have, I'd love to read it.

"Kinda like me and Yellow Book; he told me a bunch of lies about Allen years ago and got me interested in researching him, then I exposed the lies and had a mountain of good info to replace the original bs with."

You exposed the lies, Tom? Was this before or after "Graysmith Unmasked"? Do you plan on posting your "mountain of good info" about Allen anytime soon?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 4:36 pm:   

Scott, believe it or not, the exposing of Yellow Book didn't begin with GU. As early as 1999 I had already corrected the bs about Allen receiving a speeding ticket at Lake Berryessa, as well as the bs about Allen being in the RCC library the night Bates was killed. And so on. 1999, not 2003. Time to quit nuthugging Butterfield; he doesn't need the help.

Regarding Howard: I clearly stated that he's uncovered info that he feels supports the theory. It's irrelevant if we agree with him, Scott. Or are you saying that anyone with a perspective you don't happen to agree with is automatically wrong?

By the way, why aren't you attacking Doug? He has a theory and suspect just as Howard does. Doug also looks for ways to interpret the evidence to favor Kaczynski, just as Howard does with Davis.

You're being a hypocrite.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 4:42 pm:   

I was wrong -- the exposing of Yellow Book began at Zodiackiller.com in 1998, not 1999.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 7:07 pm:   

Scott, since you're taking Howard to task, it's your turn: You're being a totally biased hypocrite.

In an above post I referred to your curious attitude toward Doug. Here are a few things Doug and Howard have in common:

1) Both have a theory (based on a particular suspect) that is considered ludicrous by some

2) Both have offered publications for sale promoting their theories

3) Both have appeared in the media promoting their theories

So, the question is "Why doesn't Scott bash Doug the same way he bashes Howard?" The answer is simple: Scott finds Ted Kaczynski to be an acceptable Zodiac suspect and he doesn't consider Bruce Davis to be. Therefore, it's ok to go berzerk on Howard for his methods, but at the same time ignore Doug even though they are very similar.

Very hypocritical.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 7:27 pm:   

I'm being a hypocrite, Tom? Are you positive that that is a word that you want to be using so loosely? If so, it's completely laughable.

First of all, I'm the one who's taking on the responsibility of debunking Howard's theory, not Mike Butterfield. It's my work and my time. It's not my fault that there are others behind the scenes who have offered to help me. Mike Butterfield just happens to be one of a few. You're the one that needs to quit "nuthugging" (beautiful word, by the way; had never heard that one!) Howard; you are enabling him by giving him a forum with which to spread this Zodiac/Manson crap all over the Internet. You've admitted more than once that Howard's theory is a load of crap, yet you have continually shown that you hold Howard to a different standard than people like Kenny Kilgore, Carl, and Babba. And you're calling me a hypocrite? If I was tearing into Carl's theory, Rodelli's theory, Penn's theory, Graysmith's theory, et al, you wouldn't have a word to say about it, so why the double standard with Howard? Spare yourself the time answering that question, it's rhetorical. But it proves that you're every bit the hypocrite that you claim I am.

I've explained the difference between Howard and Doug more than once, but seeing how your message board gets deleted and edited with uncanny frequency; allow me to explain it again, for the record. Unlike Howard, Doug is a legitimate theorist by virtue of the fact that he's consistently followed the principles of correct theoretical practice. Also, unlike Howard, Doug has demonstrated on numerous occasions that his theory may in fact be wrong, and is amendable to the idea that his suspect may not be the Zodiac. Doug is also capable of objective and logical thought and is open to dissenting views without taking it personally. It's also not as if Doug theorized that the FBI conspired to cover-up the Zodiac crimes as Howard claims that the LADA's office did.

Furthermore, I am NOT attacking Howard; I'm attacking his theory, which is an entirely different thing. If you, Howard, or others feel that I am attacking him personally, let me assure you here and now that that is not the case at all. I think that the "Zodiac/Manson Connection" has more holes in it than a Roman bathhouse and I feel like discussing it on the message board. It's not like I'm demanding that people agree with me. Everyone is free to believe what they want with regard to this case, right? So why are you trying to minimize this subject as if it weren't important? Personally, I think it very important that people realize that there are people out here who have views contrary to that which have been regurgitated virtually unchecked for more than a decade.

Finally, Tom, I'm fully aware of your Ken Narlow discussion from 1998. I'm also aware that you ultimately fell into a situation where you had no choice but to update your site with that information. It's not like your update, which was the right thing to do by the way, was the first time that someone ever conceived that the Allen/citation story was a load of BS; Mike Butterfield knew, Jake Wark knew, and Peter H. knew, among others, or at least they speculated that it wasn't true.

I haven't in any way attacked you or Howard, so quit fighting Howard's battles for him. If this is truly an objective and honest discussion, then you should have no problem whatsoever with me taking a dissenting view of Howard's work. It's Howard's theory; let him be the one to prove me wrong. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. But you and I both know that I'm not, Tom.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 7:40 pm:   

"You've admitted more than once that Howard's theory is a load of crap..."

No, I have not. Ever. However, I have stated that I don't agree with his theory. Big difference.

"If I was tearing into Carl's theory, Rodelli's theory, Penn's theory, RG's theory, et al, you wouldn't have a word to say about it, so why the double standard with Howard?"

Scott, take a page out of Ed's book. When he "tears into a theory," it involves proving something didn't/couldn't have happened, not ranting about how dumb/deceptive the theorist is (at least not without some concrete proof to back him up).

Have you proof Howard is dumb or deceptive? I don't mean the brother-in-law, I mean Howard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 7:52 pm:   

"Have you proof Howard is dumb or deceptive?"

I've never said or implied that, Tom. Don't ask me questions that are entirely irrelevant to the situation. This isn't honest debate; you're running interference for Howard. Pure and simple.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 8:12 pm:   

Scott, if Howard's not dumb or deceptive, in your opinion, that means you're targeting him simply because of his interpretation of the available Zodiac information.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 8:33 pm:   

Tom, I'm targeting him for many more reasons than that, his unsubstantiated assertion that the LADA's office conspired to cover the Zodiac crimes being chief among them. But now you're getting the idea.

Can you imagine what Vincent Bugliosi would have to say given the chance about Howard's theory? But nobody ever takes the time to think about these things. I'm not the one accusing people of being deceitful and/or stupid here, Tom. It surprises me that I should have to point this out to you: I'm sure Mr. Bugliosi would just love to know that his entire department pulled one over his eyes during the Manson investigation and trial by conspiring to suppress the Zodiac case without his knowledge. Anyone who's willing to accept that as being factual after more than five seconds worth of objective thought should be slapped with a large trout. It's absurd on its surface.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 4:18 pm:   

I will post as I can.This is really to everyone who wishes to read my post.

jb,
If there is suppression,and just looking at this fact-not the Z case,in a case we will not find that information laying around for a reporter or researcher to find by ASKING for it!

The very nature of suppression is to keep a closed file AWAY from scrutiny.I think and only based on what I was told right or wrong,in my case that it was sent to CII,hence,the reaction or results as given in my last post.

In a secret or private meeting not everything would be on paper for obvious reasons.

We can't eliminate Davis or ANY Z suspect by that flat lifeless composite!We don't know if Z truly looked like that composite.Did he use a disguise?No one can say for certain that he didn't and the opposite is true.However,we can debate our views.

I went so far as to contact a lady who worked as a design analyist (or some such term!)at Xerox.

She did a facial overlay superimposing the second straight Z composite on clear plastic and Davis' face on clear plastic.
She showed me the basic structures were the same and then placed the composite illustration and BD photo over each other and they matched.
She had 'measured'all basic anatomical features by computer and found they were within acceptable ranges.FYI

This is a posting board -not a law enforcement agency.We all present our theories,views,persepectives and all the rest.We must never take this board for something that it is not.It is an OPEN forum period.

Scott( and I speak to him also)mentions the word"battle/s."This may be how he sees the board-I don't.
I think we should all ENJOY and look forward to placing our thoughts on the case and that's all they are based on our research and to the best of our abilities.
As fellow posters we should not be AFTER anyone!

Granted Z suspects are a very sensitive issue.MOST of my board time in the past has not been to try and dispel a suspect's validy.I feel the person who choses that suspect should do everything they can to find any evidence linking them to the Z case.

I have tried to help- in the background- in supplying tips,papers,info and where to look,etc.,to suspect oriented persons.I want the best person to win with justice for the victims and their families.
This case is totally unsolved.It was left unsolved by the authorities who mostly did their best,but now it winds up on discussion boards like this one.

I am very aware that MOST cases are solved by the police not by arm chair detectives.But I am also of the opinion that certain persons out in the public have contributed to case solutions too.

We suspect riders hope-just like the police do- that someone will step forward or some evidence will arise to help the pieces fall together.
It may never happen,but this does not stop us from hoping and researching.

For some the Z case is a hobby and it is a good one as I see it.

I fully understand where someone can't see why I would pursue my scenario and I feel the same in some cases about them!It's the human experience in these kinds of situations.

I made a mistake on this board (especially when you are at work!)about saying that I wanted to see if the info given to me was correct.This is verification.I use elimination AND verification to the best of my ability.

One example.If Lass were a Z victim then I wanted to verify if my suspect was ever in Lake Tahoe and when.
I was told that he and Tex Watson were there at least twice.
Then in a parole report(Bugliosi paid for-through an associate-for at least one or two of them!)I found that BD had "worked in Tahoe" and had a "fake driver's license."
Here is someone from a small town in TN and first comes out to CA in '63 then goes back to TN and returns to live in Anaheim,CA in'64.

This is an attempt to eliminate him from that crime Z or not as the perp;but it turns out it was verified-he was in Tahoe for a time.
Now,as to when and the hard part if he did do it.
This is a 'back deal' now if and when I find more info.

In a pioneering project it can take on any kind of twist or turn.You look in one place and the info can come from another source!

In the senario I have developed based on what I have found CM could have anyone that would murder for him-and he said he had 'several,'so this presents,in my view only as it is my set,a system where a certin male could kill and another write a letter,etc.

I wish to God I had a simple set,but I don't and I will keep pursuing even it doesn't make'sense' to someone.It is my deal not there's.Yes,they can 'expose'my research well and fine,but I will keep at it until convinced otherwise and this goes for all suspect folk!

More later.

OK,Scott Tom wasn't running interference for me.He is a straight out guy (you say you are up front too)and smart as hades too.
He says what he feels and it is HIS board.He pays the bills.Some of us send donations when we can.I hope you do?
If we use something that costs someone elses money we should, if and when possible, help them.You do agree?It's very EASY to jump posters on any thing they might say,but it's another thing to aid this board by giving some cash.Tom has had a very hard go of it.
I never asked him or anyone to run plays for me.

But I do feel he asked an important question and I am being serious -not playing smart guy here.Why don't you go after Mike R.'s work-suspect?Doug's research-guy,etc.?Do you feel they have the right or wrong guy?

How about our dear Sandy's suspect/s?I do think she and Mike are good respectful posters,but wondering why not?

Do you think Mike is on the right track with his Mr.X?Or Doug with his Unabomber?

Don't get me wrong.I DO NOT want you to go after anyone,but please give us a good reason for the seeming contradiction.

Do you agree with Butterfield on Z matters or Mike Kelleher?

See it from my side.It does seem and not just to me,but from others too,that you are after all things Howard while claiming you are not.
You are just against my case then fine,but how about spreading the love around friend.LOL

I have, over the years,tried to find out all I can from agencies or those that were part of law enforcement in some capacity as to whether there was a cover up.

So far I have not found anything except for the two detectives and the elder detective as mentioned that any files were sealed,etc.;and one reason is that you would have to speak to any of the participants in any kind of case suppression.This I have from LT. Deemer and others.
My source won't talk to me about it now.He did in a casual conversation in '74 ,but I personally think it was one of those unguarded moments around a family member who would in his view-do nothing about such info.

I really think you need a different spirit.You can disagree,but not with such rancor.I am trying to behave and I hope you will too.

In person you are kind and gracious,but when you get behind a computer wow!

If you wish to talk by phone then fine.I am not a good typist as everyone knows and I spend too much time watching my fingers on characters than 'conversing' by key board as well as you and others do.I try,but it's easier to talk by phone and we can continue with this medium too.

Too much of my time has gone into this.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 8:02 pm:   

Howard, if this is an open forum in which to express our thoughts, ideas, and theories, as you claim, then why are you opposed to my expressions of opposition to your theory? You're not saying that your position on the case is more important than mine and others' are you? I've expressed that I am not in any way attacking you on a personal level, but instead attacking your theory. I'm asking you some very direct and pointed questions and, as usual, you are ignoring them. For the sake of completeness however, I'll address your major concerns:

With regard to Tom, you wrote:

"He says what he feels and it is HIS board. He pays the bills. Some of us send donations when we can. I hope you do? If we use something that costs someone elses money we should, if and when possible, help them. You do agree? It's very EASY to jump posters on any thing they might say, but it's another thing to aid this board by giving some cash."

Howard, how much I give or don't give to Tom has nothing AT ALL to do with the subject at hand. I have donated in the past but haven't recently because I have a new addition to my family that is, well, a whole lot more significant to me than the well-being of Tom's message board. I donate and contribute where I can, but even if I didn't it doesn't matter for squat: it doesn't address the issues at hand. I've asked for a user password and have been given one, and I'm free to post my position on Zodiac related subjects just as you are. If Tom chooses to ban me that is his choice, but until that time comes I'm devoted to exposing as much Zodiac BS as possible. Perhaps then, when the Fincher movie potentially ignites record numbers of visitors to this website, people will have a more realistic idea of what the Zodiac case is all about. I'm not saying that I'm an authority on the Zodiac case, but I do have a good BS detector and am not afraid to use it. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong; a true theorist lives to be wrong, in my honest opinion. Knowing what isn't true is the key to knowing what is, especially in situations where no hard evidence exists.

You asked:

"But I do feel he asked an important question and I am being serious - not playing smart guy here. Why don't you go after Mike R.'s work-suspect? Doug's research-guy, etc.? Do you feel they have the right or wrong guy?"

Howard, you must be joking me, right? I know the MB in its present incarnation has only existed since April of this year, but there have been numerous message boards over the years and I know that you've been here longer than I have. Certainly you must recall that I've asked pointed questions to ALL of the people that you mention. I was THE first message board member to openly criticize Mike Kelleher's book, and it took Mike Rodelli the better part of three years to forgive me regarding the things I had to say about his suspect. As for Mike Butterfield, he and I used to go head to head on the Allen issue before Tom ultimately banned him from the message board for his position against Allen as a Zodiac suspect. Mike and I still do battle over the JFK conspiracies, among other things. With regard to Doug, I've explained the differences between you and him many times. See above. Suffice it to say, however, Doug has never proclaimed that the FBI conspired to cover-up the evidence that implicated Kaczynski in the Zodiac crimes, while, conversely, you have made the claim that the LADA's office conspired to cover-up The Family's involvement in the Zodiac crimes, all beneath the nose and without the involvement of Vincent Bugliosi. Where is your proof for that stuff, Howard? If that's not a legitimate question worthy of being asked in this very cold case, then what is? Everything is a freakin' conspiracy in your theories, Howard. Why is that?

"Don't get me wrong. I DO NOT want you to go after anyone, but please give us a good reason for the seeming contradiction."

As I've explained, that is absolutely not true. There isn't a contradiction, Howard. I'm very confident in saying that anyone's theory is subject to scrutiny from me. I've exempted nobody, and am being as genuine and true as I can to principles of objectivity. You're right, Howard, this isn't a police department, but that doesn't mean that we have to dumb-down or set a lower standard for discussion on this message board, does it? A message board is only as good as its participants; it's a team sport, which should be made all the more significant by the fact that it involves the lives of actual people. Maybe you want to play fast and loose with the facts, Howard, but I'm not down with that. Or, at least, make a genuine effort not to be.

"I really think you need a different spirit. You can disagree, but not with such rancor. I am trying to behave and I hope you will too."

Howard, there's nothing wrong with my spirit. Would you be more content if I just sat obediently in the shadows without voicing my opinion and commenting on outright and egregious errors? Sorry man, that's simply not how I am. Please don't feign that this is a surprise to you, it's an insult to both of us.

Howard, I'm open to discussion in any forum you prefer: phone, email, or via the message board. But that's not going to make a difference when it comes to the relevant issue: That the LADA's office conspired to suppress/cover-up the Manson Family's involvement in the Zodiac case. I don't think I'm overstepping my boundaries, acting insulting, or making ridiculous claims here. I'm asking very basic, straightforward questions: Do you have any proof of your ex-brother-in-law's involvement in an LADA conspiracy to quash any connection between The Family and Zodiac? That question goes to the very heart of your theory, Howard; if you can't answer it then nobody can.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 12:25 pm:   

Howard:
I sent my request to Steve Cooley the LA.DA. And SANDY GIBBONS: is the one who responded. I have never considered this message board a law enforcement agency. That was a stupid remark. Because no one on this board thinks that.
Well here is a question for you. Instead of going to someone from ZEROX why don't you go to the authorities? SOMEONE CREDIBLE...PERIOD...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 4:52 pm:   

jb,
I just posted a very long detailed message to you explaining my stance and the things you have mentioned complete with my sincere apologies to you and now it's gone!!!
I made sure that if I spent so much time on a post that it would be up for sure.Not so!

This has happened to some of my other posts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 5:41 pm:   

Howard, I can say with 100% certainty that I've never deleted your posts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 1:19 pm:   

Howard:
Thank you and I did not see the post you mentioned. I would loved to have read it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 2:51 pm:   

jb,
I will recap in a terse manner soon.Thanks for your understanding.

TV had nothing to do with the post,of course,just wondering how it happened.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 4:41 pm:   

How about my questions, Howard? Are you going to get to them anytime soon?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 5:22 pm:   

Howard, I wish I could have seen the post too. I am investigating other cases involving LAPD, and the time period of this info fits in. Ron Karenga, Donald DeFreeze, RFK, Manson, Bruce Davis, Danny DeCarlo. I don't want to get in the middle of the Howard/ Scott war, just want to further my own quest for knowledge about the era.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:49 am:   

VD:
I have the murder book that shows all the murders for Ramparts from 1970-77. Would you like me to send it to you? Email me....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:45 pm:   

jb001C:\mysettings\mydocuments\jboo1.jpeg
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:59 pm:   

I had some trouble sizing this to fit. Jb asked me to scan it. I'll let her comment on it. The 3rd line up from the bottom reads "It is also not true that the material I have here in LA on Bruce Davis is sealed. I know nothing about his prison records."

I also have the original envelope and it is postmarked 4-15-05 to jb.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 1:32 pm:   

Thanks, Dave!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 1:23 pm:   

After reading the Harry Martin story about the Zodiac killer and Bruce Davis I had more questions than answers. But one thing I did after learning that there was a confidential file on Davis was contact the L.A. D.A. Steve Cooley and got the response that VD was nice enough to post for me.
I got tired of hearing this person say this and this person say something else, but yet no one was coming up with any facts. And being a former Grand Juror, I wanted facts and that is where this letter comes in.
I in no way tried to offend anyone in my own research of this case. I simply did the easiest thing I could think of GO TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION...There was no reason to go to Harry Martin as I had his story...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:52 pm:   

Scott, you're welcome.

Howard, this post of the letter is by no means an attempt to discredit your work. I posted it objectively. I have no reason to suspect that you are distorting the facts. You have come up with some valuable info--Diane Zelms--your post about Stine's brother in Modesto( I forget which thread it is on)--keep up the good work.

And jb, this is kind of a "World Exclusive" too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:19 am:   

I have an explanation as to how Diane can still be credible and truthful and yet not be talking about the actual encounter where her husband and Fouke drove by Z. I proposed this some months back: that Eric Zelms remembered another encounter with someone where he and Fouke actually did stop and talk to someone near the crime scene after driving by Z (or had direct knowledge of such an encounter), and he later thought that the second encounter was what Z was claiming in his 11-9-1969 letter rather than the first one (since he didn't see Z but may have actually spoken to the second man), and he told Diane who then reported it to Howard.

We know that Fouke has said that Zelms did not see Z when they drove past him at 3712/3728 Jackson Street, so Zelms cannot have later connected that first encounter to Z. It is the only explanation that fits.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 3:46 pm:   

Ed, it's also quite possible that Eric Zelms exaggerated the events of 10/11/69 to his wife and she later told this exaggerated story to Howard. There are all kinds of ways in which Diane Zelms can remain credible regardless of what she conveyed to Howard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:21 pm:   

This is true, Scott. I'm just attempting to make sense of everything (while discounting Z, Toschi and Yellow Book as noncredible in this matter) so that it fits with the known facts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   

jb,
Hello!Since 1987 I have done my best as a person not involved in law enforcement to uncover or verify the account that was given to me as I have posted.

I have spent thousands of hours along with dollars to match that amount on general and specific case facts.I guess it is my only 'hobby,'but I do have alturistic feelings for all those who were victims of Zodiac.

I have contacted those in the field,including retired police reporter and Z expert Dave Peterson who ended up researching with me.
The best I could do,in the end or at this point, was to locate two private detectives(one had been an officer with Monterey PD and had 'looked for Zodiac' in the past)that had a 'older'detective contact in Co.
This man,in turn,had a contact with a CII archivist that located records for him on the difficult cases he was working on.It's done all the time.
The two detectives used the elderly Co. detective's source,but like for the Co guy there was a 'fee.'They paid both the Co.contact and he,in turn, gave a portion of the amount to his archivist.This is what they told me.

After I told them my '74 information they decided to check it out.They said they would get Davis' files.We are NOT talking about standard arrest records.I have that kind of information and his prison reports with mental evals.'
Any 'spokesperson' would not know about any such meeting this serious.If some in the DA's Office covered up a private meeting and the info it would NOT be there for anyone to find!Anyone who wishes may believe otherwise.Fine.

I think that the LADA file was sent to CII as per my information.Of course,arrest records are available,but we are talking about records pertaining to this meeting and it's outcome.

They or these two detectives were to determine IF his file was 'sealed' or available,etc.They were really checking up on me!

They were very confident they could give me Davis'complete file.I was very excited.

They later called me at work to come over to their office which wasn't far.

When I arrived fully thinking I would find if BD's file was sealed and that I would at least have a more detailed file than I already had, one of them(his last name was Davis!)told me that their Co.contact called them and said that the CII contact said by phone(who had been 'very sure'he would get the records),'What the hell did this Davis do anyway' or words to this effect.

The CII contact said that he went to the physical file and it wasn't there.It had a computer number,etc.,but when he clicked it said the records were 'not avaiable.'This was the first time ever he had run into this kind of situation.

He later contacted another archivist(I call them archivists)who had been at CII longer than him and that man found out that they were 'in the safe upstairs and that it would 'require a court order to unseal them.'
He said he could 'get Manson's records,'(I think he said Watson's too)etc.,but'why they had Davis sealed was beyond him' or words to this effect.

The two detectives were amazed to say the least as they had promised me those records if they could at all get them.They were positive there would be no problem,hence,my excitement at the time.It was also done to check on my story too-which they now believed had some credence.

I have offered to do a lie detector test with a qualifed professional.

I have in an honest and truthful manner told the Board why I got into this case and it was that '74 information and the GS book.
I have accurately reported that conversation as given.It was NOT my information-it was given to me.
At the time I had no interest in true crime and all the rest.I was very busy earning a living-surviving as it were!I knew very little about Zodiac and legal machinations and the like and was firmly assured by my source that they had it,'set so that he would never get out of prison.'
Something else too I have not said.After I asked what he thought about 'Zodiac not writing letters and killing,'he said,"I will tell you if you will keep it secret."I assented and thought he meant as long as he was with the DA's Office.
He could easily deny my account of the '74 conversation.I had no proof of anything.

Later,in '87 when I heard he had gone to the FBI via my ex-wife,I felt I could at least research the case.I never realized I would go so far and invest thousands of dollars and hours in such a project.I have several full boxes of Z material in storage.Yes,one does get Zooked.

Of course,no one has to believe my source or me.Fine!!!I will say I started this case when I read about GS' book.If it had not been for his book I would probably would have left it alone.

I have found enough about Davis to keep me interested.He is MY selection and he is my responsibility unless anyone else is crazy enough to do the work!
My real interest is the case itself and if I can share Z information I find with others then that is reward enough.

If it is ever discovered Z is an UNSUB or some known suspect I will be happy with everyone else.A Zarty is called for!!!

When I made the remark about this Board not being a legal tool of the authorities or that it doesn't have law enforcement authority,etc.;I was referring not to you,but to some who act like it does.

One thing.I was exchanging letters with LT.Howard Hurlbut-I know you know him as lead in the DV raid of '69,he was very gracious and sent police reports to me.I offered payment,but he declined.I later was able to send him some info he wanted so I felt like I repaid him in some small way.
He wanted the letter exchange to be between us only and for me not to tell anyone where I got the info.After he died then 'it didn't matter.'
He has as you know Brig,' passed away.

Anyway,one day I get a letter from him asking me why I told the authorities he gave me police info,etc.!
I was very suprised as I told NO ONE.
He later told me that someone from the LA DA's Office contacted him in Carson City,Nevada and asked why he was exchanging letters with me!

I swear that to this day I do not know how they knew this fact,unless he told them;but he was concerned that anyone would find out about the police reports,etc.,he sent to me.I really am puzzled by this one.

More later.When you find out your mom has cancer it's hard to stay focused and post.Jumping in and out for now.

I will answer any questions.

Keep up your good research!

Ed,
I don't agree.I spoke to her and agree or not-she is very firm that her husband Eric zelms soke to zodiac.I questionened her from EVERY single angle.
So you must then claim she is not telling the truth(OK fine)because her account and convictions wil NOT allow for your scenario.

I do think it's good to look from this angle(the same for the Lass case-I do not agree with your supposition but fine),of course,as you have done.
I do NOT concur,but this is what the Board is all about-sharing ideas and opinions,etc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 6:42 pm:   

Oh man, here we go again . . .

Howard, you'd save yourself a lot of time if you simply had Jim Nelson concoct a form letter for you. You could head it with the title: "The Top 25 Reasons Why My Suspect Isn't the Zodiac but I Believe It Anyway." Think about it, Howard. I want royalties if you use the title, though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 6:46 pm:   

Howard, considering Fouke was there and claims that Zelms did not see Z, I have no recourse but to suggest that Zelms recalled another incident that occurred that night. There is far more to the story that still needs to be told, and it will be, in due time, and that is why my original suggestion may turn out to have been the right explanation all along.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 6:51 pm:   

Scott,
You got it.Will you accept wire transfers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 7:22 pm:   

"You got it.Will you accept wire transfers?"

Who wouldn't?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 8:33 pm:   

" I have offered to do a lie detector test with a qualified specialist". That's great stuff Howard, and maybe Jim could take one too. That would be an asset to this site, and to your web site. You could link it!

Sorry to hear about your Mom. I hope you have the time to be with her.

Let's Talk Turkey about the above letter. CCU, CII, the FBI, and COINTELPRO agents had something going on in LA in 68 and on.(Thanks to Nixon and Hoover). I don't believe that they would release their secret files to clerks in the LADA's office. The whole idea was secrecy and counter terrorism strategies. Howard may be on to something really big here. I think the secret plans included the SF area also.

Ironic, isn't it? We were all being spied upon in the 60's, and it is getting worse today.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 9:04 pm:   

Dave, are stating your opinions, or are you prepared to provide facts? If conspiracy theories were like a**holes, we'd all have three.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:35 am:   

Howard - I would like to thank you for all your research. I think you freely give.

My question is could it be possible that Davis's file is not accessable, not because he might be Zodiac, but because he was Manson Family. Maybe all, or part of the Family's files are off limits?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:25 am:   

Scott, some of it is my opinion, but I have done extensive research on the government's attempt to destroy the Panthers and other Radical groups in the 60's and 70's. The Manson case would of course be included in this. Some really underhanded methods were used to fight the battle. To make a long story short, my point is that CII, CCU, LAPD would not risk any of these top secret programs being leaked to the public. Therefore the need to keep certain files very, very inaccessable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 3:08 pm:   

"Therefore the need to keep certain files very, very inaccessable."

Fair enough, Dave. But how to you account for the fact that two different sources have affirmed that the Davis files are accessible?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 4:35 pm:   

Scott, excellent point. I'm not sure how to explain that. Only that there may have been two files-one accessable to the public, and one or more in deep cover, but this is only my conjecture. Some really audacious acts were committed by FBI and Cointelpro forces, including assassinations, both physical and character, kidnappings, muggings, break ins and much more. I doubt if they would want reporters and amateur investigators nosing around these activities.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:14 pm:   

That's all well and good, Dave, but there are some problems with this line of thinking that spring immediately to mind. First of all, I'm talking about the LADA's office, which, at the time in question here, was being headed by Vincent Bugliosi, correct? This is a problem in and of itself if we are to believe the ex-brother-in-law story. To wit, Vincent Bugliosi is someone whom Howard admires as it were; he's credited and quoted in Howard's book, after all. However, if we are to believe the story that Howard's ex-brother-in-law supposedly told, that requires us to believe either one of two things: 1. Vincent Bugliosi is one of the dumbest men alive, or 2. Vincent Bugliosi is one of the most corrupt men alive. What other alternative is there? Either his co-workers in the LADA's office were pulling one over on him, or he was involved for some motive such as money. The bitter irony of this should be obvious.

So what does Mr. Bugliosi, or any other agency or organization he may or may not have been involved with, going to get out of NOT publicly exposing the Zodiac case as well? What better way to represent 'the powers that be' to the public than to show that you are capable of foiling two major and concurrent California murder cases? Do you honestly believe that Bugliosi would have hesitated for a second at the chance to bring all of these criminals to justice even it would allegedly cost three times as much? Or, did Bugliosi just bury the Zodiac stuff because he wasn't going to be able to prosecute the Zodiac himself?

C'mon, unless there's actual evidence to support these types of scenarios, the very concepts themselves are as outlandish as the notion that Zodiac used severed fingers to leave fingerprints on Stine's cab.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:18 pm:   

"the very concepts themselves are as outlandish as the notion that Zodiac used severed fingers to leave fingerprints on Stine's cab."

You're right, Scott; a guy who kills people with a foot-long knife while wearing a friggin' executioner's costume and claims to leave fake clues would never do such a thing.

Gimme a break...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:57 pm:   

Tom, here's your break: 4 eyewitnesses.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:04 pm:   

Eyewitnesses who wouldn't have been able to see Zodiac do such a thing based on where the prints were located.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:09 pm:   

Bugliosi may or may not be an admirable man. I don't know him. If he did such an admirable job, why didn't he get bumped up to the Presidential cabinet, like Edwin Meese from Alameda County?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:17 pm:   

Tom, are you seriously telling me that the eyewitnesses couldn't see the outside of the driver's side of the cab, the very side that they were looking at? I suppose Zodiac must have been carrying three fingers then, since all were different and all were in blood.

What does that have to do with what I posted earlier anyway, other than an excellent analogy on my part? What side are you on, Tom? Are you saying Bugliosi is dumb, corrupt, or neither?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:24 pm:   

"If he did such an admirable job, why didn't he get bumped up to the Presidential cabinet, like Edwin Meese from Alameda County?"

Gosh, Dave, I didn't know that was the yardstick by which admirable traits were judged. Is it always true that you need to know somebody to know whether they are credible or not? You obviously must not think so if your stance is that any of the agencies you mentioned were corrupt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:25 pm:   

Scott, Zodiac was carrying a cloth that he was apparently wiping the cab with. Perhaps something was in the cloth. Did those witnesses have X-ray vision?

Regarding Bugliosi: I truly don't care about him and don't care to comment. I'm sure he's a heck of a nice guy, but my concern is with you and the way you're behaving here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:34 pm:   

Oh, I see, Tom. And exactly how am I behaving? You're not even debating the issue at hand, but instead pointing a finger at me for something I'm not guilty of. Yeah, that seems fair. I duly note that you believe the 'severed finger' scenario is viable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:43 pm:   

The scenario is viable because it could have happened and because it wouldn't exactly have been out of character for a guy like Zodiac. Is that ok? Am I now next on your list?

Please stop attacking Howard. On the other hand, you could start a thread in the Zodiac Books topic under the section devoted to Howard's book, where you could challenge his findings based on evidence you've uncovered showing his conclusions were faulty. No, I don't mean attacking him because his interpretation of information is different than yours. I mean challenge his findings based on evidence you've uncovered showing his conclusions were faulty.

Think you can do that without namecalling? Or is it easier to just attack them over a difference of opinion?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:59 pm:   

If you think that this amounts to a difference of opinion, Tom, you are the one who needs to examine the evidence. Again, I fully attest that I did not call Howard one name that I can't provide evidence of. If I were just shooting off at the mouth, THAT would be name calling, Tom. I never called Howard a liar, that's what Howard did to Don Fouke. I honestly believe that the descriptive terminology that I used to describe Howard is accurate, therefore I am not attacking him personally but have, and will continue to, attack his theory. Take a look at these threads, Tom, and point to one instance where I was being disingenuous. If you can do that, I promise to never hassle you or Howard again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:47 pm:   

Most people without a personal agenda would probably bring up stuff like "Hey Howard, how could Bruce Davis be the Zodiac when two days after a clean-shaven, shorthaired Zodiac killed Stine, Davis was captured with long hair?"

Compare Howard's theory with known Zodiac evidence and pick it apart from there like an adult. That's not what you do. You pick an item that is subject to opinion, such as trusting Diane Zelms story or that of Donald Fouke, and then you attack him because you disagree with his opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nick
Username: Nick

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 1:25 am:   

After I told them my '74 information they decided to check it out.They said they would get Davis' files.We are NOT talking about standard arrest records.I have that kind of information and his prison reports with mental evals.'
Any 'spokesperson' would not know about any such meeting this serious.If some in the DA's Office covered up a private meeting and the info it would NOT be there for anyone to find!Anyone who wishes may believe otherwise.Fine.


They were very confident they could give me Davis'complete file.I was very excited.

The CII contact said that he went to the physical file and it wasn't there.It had a computer number,etc.,but when he clicked it said the records were 'not avaiable.'This was the first time ever he had run into this kind of situation.

Howard, I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that the private meeting minutes were missing from the DA's case file, or the entire Davis case file was sealed because of those minutes?

By the way Howard, stay focused on your mother right now. That's far more important than any type of debate carried out here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:39 pm:   

Howard:
I am very sorry to hear about your mom. my condolences to you and your family....

Thanks for that very interesting post...I started my research into Manson back in 1991 and then Z in 2000. I've worked with Bill Nelson on quite a few things and one thing that comes to mind is there was a guy who approached Sandra Good (Blue) of the Manson family with Manson's complete prison file. And this was back in 99 or 2000 of course Blue turned this guy down flat. And he got intouch with Bill,he gave Bill the file and Bill read through it and the guy wanted 20,000$ and Bill called me and asked me what to do and I told him that I would call his contact at the Prison system and have them come and get the file. Because if he kept it he could go to jail. So they picked it up.

Then later Bill was trying to do Research on Beasoliel and called Sacramento and they would not give him any info on Beausoliel, because he wanted to go to the parole hearing. Then his files and whereabout all became confidential..

Well that was due to the Aryan Brotherhood put out a hit on Beausoleil and Ca. did a prisoner exchange with Oregon. Well then his info gradually got posted on the net.

I recently wrote a letter to the Board of Prison terms in Ca and OR. fighting against parole for Beausoleil and I got him a 3 year denial with the information that I uncovered. Beausoliel had an art exhibit in LA....I also sent this info to Gov. Schwarzenegger and to the Hinman family via LADA.

My next project is to fight against Davis getting parole.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seagull
Username: Seagull

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 3:33 pm:   

Jb I read about Bobby's parole hearing and denial last Spring. Here is his response.

http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/03/bobby-is- appealing.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:13 pm:   

Scott Bullock and I had a nice talk on Friday. Everything's cool and he has nothing personal against Howard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jbheath
Username: Jbheath

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:56 pm:   

Seagull, Thanks for the post info.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 7:07 pm:   

It's true, Tom, I don't have anything personal against Howard. I do have a problem with his theory though, but I apologize if I was being unnecessarily caustic about it. I admit that I get very frustrated when my questions go unanswered, and I'm also a bit miffed at him for labeling Don Fouke as a liar without proof.

Here are some major problems with the alleged "Zodiac/Manson Connection" that I feel deserve discussion and need reconciliation before any real legitimacy should be offered to this theory:

1. This question has been asked many times, even by me, which is why I haven't included it thus far in this thread, but since Tom mentioned it in another thread, I will do so again: How can Bruce Davis be the Zodiac when two days after the murder of Paul Stine, Davis was arrested and had long hair and a partial beard?

2. Is Howard's "source" truly credible? I've already detailed why his (the source, not Howard's) credibility should be questioned in previous posts, including the first post of this thread. This is a discussion board folks, let's discuss it.

3. I have serious problems with the notion that the LADA's office covered-up a connection between The Family and Zodiac.

First of all, what would be their motivation to do so? Secondly, three different sources have now affirmed that the Davis files are readily available, contrary to the assertions that have been put forth by Howard Davis, Jim Nelson, and Bill Nelson (God rest his soul -- In most instances I'm going to refrain from mentioning Bill Nelson for the simple fact that he is deceased and therefore unable to answer on his own behalf. In this instance, however, he was one of those who believed that certain case files weren't obtainable). Furthermore, if the files are sealed, then that means a judge has to be part of this cover-up as well. And if a judge didn't seal the file/s, then they are available, otherwise the files that are being referred to simply don't exist. Most people who cover-up things typically try to cover their tracks, not document them. Finally, let's not forget that the actions we are talking about here are a crime, pure and simple. So, exactly how does one go about convincing not only a judge, but police officers and other prosecutors within the DA's office to commit such an act? Let's be clear here, it's not as if the LADA's office contacted SF, Vallejo and Napa on the matter and they were all in agreement that the "hood, knife, and 'other incriminating evidence'" were enough to show that Bruce Davis had committed the Zodiac crimes so these agencies opted not to prosecute him because he was already in prison for life; that would be somewhat reasonable. Instead, it's being asserted that the LADA's office took it upon their selves to quash any connection between The Family and Zodiac without telling the agencies involved for reasons unknown. I'm sorry, I simply don't buy the "2 million dollar to prosecute" scenario as it wouldn't have been the LADA's office that would be prosecuting Bruce Davis for the Zodiac crimes.

4. This "cover-up" simply couldn't have worked without Vincent Bugliosi's participation as has been suggested by Howard Davis, Jim Nelson, et al. I know for a fact that Vince Bugliosi was the ONLY member of the LADA's office who accompanied law enforcement officials who did the searches at the Spahn Ranch and Barker Ranches. This was Bugliosi's case and, contrary to what some believe, his staff was pretty small. Bugliosi knew the evidence inside and out; if there was a cover-up he would have known about it, there's simply no other logical explanation.

5. Howard, a very serious question for you: In "The Zodiac/Manson Connection" you go as far as quoting Vincent Bugliosi. This can only mean that you had to have corresponded with him some way or another. Therefore, I'm wondering, seriously, did you ever mention your ex-brother-in-law and tell Mr. Bugliosi about his claims? And, if so, what did he have to say about it?

Okay, I'm seriously leaving things open for discussion here. I'm not looking for anyone to side with me; I'm looking for honest debate. I'm not the end-all be-all authority on this subject; I'm just trying to get some of these issues addressed in an honest fashion. I'm not calling Howard a liar, I'm not being obtuse, and I'm not name-calling. All I'm asking is that people take an objective look at what I've written and then comment on it. If a connection between The Family and Zodiac can be made then that is certainly something worth discussing, so let's discuss it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jmorris
Username: Jmorris

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:54 pm:   

Scott_b wrote:
"First of all, I'm talking about the LADA's office, which, at the time in question here, was being headed by Vincent Bugliosi, correct? "

For what it's worth, Vincent Bugliosi was never the head of the LADA's office, at least according to Wikipedia (I assume by "head", you meant that Bugliosi was the LA County DA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County_Di strict_Attorney
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:53 pm:   

You're right, Jmorris, he wasn't the head of the DA's office; he was the lead prosecutor of the Manson trial.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 5:01 pm:   

Bugliosi produced a book, and movie rights were given. I'd like to hear from some of BD's public defenders, if they are still around. I don't know enough about the BD case to project if there was a cover-up by LADA office. But I do know there are many questions about LAPD, and I assume LADA, in the pursuit of the Black Panthers and other radicals during the same time frame. Bernard "Lots a Poppa" Crowe was allegedly a Panther, according to Helter Skelter. Did different investigating agencies knock heads with each other, unbeknownst to them at the time, and later have a need to cover up their action plans?

You can see similar activities in the Watts Riots, the OJ case, and stepping back a bit, to the SLA shootout . Don't you think the LAPD had advance, secret intelligence, to deploy what is equivalent to an Army Battalion to the house in S Central LA? This was televised live during the Watergate Hearings, btw.---On topic--LADA and LAPD had reason to keep some activities Top Secret.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 6:45 pm:   

I see what you are saying, Dave, sort of. Even if there was corruption elsewhere -- I'm not saying there was, but IF -- it just doesn't sit right with me in this instance. Evelle J. Younger was the DA in Los Angeles during the time of the Manson crimes and the Zodiac crimes. At the time of the Manson trial, Younger was looking to be elected Attorney General of California. If he'd had a chance to bag both the Family and the Zodiac at the same time, don't you think he'd have had a decided advantage over his opponents when poll day came rolling around? I do. Younger did indeed become the Attorney General of California and served as such from 1971 to 1979. Given his political aspirations, do you honestly believe it was in his best interest not to help solve the Zodiac murders?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:01 pm:   

That seems to be the end of his political career, but I'm sure he has a lucrative private life !

Yes, I think it was in his best interests not to solve the Zodiac case.--Murky water. Could have cost him votes!

Younger was looking to be appointed Attorney General of the US, but his career got sidetracked.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:22 pm:   

The point still stands; Younger would have used every means at his disposal to propagate his political gain, as do all politicians. Helping snag the Zodiac would have been precisely the ticket. He ran for California governor once and was defeated.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nick
Username: Nick

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:13 am:   

Dave, the documented history of the LAPD, LASD and LA DA's office is chock full of corruption, conspiracy and coverup. You've mentioned a few of the whoppers. In those cases however, and as spurious as it may seem today, there was a perceived means to an end. I've yet to see a truly legitimate reason for a Bruce Davis/Zodiac coverup on the DA's part. I just don't see any jurisdiction issues here. Davis would have been turned over to face the more serious charges up north. It would not have jeopordized or complicated the Manson case to any significant degree and would have actually saved the county money by taking one less defendant to trial. I just don't see the upside of a coverup in this case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:19 pm:   

I am going to do my best to answer.Pleae forgive me but my slowness in typing and constant interruptions are a problem.Sometimes I have windows and try to post.

I don't need fighting and rangling.I have enough pressure already!

Working 9:00 AM-10:30 PM most days can be taxing and I don't feel I need to spend time on this board when I have so many other things to do.
I have put in the poster time for years-even holidays- so I stand on that.

As to Fouke Scott,I will say as I said before with posts on his past record(and I am going to post another positive exploit of his)that he was a good Officer,but I don't agree with his version of the stop and that is it.Time will tell.
Using the term "Fouke tales"on my part was not in keeping with good posting so sorry on that one too.FYI

I will just render terse answers and focus instead of trying to cover a myriad of questions.But,I will touch on varied subjects and post later as time permits.

It was that '74 conversation AND the book Zodiac that caused me to do Z research.I didn't need more research projects and more expenditures,but I felt a compulsion to begin.
It was asked why we got into Z well,that's my answer.As God as my witness,I didn't create the scenario and story I was the listener.
If someone wants to discredit my source or not believe his account then GREAT!!!If some want to reject my account or think I made the whole thing up then that is their right.
I have done and am still continuing to research as time and money allow.

Focus...my source said that they were not investigating the Z case,but simply found Z related evidence when some personal belongings of a "male member of the Manson Family."
I don't know what time this was,but since he told me they had this member on 'two murders,'looking back it would be between 1972-4 at the latest,or near the time when he spoke to me.

They had put a lot of time and money into getting him on the two '87's and he was already doing life and their reasoning was if we send him up North they could lose him on the penality which they had in place(in his view they "barely" got him on those two))felt was all he would get up North.He also expressed the deep concern that he could 'possibly get off' due to sending him up North.

What he did say with conviction as I remember it was that they had 'it SET so that he would never get out of prison.'Keep him and we got him-send him up to the(in his view)liberal Northern courts some unknowns could develope and we could lose even the weak case that we had established.

With Eric Zelm's murderers getting only a few years(!)from a Northern CA court for killing an Officer and with his own weapon at that-one could see how this could cause my source and his associates concern.That was my own view on that one point.

If it cost close to one million-a legal bill record up to that time- to try CM how much would it cost to try their guy as "Zodiac?"He told me the expert they called in said by his estimates'around two million.'

Bugliosi did NOT try Davis.It has been brought up to him by a contact.He knows nothing about it.
Again,I am telling you what he said.
At first he rejected the notion Davis and CM could be connected to the Zodiac case,of which he had little knowledge,but his interest grew over time.
He signed his book to me saying,"Good luck on your new book on the Zodiac"case.He knew what I was trying to do with BD/CM,etc.,when he wrote that statement.
He had gotten a close friend of mine(Tom has met her and gave his highest fox award!)into Nicole Brown Simpson's condo when everyone wanted to get in and take photos,etc.She still has the photos of her in the condo,but will not sell or publish based on her promise at the time.
Vince gave her a tour and his view of the events.He firmly believes OJ was guilty.FYI

There were deals-front and back door- made at the DA's all the time that Vince and other attorney's were not aware of.They were very hard working and had to focus on their own cases,etc.

This was a rare and unique situation according to my source and was know only to a small handful of people,including himself.

A retired Co.detective told me he knew of "two" similar situations only involving two different states.He said he was not surprised about my account.He knew of cover-ups,but always with the criminal/s getting nailed in the end.

Over time as I researched and spoke to those who were either in law enforcement or retired or practicing law that cover-ups do happen,but the guilty are always frozen.

Some deals get a person a reduced sentence or some even get off as they supplied vital info.Even the perp gets a reduced or modified sentence if he or she cooperates and discloses vital info to the case.
We all know some escape the death penality!!!

Some "deals"or compromises make the public a few don't.
I DON'T agree,but it does happen.

See?So much for terse and focus!

More later and thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 7:03 pm:   

"If we send him up North(SF) they could lose him on a penalty". " He could possibly get off if we send him up North".---The Liberal Haven.--This makes sense to me, Howard.

The Zelms case is such a travesty. His killer should have been executed. If this had happened in LA, he probably would have been.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:41 pm:   

Davis was convicted on two counts of murder. How could they possibly lose Davis, and how could he possibly get off those two previous convictions in an unrelated murder case? That doesn't make sense to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nick
Username: Nick

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:24 am:   

Howard, I for one am not rejecting your account or implying you made the whole thing up. I'm also not trying to discredit your source. I'm simply trying to make a reasonable judgment on the veracity of his claims. This is a huge deal if true. If the families and friends of those 5 victims had to forgo closure and a terrorized community was left wondering just because a few in the L.A. DA's office felt the need to protect their local case, heads should roll.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:49 pm:   

Ed,
Greetings!
I have researched hundreds of cases and spoken to lawyers,detectives,etc.,and I can say some 'convictions' were based on very little evidence,but ENOUGH to get a conviction.
As my source said they 'barely got him on the two counts.'If you research BD's trial you will see this FACT!
Later,in some of those same cases the sentence was reversed and the person/s was set free even though the authorities knew they had committed the crime/s.HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

Sometimes it's a 'witness concern' and the fears of the prosecutors and detectives along with the victim's family are realized when, for any number of reasons,the witness/s change their testimony and they have to release the real perp.Happens and makes sense to me!!!
I disagree,but it is a legal historical fact.

I think our system fails in many cases and on "technicalities and loopholes"so the perp/s is eventually released.

My own attorney has accounts that will anger you to no end.He finds no problem(with the content) with any of the info my source gave to me as to his certain knowledge this kind of thing is a reality in the criminal justice system.
He dislikes this fact,but he knows it happens.
We are not asked to 'make sense' of it,just to know it happens in many realms,not just law.

He understood right away that sending a perp to another jurisdiction could endanger one's 'weak' case especially if it is a potentially complicated explosive high visible case.

He agreed there was a very liberal climate in the North Bay area especailly S.F.

He has had opportunities to do 'secret deals' that he personally felt were wrong and has opted out even though there was a lot at stake-and in some cases-money was involved.

All forms of law,government and commerce are subject to cover-ups,etc.,etc.

My attorney has been practicing since the 70's and has a ton of legal contacts with many in the N Bay area.He has travelled the world and he says this kind of thing or what I have been discussing goes on everywhere-not just LA!

Other posters.I tried twice to check on suppressed records,or at least two went through.Other attempts have failed even DNA testing as given through Dave Peterson.

The first was through two private detectives(one had been with Monterey PD )that had a contact in Co.that,in turn, knew one 'archivist' or record locator at CII.That I have given.
The negative results convinced those two men that my account of cover-up and suppression-based on my source(not me)had,at least,some validity.

Incidentlly,those two detectives had to pay the Co.contact for the search.He then gave an unspecified amount to the archivist for his efforts.
The 'older detective'Co. contact would have gotten a much larger feeif he could have obtained the records in question.
Previously,he had NEVER failed in a record request.This is why they assured me there would be no problem with getting all BD records,etc.

Then the other contact had a 'older friend' ,a long time detective, that 'knew just avbout everyone in SAC and some at CII.'
He told her or my contact by phone that they have Davis "buried deep."No results.

I was very,very disappointed with each major attempt's results,but it was wonderful-a blessing- to finally get someone to assist me that had contacts at CII.


I have not been refering to common police reports.They can be obtained with proof of need.
I have that stuff,including,jb,his prison records,and parole report minutes,one or two of which Vince Bugliosi paid for using his credit card!

I am referring to the 'file' of that 'meeting' which could be under ANY kind of heading.It could be numbered as the two CII guys found.

There was a question about other records and other Family members,etc.
The archivst that called the Co. contact said that he could 'get other Family members records' and mentioned Manson and Watson by name(he checked),'even Sirhan's,'but he could 'not get Davis''which prompted him to say,by phone,'what the hell has this Davis done anyway?'or words to that effect.

Does any of this prove BD is Z was another implied question?NO!!!

I decided ,at one point, to tell the full story -even though I fully knew the heat would fall- as to why I am in the Z case.Pure,plain and simple.I am just another poster(not a very good one along with my poor typing skills)/Zsearcher trying to find Z information.
I have tried to help others get information or share research I have obtained when or if possible.
I am very sincere and want to effect some kind of change in the case as do many others on the board.
Tom and Ed are some prominent ones that come to mind.Yes,they are in a high position as Zesearchers,but the rest of us want to contribute too-if at all possible.

With the CM scenario CM could select one of his associates to kill at any time or place.At one time CM boasted 36 murders!

I,along with the late Dave Peterson and the late former DA Frank Fowles, believe that CM was assisted by two or three others in the Z scheme of things.
So when I say I believe Davis was involved in the Z case it is with the aforementioned scenario.
For example,BD could do the hit in one case and not another.The letters could have been mailed by an associate at any time or place as they had "lots of time on their hands" as Jim has pointed out-no one worked!They and BD/CM travelled to the Nothern Ca frequently.
There were some members "living in SF"and other places.
They used cars,planes,motorcylces and even hitched to get around.

I find it interesting that Z boasted that he was "crack proof" and that the 'police would never catch him,'etc.It was as though he had a system in place -in his view -to prevent capture.

Imagine the possibilities one would have to terrorize the Bay Area with the kind of set up I have proposed.

They or CM had a motive I believe to do such a thing.
In a little known interview Tex Watson while in prison,said that CM's real plan was to terrorize three coastal cities (L.A.-S.D.(?)possibly as per the little known Z paste-up I have in my book-"flight 555"United flew to S.D. at 7:30 each day-a reporter discovered this after seeing this strange paste-up-and SF for sure as CM utterly despised the police there and it was to be a focal point for his 'revolution' plans-nuts I fully agree)by 'committing random acts of murder'and get 'as much publicity as possible.'

In some interviews I have CM has hinted there are 'many murders' that the police have never solved and for which he is responsible.

Anyway,right or wrong- this is MY job and I intend to continue.

Jim will post the arrest photo of a clean shaven Davis with dark brown greasy fairly short hair.I will comment.

In my photo blow up you can see the pock marks on his chin and neck as mentioned by former member Paul Watkins after seeing BD in mid/late '69.
KJ did tell us that she could see 'pock marks' on the driver's 'chin area.'All FYI
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:19 pm:   

Howard, I appreciate your comments and responses. However, it still doesn't make sense to me. First of all, if Davis had already been convicted on the two murder charges in LA and was then sent to San Francisco, Vallejo, or Napa to stand trial for one or more of the Zodiac murders, what would it have mattered if he was acquitted of the crimes? He still would have been serving a life sentence for the two murders he was convicted of in LA. Secondly, had SFPD, Vallejo PD, Solano Co., or the Napa Co. Sheriff's Office stopped investigating the Zodiac crimes following Davis' convictions, then maybe there would be a modicum of believability to the scenario you have outlined. However, as it stands, it simply defies belief. If your scenario is true, then why didn't the LADA's office contact SFPD, Napa, Solano, or Vallejo and tell them to call off the Zodiac hounds? Most of these departments have continued to investigate the Zodiac crimes in some capacity or other and have probably spent a lot of money in doing so. It simply doesn't make sense that the LADA's office wouldn't divulge their Zodiac information to these other agencies.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   

By the way, exactly what Davis case files do you feel are missing? I highly doubt there's a file sitting around somewhere detailing the alleged actions of the LADA's office. And, if there is, what good is it going to do to look for it? It's not as if it would be made public if in fact it contains the information that your ex-brother-in-law claims. Furthermore, you do realize that the alleged claims of your source, if true, suggest that the LADA's office committed a crime, don't you? Not only that, but if this file exists and it was sealed by a judge, which it would have to have been, then said judge would be complicit in this crime as well. So, what you are telling me is that members of the LADA's office, the LAPD and/or the LA County Sheriff's Department, a judge, and God knows who else, committed a crime in order to assure that Davis would be convicted of the two murders in LA. Howard, that simply defies all manner of believability. As I wrote in my post above, even if Davis had been tried and acquitted of the Zodiac crimes, he still would have had to serve out his sentence for the murders he'd already been convicted of.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   

All these agencies want to keep their investigation evidence private, especially LAPD and LADA.----Look what happened to OJ. All the evidence points to him, and not circumstantial btw, yet he got off!.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:44 pm:   

This alleged cover-up would have had to have been conducted leaving the FBI out of the loop as well and this theory just doesn't hold water in my opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:50 pm:   

"All these agencies want to keep their investigation evidence private, especially LAPD and LADA.----Look what happened to OJ."

These agencies want to keep their investigation evidence private and you are using the O.J. Simpson trial as your example, a trial that was televised nationally for all to see?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 5:18 pm:   

Yeah, I'm sure we were presented with all the evidence and investigative techniques on Inter-National Television.--Take one look at Lance Ito and ponder the objectivity of the case.

Believe me--The FBI was in the loop.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 5:23 pm:   

Scott,
I fully understand your questions and thoughts concerning this area of discussion.
All I can do is report what was said to me.

I was told one of the reasons for that meeting was to determine if their guy should be sent up North for trial.He said that an "expert" they 'called in' gave them all of the options and possible ramifications including such matters as costs,etc.
They knew much of what he would say,but they wanted him to research refinements on all laws and cases he could find with this kind of situation.They wanted as much information and feed back as possible.
They were considering following 'procedure,but it was after that meeting and the reasons I have sited in the past.
It was decided that they would not inform anyone up North as this would negate their plan-of course.

The WY(sorry I meant WY in past posts)former detective I met and gave my account to said that he knew of "two cases" involving murder cases where,in one case,one state didn't inform the other they had their guy wanted for murder.

The authorities(which decision was kept secret-the detective was some how involved or was made privy to both cases,but would not go further)felt that 'had' him,but if they sent him to the other state to be tried he could get off for one reason or another-or get a reduced sentenced.He was not the least bit surprised with my information!Neither was my attorney!

Back.They had him or the CM member and were not about to take a chance on him getting off in some N CA court deal.To inform the N CA people would ,of course, be counter productive.

He did not feel that this 'male member of the Manson Family"was getting away with anything as he told me point blank (I can still see his firm expression and him leaning foward by the table with that black suit and white shirt he always wore)that they "had it set so that he was never getting out of prison."

So it was cost,more case work-they were burned out on the CM case and later Davis'trial,a lot of reporters taking up their time,fearful of the liberal judges/courts in N.CA,and 'losing the life sentence' they worked so hard to (barely)obtain.

He said that at best their guy would 'get life' up North,but at a tremendous cost and with the risks I have recounted.He could get off.

To them the case was not as big and personal as it was to N CA.Zodiac NOW has become huge-worldwide- and even equated with JTR!

To them it was just another 'N CA crazy case.'
I know they could not have realized the full importance of the case then as compared to today.
My take only based on MY impressions in this sentence of what and how he spoke about the case.

I will say it now;sadly,he seemed to feel the police were 'country' up North,but that they knew how to deal with this killer for good-it was "set."

Scott,I probably should have kept all of this to myself-less grief for me,but I did what I did.

We all do and say things which we later wonder if was a wise thing to say or do.Probably not in my case,but I posted.No excuse I guess.

Another interview with Davis is being sought.I will inform everyone when and if it happens.

By the way how is that child of yours?First Father's Day!Was he born 6 ft.long?LOL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:57 pm:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

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