Allen vs Kaczynski vs Bruce Davis, Pa... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Other Zodiac Suspects » General Suspect Discussion » Allen vs Kaczynski vs Bruce Davis, Part 2 « Previous Next »

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

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 10:45 am:   

Continued from here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 12:48 am:   

Personally, I'd take the 3 teens and Fouke's ruling Allen out over Mageau's ruling Allen in, but that's just me...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Linda
Username: Linda

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 12:53 am:   

Tom - you're so right about the use of eyewitness descriptions and composite sketches. These factors can be a good tool in assisting in identifying a suspect; however, may become a hindrance if used to "rule out" a potential suspect. As you said, any investigator who feels a suspect is credible, will (or should) overlook eyewitness descriptions and/or composite sketches - at least temporarily - or until they have other evidence to determine viability of the suspect. How many people have been convicted wrongly on eyewitness descriptions - and nothing more.

Descriptions and/or sketches should only be considered in corroberation with additional factors connected to the suspect and crime.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 1:36 am:   

"Descriptions and/or sketches should only be considered in corroberation with additional factors connected to the suspect and crime."

This is exactly the case with Allen. It's not as if the eyewitness testimony is the only direct evidence that rules-out Allen; ALL of it does.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 1:42 am:   

Z states in the very first page of the 11/9/69 Bus Bomb letter:

"I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of the time I look entirle different"
http://www.zodiackiller.com/BombLetter1.html

This letter is chock-full of deceit and seemingly desperate efforts to distance himself from any evidence available to SFPD (fingerprints, eyewitness accounts, ballistics etc.). I tend to believe, therefore, that the composite sketch was accurate enough to make him nervous, even if it was created by weak eyewitness testimony.

Why acknowledge that he looks like this sketch at all? If Z had written "yeah- that looks just like me!", I would think differently but he instead acknowledges the general accuracy and then explains it away as he does with the fingerprint evidence. If we are to believe that Z left bloody fingerprints on Stine's cab, the below claim of wearing airplane glue on his fingertips is a blatant lie. Why then should we believe the claim of a disguise?

I do agree with Linda that ANY eyewitness description is only useful in the context of other solid evidence but we essentially have 5 eyewitnesses confirming the general accuracy of these composite sketches- the three teenagers, Fouke and Z himself.

Can anyone tell me, by the way, if these sketches were broadcast on TV before Z's Bus Bomb letter?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 1:44 am:   

Linda, and they are. Prints, writing and the DNA (for whatever that's worth) have all ruled Allen out. The 4 eyewitnesses at the Stine scene ruling Allen out is only the icing on the cake.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 2:50 am:   

Deoxys: Excellent observations.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:06 am:   

Here is a gem about Bruce Davis.

In regard to THE CONFESSION letter about the murder of Bates.

From the Zodiac Manson Connection site. The ‘by’ line contains 18 spaces for the author to insert his name. Without spaces BRUCEMCGREGORDAVIS will consume that line (18 characters). This was used to persuade the reader to believe Davis is the Zodiac.

Now this is a thread for comparisons so let’s give equal time.

ARTHUR LEIGH ALLEN properly spaced (18 characters).

THEODORE KACZYNSKI properly spaced (18 characters). In the computational world this would equate to a null set.

As an exercise this morning, I tried to use leading logic with the Desktop Poem Signature (rh) to see how far I could go, and I was stunned.

r (18th letter in the alphabet) + h (8) = 26, Z is the 26th letter, how can I be sure?

18 x 8 = 144 converting back to alpha 144 is ADD. I should add those numbers to get Z.

The square root of 144 is 12. How many symbols in the Zodiac Chart? 12

Additionally the twelfth letter is L, as in Leigh.

Rh is the symbol for Rhodium (sounds like rodent), Latin for Rose.

What is the desk trying to tell me? 12, 26 and Rose?

At the intersection of Highways CA-12, CA-26 and Rose St is the town of Valley Springs (Zodiac water theme name) which is where Allen taught elementary school.

Therefore, if you have target fixation and ignore linear logic, you can in fact prove anything, while proving nothing as this post began. Or use this data to spawn yet another bungalow industry and ‘Dine Out’ on that for the next ten years.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:40 am:   

Here's some more of the same John...
H is the 8th letter of the alphabet and the Belli letter is Zodiac's 8th, made up of exactly 8 sentences and also where I believe Allen's name is encoded.
If you take the writen word "EIGHT" drop the "T" at the end go back 8 places in the alphabet, you get "L".
But you are correct, there are lots of tricks one could use to incriminate someone.
That said, when something is there time and time again in the same manner related to the same subject, surely it's worth evaluating.
If you ever get the time, I would like to hear your thoughts on my own theory here.No favours,no offence taken,just straight honest opinions.
Thanks if you get the time.
Incidentally, I am interested in RILED.Why don't you start a new thread and omit suspects (at least to begin with). As you've probably already guessed this isn't the ideal thread in which to deal with it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:46 am:   

Oops, CGT rather!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:56 am:   

John, very good point! Your post seems to be a cross between LINDA-esque and SEAN-ese.

I too am hoping that a Davis expert will post a timeline of Davis' activities for 68 and 69.

As for Pop Corn's geneaology, he/she seems to get right down to the kernel of the info.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:00 am:   

Interesting Zynchronicity, guys.

I sincerely hope that rh survived her bout with depression and someday recognizes the desktop poem from Riverside as her own handwriting. I think she would get a big kick out of reading the massive amount of Zynchronicity she generated with just a few lines of self-pitying poetry.

Just my opinion, of course...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:14 am:   

I think that was the whole point Deoxys (at least it was as far as I'm concerned) you can take once-off's here and turn them into anything and aim it at any suspect.As regards the desk top poem, I wouldn't be convinced either way, it might be Z, it may very well not be.I wouldn't rely on it.
But that's one of the main problems here, we have seen so much of this over the years, we have become immune to it and then align it with anything else that looks similar.
That's why if any of this is ever going to be worth looking at, it has to be at least be repeated over and over again or align to know code types/methodology.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:16 am:   

There's nothing wrong with looking for hidden messages in Z's communication, IMO, Sean. I think it is likely that they are there to find but it is risky business when you have a suspect already in mind.

John, for example, makes some really interesting observations above. Are we really to believe, however, that Allen (as Zodiac) signed the desktop poem "rh" as a clue to his place of employment? He INTENDED to have the numerical value of the letters added, multiplied, square rooted and compared to the periodical table of elements (yielding an obscure element which sounds like a word that is the Latin equivalent of his employer's street name)? I have a feeling that there are a few others here that could extract something equally creative from "rh" as a smoking gun clue to Ted Kaczynski's identity as Z.

I agree with your statement that any methodology used to find clues needs to be used consistently but I've yet to see any coherent message come out of a consistently used method.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:28 am:   

Sean, what difference?

Are you saying that just because Morrill eliminated ALA as the Zodiac letter writer, that did not mean Morrill eliminated him as the Zodiac killer?

If so, are you trying to imply a "Team Zodiac" theory of your own? Can you not use some help from Harry Martin?

Do you know the difference between a police photo line up and an actual suspect line up? I personally do not put much credeance on what Mike Mageau had to say about his encounter with his Zodiac killer.

If ALA was not eliminated by the police as a Z suspect, then why was he not indicted before a grand jury? Because the police had nothing on him to link him to the Zodiac crimes. What part of it do you not understand?

Also, what difference would it make if ALA would have been indicted on gun and explosive charges? If convicted after a fair trial, do you think ALA would then become the one and only Zodiac killer merely as the result of his conviction?

Sean, please make sense or go away for a while.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:39 am:   

Deoxys, FTF and Sean do not have a coherent formula to present a consistent codework about the zodiac's hidden clues and messages in letters and whatnot.

FTF and Sean are also smart enough to recognize their shortcomings but still wish to ramble on and on. I do not know why?

John Hanson's presentation is very similar to FTF's presentations during past few months regarding hidden clues in Z's communications, which were allegedly embedded with Ted K clues.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:44 am:   

I'm not disagreeing with you Deoxys, it is a very risky business. We have seen time and time again here how people deliberately arrange things to implicate their suspects.
I don't think John was implying that what he found was credible, in fact he makes the statement on target fixation and ignoring linear logic to hit home on that point.
What it does demonstrate is what can be done to incriminate a suspect, such as we have seen on numerous occassions.

Naturally,my own theory is going to be held up to the same scrutiny and so it should be. I can only make tell you that I didn't go into this favouring Allen at all. But I accept that's just my word and it has to be challenged.
I recognized the name when it came up, thought I recognized a certain type of methodology and went from there.On that score I would disagree that the methodology isn't consistent or that the messages are not coherent.And then it goes way beyond hidden messages and code.I actually think if you sit down and examine it, you will come to appreciate how little control I actually had over it.I honestly believe there's too much there to ignore, but what a boring place it would be if everyone thought the same.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:00 am:   

I think your problem "Popcorn" is that you reply to comments you think people make instead of comments they actually make.It's a common problem we see here time and time again with disingenuous ignoramuses,who come on here without reading up on the case or the rules and think they know everything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:10 am:   

Sean, you have been beating on a dead horse for how many years now?

Was I even there when you decided to embark on your ALA odyessy to never never land?

So why come online and blame those who think you are just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:54 am:   

I actually wasn't commenting specifically on your work, Sean. I know you've done some interesting code work but I'm not familiar enough with it to comment on whether or not it is consistent and coherent- I'll try to look at your stuff closer. I've just seen way too many theories here involving converting letters to numerals, adding, subtracting, square rooting, slicing, dicing, sauteeing and connecting to obscure references to a particular suspect without any regard for consistency or consideration of personal bias. If the solution sounds a little funny, well... Z intended it that way because he was pretending to be on drugs or hiding his superior intelligence. The one example of a solution we have (the 3-part cipher) is straight forward letter/symbol substitution. No anagramming or advanced knowledge of calculus, chemistry, or philosophy necessary. Unfortunately, no clues to the creator's identity either.

I do appreciate your willingness to subject your work to scrutiny and your acceptance of constructive criticism. ASKING for constructive criticism is the mark of a serious researcher.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

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

Scott, in other threads you don't just stand by when you feel others are avoiding your questions. With that in mind, please allow me to post mine again:

Question 1) Since when do eyewitnesses "rule out" suspects?

Witnesses are often highly inaccurate. Here are just four examples:

1) BTK composite sketches looked nothing like Dennis Rader

2) Son of Sam composite sketches looked nothing like David Berkowitz

3) Night Stalker composite sketches looked nothing like Richard Ramirez

4) Green River composite sketches looked nothing like Gary Ridgway

Question 2) With the four above examples in mind, why on Earth would you believe that the Zodiac composite is somehow accurate, especially considering the teen witnesses were 50-60 feet away at night and under duress? Not only that, the encounter didn't last very long, they didn't always have a look at his face and the sketch wasn't even made for two days. Meanwhile, the other witness, Officer Fouke, apparently caught only a partial look at Zodiac while racing by him to get to Cherry Street.

By the way, I've been to that scene at least 50 times at night and you can't see close detail from that distance. Period. But you already know that, because you've been there, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sabre fan (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 1:07 pm:   

tom
as always excellent post..i cant fathom how anyone could take a or make a accurate sketch of the killer atthe stine murder.thers no way the teens could positivly rule out allen with a 100% certainty.to assume as much would be a blatant disregard of the truth.the composite from the sfpd should be taken with a grain of salt
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 1:53 pm:   

Scott, it has been a couple days since you have called me ignorant. What's up?

Would you say there is a difference between bald and partially bald or balding?

Please provide us with a pic of the totally bald ALA in 1969. I don't believe ALA is Z, but I do think it possible that a partially bald man may not have been recognized as one that night in the darkness.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 2:06 pm:   

"Question 1) Since when do eyewitnesses "rule out" suspects?"

Eyewitnesses don't rule-out suspects, Tom, the analysis of their descriptions do. You know what I meant. Eyewitness testimony is as direct as evidence can get. To use a hyperbolized example, if some eyewitnesses saw me committing a crime, do you believe that their descriptions could rule-out Ed as a suspect? Allen had a very distinctive body type and look; he wasn't the kind of fella that could just blend into a crowd. Also, with regard to the eyewitness testimony in this case, it's not as if it was coming from just one person. Instead, you have four teenagers who spent several minutes looking at Zodiac as he moved closer to them, farther away, was in the dome light of the cab, was standing, sitting, in profile, from behind, etc. Not only that, but Fouke, a multi-decorated police officer, corroborated the teen witnesses' description and, as Deoxys pointed out, so did Zodiac himself.

That said, when it comes to Allen, it's not like the eyewitness testimony is the only direct evidence to rule him out. It's an accumulation of all the direct evidence that rules him out; the eyewitness testimony, the fingerprints, the DNA, and the handwriting. The case against Allen was enough to get search warrants, but that's as far as it went: no arrest warrants, no indictments, no convictions. As I've stated many times now, which you admonish me for but seemingly needs to be continually restated nonetheless, Allen is not a match for any of the direct evidence. Now, if you want to holdout hope that there is some logical explanation for that fact, and then go right ahead; in the end you may very well be right. Nevertheless, it's not disingenuous or misleading of me to point out that Allen is a no-go when compared to the direct evidence; it's a simple and factual statement.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 2:16 pm:   

Scott, when did I ever claim Allen was a match to Zodiac's DNA, handwriting, fingerprints, etc? Never. But, unlike you, I can recognize the amazing "coincidences" that apply to Allen and no other suspects. Furthermore, I can also recognize how notoriously inaccurate eyewitnesses are, something you choose to ignore for some reason.

Have you ever heard the following in court from a defense attorney:
"Your honor, my client must be innocent because he doesn't look at all like the composite drawing!!!"

No? How about this from a prosecutor:
"Your honor, the defendant is obviously guilty, as he looks just like the composite drawing!!!"

I bet you've never heard either argument. Why? Because both are easily destroyed through logic, reasoning and decades of data proving without a shadow of a doubt that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate.

Something tells me if Allen looked more like the Zodiac composite sketch, your tune would be much different. "Eyewitnesses? Baah!"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 2:18 pm:   

Or do you believe this looks like Dennis Rader?

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

George
Username: George

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 2:27 pm:   

Someone referenced the Chicken A La Caveman recipe. While it's difficult to see, Allen did begin a sentence with capital "Z," to wit; "Zespecially." If nothing else, I think that it's interesting. Would it be used by Ted K. or Bruce D. theorists? Just asking. Of course, this assumes that the Kiss The Cook menu predates the crimes, which I believe it does. I'm for Z as an Unsub but just wonder if "Zespecially" is too small to be serious about, or would it be an acceptable, small point?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 3:07 pm:   

Tom, as usual you are missing the point entirely. Are you really going to tell me that nobody has ever been convicted or exonerated based solely on eyewitness description? If you are, then you are clearly misrepresenting reality. As I said earlier, if I was seen committing a crime, do you think the eyewitnesses would mistake Ed for me? The point is that eyewitness testimony differs from case to case. I don't believe that TK can be ruled-out strictly based on the eyewitness testimony, buy Allen and Davis are a different matter entirely.

Additionally, I'm not talking strictly about eyewitness testimony and never have been. I don't really give a good rat's ass about the eyewitness testimony as it stands all by itself. For the umpteenth time, it's only significant in its relation to the other direct evidence. The Dennis Rader example, furthermore, is not a good one. Clearly, the quality of the eyewitness testimony in that case is not of the same quality as that which was obtained in Presidio Heights for the Zodiac case. Stop comparing apples to oranges. The teen witnesses' descriptions were corroborated by a police officer's and the killer himself. Is that the case in any of the examples you've provided? No, it's not; not even close.

"But, unlike you, I can recognize the amazing "coincidences" that apply to Allen and no other suspects."

I recognize the "amazing coincidences" just fine, Tom, I just think it pales in significance when compared to the direct evidence. You believe otherwise. Good for you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 3:18 pm:   

"The teen witnesses' descriptions were corroborated by a police officer's and the killer himself."

Now I know you're kidding with us. Or did it never occur to you that Z wanted people to think he looked like the sketch because he really didn't look like the sketch? Probably motivated by not wanting to go to prison I suppose. You know, throw 'em off his trail. I also seem to recall him mentioning wearing a disguise during his crimes. Hmmm. I guess we need to choose which of Zodiac's lies we're most comfortable with believing.

You sure have Fouke behaving like Superman. Here he is speeding past a guy at night who he barely glances at, yet his Bruce Lee vision allows him to corroborate a sketch of Zodiac made from an angle he didn't even see the subject from. And the people who did see Zodiac from that angle were 5-60 feet away, at night, under duress, and didn't even put the sketch together for two days.

For Zodiac to look like the wanted poster, here's what is needed:

1) The teen witnesses have binoculars, nightvision goggles and total recall

2) Fouke has Bruce Lee vision and total recall

3) The composite artist is a mindreader
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 3:54 pm:   

"Tom, as usual you are missing the point entirely."

That's quite a cheap shot, Scott. Maybe I should stop defending you around here and giving you the benefit of the doubt?

I know damn well what the "point" is. After all, you've made that same "point" numerous times: The Stine witnesses are essentially unflappable and beyond reproach. Remember?

I gave you four excellent examples of witnesses being completely off track, and you can't deal with it. Instead, you resort to insults and claims I missed the "point." No I didn't. You just don't want to admit the obvious, that Zodiac might not look much like the composite. Why is that so tough for you? Because to admit that means -- GASP -- Allen might be the Zodiac! And of course you can't have that.

I dare you to present a quote from Fouke where he claims the sketch looked just like the man he saw. I dare you. In fact, I dare you to present a quote from the teens where they say "Yes, that sketch is exactly how Zodiac looked."

How in the hell could Fouke corroborate the teens' sketch when Fouke didn't even see Zodiac from the same angle as the teens? Hmmm? Or did I miss that "point", too? I'd really, really like to know how Fouke could pull off such a stupendous achievement.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 4:38 pm:   

For whatever it's worth, this is what Mike Rodelli writes after his first interview with Fouke:

"Officer Fouke also felt that while the man generally looked like the SFPD sketches, he had a more receding hairline than in the sketches..."

"He described the man as looking 35-40, 5'11" tall, 190 lbs., with a cloth bomber jacket and boots."

Fouke's assessments of Ted K. and Allen based on his own eyewitness observation:

Ted K.: He said that there is no way that this man was the one he saw that night. For one thing, the shape of his face is completely wrong. He is "not in as a suspect", according to Sgt. Fouke.

Arthur Leigh Allen: From our conversations, Jim and I have discovered that Sgt. Fouke is a man who does not betray much emotion when he speaks. He keeps a very even keel and is very matter of fact and calm in his demeanor. The only time he displayed any emotion in our discussions is when we asked him about the photos I sent him of this suspect. He stated that there is absolutely no way that this was the man that he saw that night. He said that Allen is "not even a possibility". He is "not in the same ballpark". Allen is "way out of proportion" and "not even close".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   

"That's quite a cheap shot, Scott. Maybe I should stop defending you around here and giving you the benefit of the doubt?"

It's not a cheap shot at all, Tom. I'm not dismissing Allen as a Zodiac candidate based solely on the eyewitness descriptions, as you seem to be claiming that I am doing by writing: "The Stine witnesses are essentially unflappable and beyond reproach." That's NOT what I said in any way, shape, or form. The point has been, and continues to be what I wrote above: "I)t's not disingenuous or misleading of me to point out that Allen is a no-go when compared to the direct evidence; it's a simple and factual statement."

You know what IS a cheap shot, Tom? Calling me a Butterfield "nuthugger" and calling me "single-minded." Turnabout is fair play, Tom. By the way, sense when have you been defending me or giving me the benefit of the doubt? You really need to learn the difference between insults and simple truisms.

"You just don't want to admit the obvious, that Zodiac might not look much like the composite. Why is that so tough for you? Because to admit that means -- GASP -- Allen might be the Zodiac! And of course you can't have that."

This is what I mean by you missing the point, Tom. Let me state this, yet again: The eyewitness testimony wouldn't necessarily mean squat if that was the only direct evidence available; it's the eyewitness testimony in conjunction with all of the other direct evidence that eliminates Allen from the suspect pool. You are obviously having a hard time dealing with that.

"I dare you to present a quote from Fouke where he claims the sketch looked just like the man he saw. I dare you."

The following was taken from Mike Rodelli's website. It's not a direct quote, but this is what Fouke told Rodelli with regard to the SFPD composite:

When asked his impression about the wanted poster sketches, he said that he felt that Zodiac had a more receding hairline (i.e., was at the older end of the "35-45" age range) and had more of a traditional, "flat-top" crew cut. He also stated that there was "something about the chin" but could not put his finger on precisely what about it was not right. Other than these comments, however, he agreed with the sketch that the kids had produced.

Your second dare, Tom, is just meaningless. The teens were the ones who contributed to the composite sketch, so they obviously must have felt it was a descent likeness. Have they ever said, "That's exactly how the Zodiac looked"? I don't know. No composite sketch is going to be an exact likeness, okay, Tom? I'll concede that. But you make it sound like no composite sketch can look like the person it's depicting, which is completely absurd.

Again, for the record, I never said that Allen should be eliminated based on nothing other than the eyewitness testimony. What I said was, the eyewitness testimony, when combined with the other direct evidence, excludes Allen. Why are you making this harder than it has to be?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 4:42 pm:   

Thanks, Deoxys! I was looking for those quotes but couldn't find them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 4:43 pm:   

Finally, Tom Voigt, put forward something I have been saying all along.

If Fouke was able to see Z even for a passing moment, why SFPD did not cause him to sit with a police sketch artist to produce a wanted poster from Fouke's recollections?

Is it not amazing that SFPD could give the opportunity to three teen witnesses to sit with a police sketch artists for two times, but, yet refuse to allow the same opportunity to one of its decorated police officers?

Is it possible that Fouke's passing encounter with a walking white male became an issue after Z tried to pull his bogus stop-talk-go scenario on SFPD?

When did Fouke decide to come out with his line that the white male he saw in a fleeting moment resembled the wanted poster? If so, which poster, Poster 1 or poster 2?

I really did not expect Tom could come up with posts such as the ones herein above.

For all you do, this bag of hot pop corn for you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 5:07 pm:   

Tom, LOL. That compo of Rader looks like a young Sammy Davis Jr.

Scott, " A Butterfield nuthugger". LOL, I just spewed coffee on my keyboard!!

I'm just an ignorant 60 year old who happened to be at all of the Bay Area scenes in 69, and close to LHR via my parents.----I think the teens at PH were partying, which could have clouded their description of the perp to the police "Sketch Artist".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:04 pm:   

Scott wrote:
"The teens were the ones who contributed to the composite sketch, so they obviously must have felt it was a descent likeness."

I guess that explains why they ID'd a pic of Mr X -- a pic, by the way, that most don't think looks much like the wanted poster. Go figure.

Scott, what exactly qualifies Fouke to verify the sketch? Isn't his latest story that he only saw a brief partial profile of Zodiac? And isn't the sketch full-face???

And Scott, if the teen witnesses got such a good look at Zodiac, why couldn't they decide if his age was 25 or 45???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:06 pm:   

Holy Cow! I got smoked out on three fronts.

Vallejo Dave- The Linda-esque and Sean-ese (The latter took a few threads to figure out) reference. I would call that a great structural comparison.

Sean – The direct approach. No fooling you with that non-linear, let me grab what suites me as I make my point – which could be on the top of my head.

Deoxys- Couldn’t this fit any suspect? YES, I simply had at hand more info on Allen than on the other two. As far as the analysis of adding then square rooting then using an obscure element- You nailed me. That IS exactly what I did.

I will add: when I was typing Rhodium (sounds like rodent), I thought I was going to pee my pants.

When I read ‘Butterfield Nuthugger’ in a later post-- I did!

Sean I would like to see any info you have to offer.

With that in mind, I would like to second the thought Deoxys posted:

I do appreciate your willingness to subject your work to scrutiny and your acceptance of constructive criticism. ASKING for constructive criticism is the mark of a serious researcher.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:07 pm:   

Thanks for taking the Fouke dare, by the way -- you helped me prove a big point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:21 pm:   

The prime witnesses couldn't decide if Zodiac was 25 or 45. The prime witnesses couldn't even decide if Zodiac was 5'8" or 6' tall. But damned if they weren't experts on hair length and thickness!

Meanwhile, Officer Fouke touted the sketch of a face he didn't even see as being accurate. Well, if that's not proof Allen was innocent, then I don't know what is.

Hello? Is this thing on?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:47 pm:   

Tom, forget the eyewitnesses, pretend they don't even exist, okay? That way you can concentrate on the reasons why the fingerprints don't match, the DNA doesn't match, and the handwriting doesn't match.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:48 pm:   

Tom, what does all this boils down to?

Should the public expect another round of clarifications put forward by PO Fouke via Mike R?

When am I going to be allowed to say" "Enough is enough?"

When are you going to be allowed to make a similar statement without tilting Scott Bullocks of this world?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:53 pm:   

I don't think any of us are saying that an otherwise good suspect should be eliminated based on the composite sketches or that resemblance to the sketch automatically makes one a suspect. The most salient feature of the sketches is undoubtedly Z's black-rimmed glasses, which I would guess is the basis for the teenagers' "visceral reaction", when shown a picture of good 'ol Mr. X. Throw a pair of these glasses on Allen or Kaczynski and it would probably be difficult to say that they look NOTHING like the sketches. Shaquille O'Neal can be definitively ruled out as a suspect by the composites- Allen and Kaczynski can't.

I've never been to Presidio Heights to know what kind of view these teenagers may have had. I do think, however, that the general agreement between multiple witnesses and apparently Z himself that the sketch resembles the man who killed Paul Stine is worth considering. The eyewitnesses' determination that Allen, for instance, looked nothing like the man they saw is a fairly big strike against him, IMO.

Since this thread is devoted to three specific suspects, how would y'all rate these guys' resemblance to the sketches?

Deoxys would grade them like this, considering facial features only:

Allen: D
Kaczynski: C-
Davis: B
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:58 pm:   

Fingerprints?

Ever wonder why Zodiac didn't just wear a pair of thin gloves that night? He could have concealed them in his pockets so as not to arouse Stine's suspicion. Then, he could have put them on while in the back of the cab and he absolutely wouldn't have been impaired in any way from committing his crime. Plus, he would have been able to flee much more quickly as he wouldn't have needed to worry about wiping away fingerprints. But Zodiac apparently didn't wear gloves. Remarkable, especially considering he apparently had knowledge of concealing fingerprints via two coats of airplane glue, which he apparently didn't bother to utilize that night either.

So, here's Zodiac, with knowledge of how not to leave prints, doing absolutely nothing to not leave prints. Then he carefully wipes down the cab, but amazingly leaves a big, whopping print so easily seen that Officer Pelisetti spots it immediately. The same Zodiac, by the way, who spoke of leaving "fake clews" for the police.

All things considered, I see reason to believe the fingerprints simply aren't Zodiac's.

But would a perverted serial killer like Zodiac actually kill someone to acquire their fingers in order to leave "fake clews?" Of course he wouldn't! Don't be preposterous! I mean, it's not like Zodiac was sick enough to stab people with a foot-long knife while wearing an executioner's costume or something...or like Zodiac was sick enough to choose to put a deceased man's bleeding, battered head in his own lap.

No, the fact is that no normal serial killer like Zodiac could ever do such a thing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:00 pm:   

Deoxys, my point is simply that there's no reason to believe the sketch looks much like the Zodiac.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:06 pm:   

Deoxys, I beg to differ with your rating system.

In recent time, in the medical field, a rating system for tabulating pain had been established.

In this system, the amount of pain is rated from 0 to 10. 0 for no pain and 10 for extreme pain.

So on the same token, it would be better to use an appropriate rating system to collect necessary data on ALA, BMD and TJK.

Here is my answer:

ALA: 1
BMD: 0
TJK: 0
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:09 pm:   

Handwriting? Allen was ambidextrous. I have copies of the handwriting of Allen's that Morrill compared to Zodiac's; it doesn't look at all like Z's handwriting. However, I also have handwriting of Allen's that matches up quite well. Allen was ambidextrous.

As far as DNA is concerned, until more than one evidence sample from Zodiac is collected and found to match each other, it shouldn't be considered proof of anything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:12 pm:   

To me, Allen looks nothing like the SFPD sketch. But again, I find no reason to believe Zodiac looked much like that sketch at all.

However, I feel Allen nicely resembled the Lake Berryessa composite of potentially Zodiac; Allen would have simply needed the same toupee my dad wore back then.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:27 pm:   

Tom, if you want me to quit contributing to the message board, just say the word, but stop characterizing me in an unfair manner. You act like you've never beat people over the head with your ill-conceived reasoning as to why the direct evidence doesn't match Allen and yet he's a viable suspect anyway. Finally, what are you suggesting with the Lake Berryessa composite, that we should ignore the testimony of five eyewitnesses at Presidio Heights but allow for some significance to the Lake Berryessa composite even though nobody knows whether or not it was of the Zodiac? Go ahead; tell me I'm missing the point; that's just the type of vindictiveness that you are capable of.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:54 pm:   

No problem, Pop Corn. Rate them however you see fit. I was just curious how others view the resemblance of these guys to the composite. I would probably give Mr. X a B+ and my POI an A- using my own rating system.

Scott, don't leave.

VDave, just expressing my own opinions, which happen to agree with Scott for the most part on this particular topic.

To quote the words of a great American, Mr. Rodney King:

"Can't we all just get along?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:01 pm:   

Scott, please be honest and tell us how you'd react if the teen witnesses ID'd Allen. (I have a hunch you'd pull out the same arguments against them as I have, but go ahead and surprise me.)

I never said I thought the Berryessa sketch was definitely Zodiac. Nonetheless, I do feel it resembles Allen. Do you not? Should that sketch be dismissed as you have Mageau's ID of Allen? (Because we all know witnesses at night don't know shi* after 25-30 years, right?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:03 pm:   

Scott, you've avoided some questions again:

What exactly qualifies Fouke to verify the sketch? Isn't his latest story that he only saw a brief partial profile of Zodiac? And isn't the sketch full-face???

And Scott, if the teen witnesses got such a good look at Zodiac, why couldn't they decide if his age was 25 or 45???

I've already dealt with the DNA, handwriting and fingerprints stuff, so please answer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:10 pm:   

Scott, you amazingly list eyewitness testimony in the same breath as DNA when it comes to damning evidence, and then you don't want to deal with the obvious results! Sorry, but you should know better.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:57 pm:   

"What exactly qualifies Fouke to verify the sketch?"

Because he was a trained police officer who slowed down long enough to get a good sense of what turned out to be the Zodiac's general features. And general features are all you need to rule-out someone like Allen.

"And Scott, if the teen witnesses got such a good look at Zodiac, why couldn't they decide if his age was 25 or 45???"

Two reasons: Age, unless it's to one extreme or the other, is a hard thing to judge. I believe this to be particularly true for teenage witnesses who are substantially younger than the adult they are trying to describe. Secondly, age is not a general characteristic that can be easily ascertained. It's fairly easy, most of the time, to observe what I consider to be general physical characteristics: Young/old, black/white, fat/skinny, tall/short, male/female, etc. When you are a teenager, virtually anyone 10 years or older than you is going to seem "old," in my opinion.

"Scott, please be honest and tell us how you'd react if the teen witnesses ID'd Allen."

Tom, in all seriousness, here is how I would react. As I've stated at least three to four times in this thread, the eyewitness testimony all by itself means virtually nothing. It's only when it starts to corroborate other evidence that it really matters. If the teens had said, 'yeah, Allen was the guy I saw that night,' I'd remain skeptical if the handwriting, fingerprints, and DNA told a different story. Just like I did with Mr. X, remember? On the other hand, if their statements were corroborated by other evidence, then we wouldn't even be discussing it right now because this case would more than likely be solved. You act like I care who's ultimately responsible for the Zodiac murders. It doesn't matter who did it, just that whoever did gets caught. If the evidence pointed to Allen I'd be saying, "That's the guy!" Same with Kaczynski, Davis, or any other suspect. On the other hand, since the evidence doesn't seem to point to any of these guys, at the moment at least, I'm not going to sit back and make up unsubstantiated and improbable reasons why a particular suspect is still a viable one. I apologize if my reasoning is too black and white, but that's just how I think. If the evidence pointed to Allen, I'd say that Allen was the Zodiac, but it doesn't, so I don't.

"I've already dealt with the DNA, handwriting and fingerprints stuff, so please answer."

Sure, you've dealt with it in a very speculative, unreasonable, and misleading manner. Yes, Allen was ambidextrous; what you failed to mention is that there are Allen exemplars from both hands. The severed fingers/hand theory, which may or may not even be possible, is unreasonable in my point of view. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Zodiac dismembered any of his victims, and we certainly know that he didn't dismember any of his known victims. The DNA we both agree on; more testing needs to be done. But you know damned well that you and I have agreed on that point for years.

"Scott, you amazingly list eyewitness testimony in the same breath as DNA when it comes to damning evidence, and then you don't want to deal with the obvious results! Sorry, but you should know better."

I mention them in the same breath because they are both examples of direct evidence.

Vallejo Dave, I don't have a suspect, and I've told you that many times. I think that the most likely candidate as the Zodiac is an unknown subject. By the way, insult me all you want, because if you think it has any impact on me whatsoever, you are sorely mistaken. It only hurts when it comes from someone that I respect and you don't qualify.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:36 pm:   

Apparently, we need someone for of catalyst to allow us to get along. In abcense of such a magical potion, can we go to the video tape?

In the confession letter sent to Riverside Enterprise, someone wrote: " ... BUT I SHALL CUT OFF HER FEMALE PARTS AND DEPOSIT THEM FOR THE WHOLE CITY TO SEE."

If one believes that Cheri Jo Bates murder was the Z's handiwork, then why not believe that Z had the diabolical potential to use someone's fingers to leave fake clues behind?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 10:01 pm:   

Those teen witnesses (or the artist on his own) gave the sketch detail they simply could not have seen under those conditions. Then, later, they ID'd a pic of a guy who didn't really even look like their sketch. Meanwhile, Fouke never saw Zodiac's full face, yet swears to the accuracy of a drawing of a face he never saw.

Scott, seriously now...if you were the Zodiac, would it really have been all that difficult for you to nab a victim for their fingers and later use them as "fake clews?" Because I can't believe it would be. He was a serial killer, and seemed to like it gory. He easily could have picked up one of those plentiful hitchhikers of the era, buried them, not taken credit for their murder, and BOOM! instant fingerprints.

I'm constantly amazed how some people find that scenario farfetched, yet accept the Lake Berryessa case without going "How in the F*** could he/would he have done that???"

It's kind of like the rapist who wears a rubber.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian_d
Username: Brian_d

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 5:46 am:   

Or did it never occur to you that Z wanted people to think he looked like the sketch because he really didn't look like the sketch? Probably motivated by not wanting to go to prison I suppose. You know, throw 'em off his trail. I also seem to recall him mentioning wearing a disguise during his crimes. Hmmm. I guess we need to choose which of Zodiac's lies we're most comfortable with believing.

Tom, not to interrupt, but don't you think it is at least credible that to admit he wore a disguise and left someone else’s prints as counterproductive to giving the police "bussy work?" Wouldn't it serve him better to mention the disguise and fingerprints and simply allow the police to chase after dead ends? Surely it's as least as possible that this was as self-serving a lie as he ever told?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 6:27 am:   

scott
your argumentive ways and being a total hothead is tiresome.all one has to do is read your current and archived posts and it is enough to get a bleeding ulcer along with a good case of hemmoroids.getting on toms case or perhaps howards case isnt the way to go.channel that energy into doing some good.perhaps you should move on where your not so blinded with anger...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 9:04 am:   

Here are Fouke's impressions of Zodiac from that night (1969)
5ft 11 ins, 190lbs-210lbs, barrell chested,light hair, possibly greying at the rear,heavy build, 35-45 years of age, walked with a shuffling lope.
he also goes to to state that he believed that the hairline is even more receeding than in the composite.

From a police report (1971)On Allen.
5ft 11 ins, 220-250 lbs, light brown hair, greying at the rear.
Add to that:-
Do we know he was barrell chested? yes
Large face? yes
probelm walking? yes

lets go back to Mike Rodelli's interview...
I'm paraphrasing...
It begins "Did you get my letter"
F..yes, graysmith write good fiction"
Two more comments before the interview gets going.
"He'll (graysmith) will get his when the film comes out and a folow up from "JIM" regarding the people who ask questions here " They're all monday morning quarterbacks/ing".
Clearly, that letter by Mike to Fouke (no details) and those comments set the tone for the interview.Before it's even began it's yet another Graysmith/Toschi/Allen gangbang.
Now forget suspects for a minute, can this be acceptable from any other researcher trying to include or exclude a suspect?....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 9:17 am:   

Now the claim is that the only time Fouke showed emotion was when he was asked to look at a photo from Allen. Is it any wonder? he also gets emotional when it comes to graysmith doesn't he?
he also gets emotional when it comes to Toschi, doesn't he(everyone knows he blew the case).

An earlier comment from fouke with regard to Allen.
"They showed me a picture of a guy in a boat and I didn't think it was him".
Now here,he's not even in the ballpark?
I challenge anyone to look at the two descriptions above and tell me how Fouke could claim that.
What picture of Allen was he shown?
When was it taken? How do we compare a daylight full frontal of Allen to Fouke's account of what he seen that night?
There's also a claim that Fouke described someone much taller and heavier? is the question asked ? No, doesn't matter.

So what else have we to go on, the kids?
Where is there account of what they seen? seriously.
We have a comment from one (who was what 13/14 at the time) who "breaks his sides laughing at the thought of Allen being the person they/he/she seen.
Where are the details of where this person was positioned, how long they seen this guy, how long the go a full on view. They can't be given, they are things Mike can't say. Yet all of this is sufficient "direct evidence".
Eventually, regardless of who z may have been, we are going to have to deal with this in the manner it should be by examining the accounts in detail.
But if this is the standard by which we include/exclude suspects (regardless of who they are)I don't know what to say.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 9:28 am:   

On fingerprints, I agree with Tom, i wouldn't rule out any suspect based on those (not to mind Allen)The circumstances in which they appeared to have been left are highly suspicious, for all the reason already outlined.I don't see zodiac as some careless fool, but rather a person who was capable of real planning. You don't even have to go with the "severed finger/s" idea, faking fingerprints was possible from as early as 1907, with other books "How to fake fingerprints" out in 1924.
here's an extract/summary from a recent case where a person was wrongly accused based on prints.

"In light of what has been discovered in the intervening centuary, R Austins Freemans 1907 detective novel " The Red thumb mark" (sound familiar)has proven prophetic. the plot revolves around the perfect forgery of a thuimb print found in blood at the scene of a crime, if taken at face value would have sent an innocent man to prision. It is now known the MAF's story was a cautionary tale about ascribing too much value to seemingly incontestable fingerprint evidence"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian_d
Username: Brian_d

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 9:46 am:   

the plot revolves around the perfect forgery of a thuimb print found in blood at the scene of a crime, if taken at face value would have sent an innocent man to prision.

Wouldn't you think it would be strange if the person whose thumb print it turned out to be turned up minus that thumb would have a pretty good alibi?
If he was proven to be dead prior to the forgery taking place sans thumb, an even better alibi.
Sounds self-defeating either way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 12:45 pm:   

Brian, we know that Zodiac didn't like the idea of the police appearing to get the jump on him. Remember how upset he apparently became when he felt the police had implied that the Lake Herman area was well lit? The same could be true with the Stine prints; he left them to throw the police off, but once word got out that he may have "screwed up," his pride got the better of him and he felt compelled to correct it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 12:49 pm:   

All Zodiac would have needed to do is murder someone who had likely never been arrested/fingerprinted, such as a teen. Wouldn't have even needed to be a male. Hide the body and you've got instant fingerprints.

How many people disappeared in California in 1969? Quite a few.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SF Nite Rider (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 1:11 pm:   

How true, Remember the severed finger that mysteriously wound up in the bowl of Wendy's chile last year?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sabre fan (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 1:24 pm:   

yeah and it would have to have been a fresh one too.within a week the print on the finger would look like a prune......i also suppose the teens from the window could have identified whos finger it was ....lol
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sabre fan (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 1:44 pm:   

heres a interesting link to a davis article http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/Manson_Bruce_Davis. htm
Bruce Davis and Charles Manson
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 3:51 pm:   

Prior to the Stine murder, Zodiac had left two surviving victims. He couldn't have known what they told the police, or perhaps who else had seen him, his car, etc. Zodiac must have been feeling the heat at some level and I highly doubt he wanted to allow the police to win the game.

With that in mind, what better way to clear yourself then to plant a conclusive piece of identifying evidence that could never ID you should you become a suspect? Or do we believe Zodiac didn't plan/contemplate his moves? Or would it really have been that difficult for an accomplished serial killer back in 1969 to pick up a hitchhiker and hide the body?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 4:39 pm:   

If someone was to solve the 340 character cipher and it contained- My name is Cletus Butterfield and I live in Muleshoe, Arkansas.

The police investigate and find: Cletus has died. But he left his only possession to his sister. A 9 mm Lugar which matches ballistics.

The DNA does not match.

His fingerprints do not match.

His handwriting does not match.

All circumstantial……What would you do?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 4:51 pm:   

" You speak of Fouke like he was the second coming of Elliott Ness/Sherlock Holmes". LOL, Tom. If we were to take Scott's angle and swallow the whole hook, Fouke would have been Chief in 70-71, instead of Cahill.

I'm interested in Sean's comments about Fouke's suspect's hair. They are direct quotes from F, I believe.---"He believed the hairline was even more receeding than in the composite". This seems to lean towards ALA, and away from TK and BD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 5:22 pm:   

In 1969, both Don Fouke and Mike Mageau briefly saw a partial profile of Zodiac's face at night. 20-some years later, both were shown pictures of Arthur Leigh Allen for the first time. So..why is it Scott poo-poos Mageau's positive ID of Allen, while claiming Fouke's dismissal of Allen is somehow credible? Both sightings occurred under similar circumstances. To dismiss one and not the other is pure biase. An explanation of that type of reasoning would be nice.

Scott, you routinely take posters to task for such things. Lately I've given you a taste of your own medicine, so you took your football and went home. I find that surprising.

By the way, you're the prime offender when it comes to namecalling and aggressiveness around here, so don't complain to me if you occasionally get it in return.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 5:30 pm:   

Vallejo Dave, a police officer carries with himself a note book to make entries for the events that took place while he was doing his beat. it is timed and itemized line by line.

How many times have you seen a cop on the beat makes such entries as you pass by him or as you pass by his squad car or scooter?

I have seen many times. That is why I can recall it now.

If PO Fouke thought his encounter with Z was important, then where is his official police entries regarding his passing encounter with the white male passerby?

It seems to me that it is getting easier and easier for P O Fouke to recall small details from a fleetimg moment back in 1969. Usually folks tend to lose small details from their memory banks due to long passage of time.

With the stuff Tom had posted so far here, I bet that it would not be too long before we hear from PO Fouke via Mike R again.

What will it be next time? That he could recall bloody spots on white male's dark pants as he ambled away? Or is he going to recall that the guy might have had a mustache and a pair of glasses just like Paul Stine?

If PO Fouke can not back up his statements based upon his official police reports for Stine case, then why should he be left unscrutinized? Should I not have the option to swallow the hook and the sinker one at a time?

It is for similar reasons that I do not rely on the accounts of three teen witnesses. Just look at what the passage of a mere 5 days had done to their recollactins regarding who they thought they saw that night. Poster 1 and Poster 2 speak for themselves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:08 pm:   

"In 1969, both Don Fouke and Mike Mageau briefly saw a partial profile of Zodiac's face at night. 20-some years later, both were shown pictures of Arthur Leigh Allen for the first time. So..why is it Scott poo-poos Mageau's positive ID of Allen, while claiming Fouke's dismissal of Allen is somehow credible? Both sightings occurred under similar circumstances."

You're actually going to sit there and tell me that a cop slowing down to take a look at a pedestrian is the same as a guy being shot with a gun while a flashlight is in his eyes? Okay, Tom, whatever. It is a complete waste of time to even attempt to explain the difference if you are really that far gone.

"Scott, you routinely take posters to task for such things. Lately I've given you a taste of your own medicine, so you took your football and went home. I find that surprising."

A taste of my own medicine? How have you managed that, Tom, by showing that your highly speculative and improbable scenarios are somehow as significant as blatant evidence? You haven't proved a thing! I'm sure in your own mind you think you have, but you haven't, in reality, done any such thing.

"By the way, you're the prime offender when it comes to namecalling and aggressiveness around here, so don't complain to me if you occasionally get it in return."

Aggressiveness, perhaps, name-calling, no. Show me one place in these threads where I've called someone a name. Meanwhile, you sit idly by while VD blatantly insults me; not in a context, not by showing how I've made a mistake, and not as a descriptive term. VD's actions were intended for nothing other than as a blatant insult.

Furthermore, unlike you, who is actually unwilling to get off his ass and work for a living, I have a job that I use to pay bills and buy the things I need. So, excuse me if I don't have the time to sit around and post all day. Furthermore, I thought you made it clear that I'd made my point and was simply beating a dead horse? If that's the case, then why do you continue to ask me questions of the most asinine variety and expect me to come in here and answer them?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:21 pm:   

"You're actually going to sit there and tell me that a cop slowing down to take a look at a pedestrian is the same as a guy being shot with a gun while a flashlight is in his eyes?"

As you already know, Mageau didn't always have a light shining in his eyes. Regardless, both accounts are equally worthless, not just Mageau's.

Scott, are you actually denying that you've called people names at this message board? Oh boy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:32 pm:   

"If someone was to solve the 340 character cipher and it contained- My name is Cletus Butterfield and I live in Muleshoe, Arkansas.

The police investigate and find: Cletus has died. But he left his only possession to his sister. A 9 mm Lugar which matches ballistics.

The DNA does not match.

His fingerprints do not match.

His handwriting does not match.

All circumstantial……What would you do?
"

The first thing I would do is reclassify the gun and the bullet as direct evidence. If you can take the bullet from Stine's head and match it to a gun that is direct evidence that the bullet came from the gun, not circumstantial.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:42 pm:   

What about the cipher which identifies Cletus Butterfield?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:50 pm:   

Scott wrote:
"until people get it, I'm compelled to continue down this same path."

There's the problem right there -- everyone's wrong but you.

By the way, Scott...during this two-page thread, you've made numerous factual errors regarding Allen. For example: Do you know for sure that he was bald in 1969? Nope. In fact, he wasn't. But you stated it as a fact in order to diminish the case against him.

You're behaving like a reverse RG.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:52 pm:   

"What about the cipher which identifies Cletus Butterfield?"

That's circumstantial because there's no proof that the author of the cipher isn't simply trying to implicate someone else.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 7:56 pm:   

Very true, so does that not make any handwriting analysis or certification suspect. At least, it should not be used as a reason for exclusion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 8:08 pm:   

Tom wrote:

"By the way, Scott...during this two-page thread, you've made numerous factual errors regarding Allen. For example: Do you know for sure that he was bald in 1969? Nope. In fact, he wasn't. But you stated it as a fact in order to diminish the case against him."

I'm sorry Tom if you thought I was in error when I said Allen was bald, but I was just going by your very own website where you posted John Lynch's initial report on Allen from October 6th, 1969: "Arthur 6'1", 241, heavy build and is bald."

If there are any other errors that you can find, please bring them to my attention.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 8:13 pm:   

"Very true, so does that not make any handwriting analysis or certification suspect. At least, it should not be used as a reason for exclusion."

If you are looking at nothing other than the handwriting evidence by itself, then you are absolutely correct, John.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hanson (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 8:18 pm:   

Scott b, If we did NOT have DNA and did NOT have a fingerprint what might be our approach to this case with the theoretical evidence listed above?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Linda
Username: Linda

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 1:33 am:   

Deoxys said above: "Z states in the very first page of the 11/9/69 Bus Bomb letter:
"I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of the time I look entirle different" http://www.zodiackiller.com/BombLetter1.html
This letter is chock-full of deceit and seemingly desperate efforts to distance himself from any evidence available to SFPD (fingerprints, eyewitness accounts, ballistics etc.). I tend to believe, therefore, that the composite sketch was accurate enough to make him nervous, even if it was created by weak eyewitness testimony."


The above theory that Z was actually telling a story can't be dismissed and the fact that he became nervous after the Stine killing and composite drawing was released can't be disregarded - especially since there are no known/confirmed Z killings from that time forward; however, I tend to think he was basically telling the truth and it was irritating to him when reports of how things happened weren’t identified correctly. He tends to think of them as “lies” and wants to set the record straight. In other correspondences, he wants to make it clear as to who he was and insists on providing proof that it is he who has performed an act or is the writer and wants his activities reported accurately. He gives examples, which would have been able to be corroborated by the police and/or investigators relating to the victims, scenes, weapons, etc., and, of course, provides physical proof after the Stine murder.

Example: In his letters to the Chronicle, Examiner and Vallejo Times, Z states that to prove he is the killer he shall “state some facts which only I and the police know…” http://www.zodiackiller.com/ChronicleLetter1.html
http://www.zodiackiller.com/VTHLetter1.html
http://www.zodiackiller.com/ExaminerLetter1.html

In his bus bomb letter, Zodiac sums up his anger with the police for their telling “lies” about him with a digging taunt attributed to what he apparently feels was police stupidity in their inability to catch him, “...Hey, pig, doesn’t it rile you to have your noze rubed in your booboos?

With the above in mind, I think we must consider the possibility that he actually was telling the truth and that he may have appeared different in his everyday life, even if it was only to the extent as to the style of clothing he wore daily (i.e., business suit, uniform, etc.).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 7:49 am:   

I think there was a very telling statement made by Mike Rodelli himself while discussing the alleged conversation and what Fouke saw etc.
When I asked about Mel Nicolai's claims regarding Fouke apparently first describing a much taller heavier individual, Mike responded citing Fouke's sitting position and how just like Hartnell may not have been able to judge Z's weight, in the circumstances.To hit home his point Mike added that even when Fouke looked at the picture of Allen he thought he was 380lbs.
Now I don't know what picture of Allen was shown to Fouke by Mike, but in all likelyhood it came from this site and probably one of those with Allen in a cream T-shirt. In any case I think showing a photo of Allen such as he was could be very deceptive. It is very hard to judge his weight.Now by simply putting Allen in darker clothing and putting him in the situation such as Fouke seen Z in that night, I have no doubt he would appear half as "large".
The point being if these witnesses were shown a picture of a guy whom they believed to be in the 380lb division, it's not surprising that they would dismiss him as a suspect. The fact is Allen in 71 (from a police report) was put between 220 and 250 lbs...120 to 160 lbs lighter than Fouke thought he looked in the photo shown. That in turn was two years after the Stine murder and we know Allen was gaining weight all the time not losing it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 8:13 am:   

Can it therefore not be reasonably, honestly and fairly deduced that Fouke described a guy the same height as Allen, the same hair colours,the same heavy build, in the same weight class,same age, same large face and the same walking difficulty such as Allen had.
Again, how can Fouke claim that Allen wasn't in the same ballpark? He actually described Allen or someone damn close.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pop Corn (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 8:35 am:   

Sean, a police photo line up may merely consists of showing a witness mug shots of several different suspects.

In Z case, not only we do not know for sure which photo of ALA was used to show to PO Fouke and three teen witnesses but we also do not know for sure how many and what type of photos of other suspects were shown to them to rule in or rule out ALA.

We do not even know if the same set of photos were used in each case to rule in or rule out ALA.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 5:07 pm:   

Scott, of course I'm aware of the Lynch report; I'm the guy who found it and posted it on the web! But that's not proof Allen was bald. Now, a picture would work just fine.

I've been told by people who knew Allen back then that he wore a buzz cut. (He was no longer teaching and didn't need to "conform" or look like a teacher so to speak.)

What nobody has yet to challenge me on is the writer's palmprint that was taken from the Exorcist letter. If it's a legit print, we know it rules out Allen. Even if it were possible to fake, there'd have been no reason for Zodiac to fake a palmprint after successfully faking the cab print. Of course, I'm suspicious why a palmprint was found on that letter and none of the others, but that's just me. Also, that letter was considered fake for a while, although I'm not sure why.

Assuming it's a legit Zodiac letter, for Allen to be Z he would have had to fake the cab prints and the writer's palmprint. Now that's what I call a good argument against Allen being Zodiac!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SF Nite Rider (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 6:23 pm:   

Allen had hair back in 87'. It was like Tom says... short on the sides and kind of buzzed or crewed on top... He didn't have much, but it was there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Socal
Username: Socal

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 7:02 pm:   

I can tell you what Toschi thought of the weight of the suspect shown on the most famous sketch of the Zodiac. I believe it showed him as (approx) 5-10 180.....whatever.

I was 16 years old at the time and had a suspect that I thought could be the Zodiac. I had 2 meetings with Toschi at SFPD and one other meeting with someone I didn't know. The first was with a go between (not sure who it was, but it wasn't at the station itself. It was at a resteraunt within a couple of miles of the station).

My info was interesting enough that Toschi called me at home (4 hours north of SF), a few days later and wanted me to come down with my dad and talk to him. We made 2 more trips to SF.

Toschi was very very interested in my suspect. I told him there was one thing that didn't match up at all. That the suspect was close to 230 pounds. Toschi told me that didn't matter. They were not sure if he was 170 or 250. He pursued the investigation on the guy I knew, only to let up after they checked his hand writing and said it didn't match.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 9:04 pm:   

SF Night Rider wrote:

"Allen had hair back in 87'. It was like Tom says... short on the sides and kind of buzzed or crewed on top... He didn't have much, but it was there."

SF NR: I readily admit that I've never met Arthur Allen, but if you'd kindly refer to the photo that Vallejo Dave posted back on June 28 in part one of this thread, it definitely looks like Allen was almost entirely bald to me. At the very minimum Allen is 'balding' heavily and has nothing that could be characterized as a crew-cut, which is what, at minimum, four different eyewitnesses described the night Paul Stine was killed. Now, I have no idea when that picture was taken, but I'll wager anything that it predates 1987 by close to two decades. Let's not forget also that, exactly five days before the murder of Paul Stine, Allen was interviewed by John Lynch of Vallejo PD and described Allen as "bald." Therefore, even if Allen was capable of wearing his hair in a crew-cut, he certainly couldn't have grown one in five days.

Tom, to address your first point, when you wrote the following: ". . . of course I'm aware of the Lynch report; I'm the guy who found it and posted it on the web! But that's not proof Allen was bald," I think the points I made above go some distance toward showing that it does in fact show proof that Allen was bald, at least five days prior to the Presidio Heights incident, at any rate. John Lynch interviewed him face-to-face and described him as being 6'1", 241, heavy build and bald. Now, I don't believe that Lynch was standing there with a measuring tape and a scale, so I'm assuming that the 6'1" and 241 pounds part probably came from Allen's driver's license, which is an interesting point in and of itself because, unless Allen had been issued his driver's license the day Lynch interviewed him, we have to assume that it was issued to him at some point prior, so we don't really know how much Allen weighed on the day he was interviewed because, even if the information didn't come from Allen's license, Allen may have simply given Lynch the "stats" verbally. On the other hand, I have to believe that the "heavy build and is balding" aspects of Lynch's description had to have originated from Lynch's own observations, as this is not something that the interviewee would most likely offer about himself or would be included on his driver's license.

"What nobody has yet to challenge me on is the writer's palmprint that was taken from the Exorcist letter . . . assuming it's a legit Zodiac letter, for Allen to be Z he would have had to fake the cab prints and the writer's palmprint. Now that's what I call a good argument against Allen being Zodiac!"

That certainly is a good argument, Tom. I admit that I haven't paid a lot of attention to the various nuances surrounding The Exorcist letter; I'm definitely going to have to look into that in greater detail. If I'm not mistaken, I do believe that had been pointed out by either Jake Wark or Mike B. on one of the ancient message boards, but don't quote me on that. That's an extremely interesting scenario, though, as it may very well prove that Zodiac wasn't the infallible serial killer that some perceive him to have been.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 9:21 pm:   

All seriousness aside, Tom (insert your favorite smiley and friendly face here), I loved how you described me as the "reverse Graysmith." That's one description I can definitely live with!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SF Nite Rider (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 10:03 pm:   

Scott,

Don't get me wrong. Iam not advocating that Allen was the Zodiac.. Far from it. Iam just going on what I can recall from nearly 20 yrs. ago..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 10:20 pm:   

I understand, SF, thanks for the clarification.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 10:32 pm:   

Scott, Lynch was strictly questioning Allen about the Lake Berryessa murder; that sketch was of a man with a Tom Brokaw hairstyle and that's most likely what Lynch was looking for. Compared to that sketch, a buzzcut/balding Allen was a chrome dome.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

armchairpi (Unregistered Guest)
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 1:16 am:   

To reiterate another poster's theft of a "great american's" words: "Can't we all just get along?"

Can we all agree to disagree.

I mean, when I'm feeling a bit sympathetic for Scott, something is definitely outta whack.

The bottom line is that, if I may Scott, on Scott's read, the composites are not all that interesting at all except insofar as they corroborate (on Scott's analysis) the pile of incontorvertable evidence that points away from Allen:
1) the fingerprints were not his
2) handwriting experts conclude his is not a match
3) his DNA does not match the stamp saliva DNA
<etc>

Or to rephrase in a more Aristotelian manner:

The fingerprints don't match Allen's;
The DNA does not match Allen's;
The handwriting experts deny the known Zodiac handwriting belongs to Allen;
(suppressed: The fingerprints are Zodiac's);
(suppressed: the DNA is Zodiac's);
(suppressed: the handwriting experts have more authority than amatuer detectives.);
Allen is not Zodiac.
.......
and the eyewitness descriptions back this conclusion up to boot!

Now Tom, on the other hand, believes the fingerprints could very well belong to a corpse, the DNA could very well be the neighborhood children's who allegedly licked Allen's (... awkward moment ...) stamps, and the handwriting experts could very well not have been in possession of important Allen exemplars, and therefore, lacking complete data, came to an erroneous conclusion. And, actually, because Allen's profile varied so damned much over the years, the eyewitness description very well might fit him to a "T" at the time of each crime, and might explain the wide variance of descriptions from different eyewitnesses.

And Scott, you've been positively insulting and mean spririted toward Howard, btw. Lighten up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 8:48 am:   

Tom wrote:-"For Allen to be Z he would have had to fake the cab prints and the writer's palm. Now that's what I call a good argument against Allen being Zodiac".

I think that's debatable Tom. Remember the Z letters stopped right after Allen was interviewed in 71.
That was followed sometime later with the search warrant,(when prints were taken and Allen was "forced" to give writing samples) so Allen would have been well aware the interest in him hadn't been lost.
Isn't it interesting that the two pieces of "physical evidence" in this case are indirectly connected. The bloody prints coming at the scene of his last murder( two weeks after Allen was interviewed) and the palm print coming in his last (official) letter.
Convenient in one sense,that we have one set excluding him from the murders and another print excluding him from being the writer. (Depending of course on what you believe)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 9:04 am:   

Popcorn wrote:- "Sean,a police photo line up may merely consist a witness mug shot of several different suspects"

That's not relevant here because we are speaking of Mike Rodelli/Jim showing Fouke and the teens a "photo" of Allen and asking him to comment.
That photo had to consist of more than just a "mug shot" because one of the main reason these witness dismiss Allen was because of his build/ size. That would not be discernible in a "mug shot".
As for now knowing which photo of Allen was shown, that too should of been a simple case of Mike telling us which photo was shown!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:46 am:   

You're right, Sean; Allen was interrogated by police in 1971 and his prints taken by SFPD in 1972. The question is, considering the police essentially gave up on him after taking his prints in 1972, why would he feel the need to fake a palmprint in 1974? It's not like they were still scrutinizing him at that point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:50 am:   

Armchairpi, if I recall correctly there was more than on fingerprint recovered from the cab (multiple fingers). Meanwhile, other prints were recovered from various Zodiac letters. Had everything been as it appeared, I would expect a match between some of the prints to eventually happen. As far as I know, none of the prints match each other.

How many fingers did this guy have?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:53 am:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

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