Other reasons for not being Allen


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Other reasons for not being Allen


By Chrissy Shaw (dial-72.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.72) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 02:31 pm:

Dear Ezzy and anyone else who wishes to discuss:

You asked me, why not Allen from Berryessa on? Here is what I can say: I have relied heavily on Mr. Graysmith's published work and information I have read here at Mr. Voigt's site. It is all I have to go on regarding the late A. L. Allen.

If he indeed lived in the basement of his mother's house(even if he lived in trailers at times)that relationship would point me towards the type of homicides that would be abductions and dumps. If you will recall the list of "Zodiac"(by: R. Graysmith), please note those co-ed homicides. That is the pattern I would expect from such a background.

Could he be a copycat? I doubt that there is a genuine break in the claimed series. If I lay Berryessa at his door, I would put all the claimed there. Berryessa seem the culminating act in the series(planned long and hard, looked forward to)and it is the type escalation I would expect.

I have a Ph.D. friend who works with released sex-offenders. He has asked me on several occasions to predict re-offense because he knows my line of study. In all the time we have spent going over blank-scenario cases, I have yet to see a serial-pedophile switch targets so radically as would be needed if what Mr. Graysmith said about the late Mr. Allen is at all true. (If anyone knows of some closed criminal cases contrary to this--please let me hear of them.)

From scant second-hand information, the whole of Mr. Allen's lifestyle seems too cluttered to have been Zodiac. I really see a more organized(over-all)killer.

In the end the evidence rules and if he was the perp. then I stand to gain a great deal from this experience. Be it prints, handwriting or both that close the A. L. Allen mystery either way, so be it.

Chrissy

By Jake (spider-wm072.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.199.182) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 05:20 pm:

I'm throwing in with Chrissy in terms of skepticism towards the idea of a pedophile escalating to a serial killer -- at least Zodiac's type of SK. I don't have any PhD friends, but I do have a groaning bookcase and I've never read of anything like that happening.

I might also point out that the progression from serial killer to serial bomber is equally unlikely, as is the idea of a serial killer taking a 30-year break and then killing a six-year-old beauty pageant contestant, though I'm sure I will receive rebuttals from theorists of both bents.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-99.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.99) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 07:13 pm:

Yes Jake, yes. Thank you! Sir you have my e-mail, if you would be so kind, I would like to forward the link that you posted to someone who can clear up the print mystery. The man is very busy, but if there is a thread of merit in the work I read, I believe he may well be interested.

Has my own risk factor doubled by my sever being listed in the open board? Zodiac I am not too worried about--but the cast who cruises here bothers me a bit more than a bit. CS

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-99.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.99) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 07:16 pm:

Thank you Jake--that answered one question :).
CS

By Tom Voigt (ac9148a2.ipt.aol.com - 172.145.72.162) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 09:17 pm:

Jake, I totally disagree with your belief that a pedophile likely would not behave like Zodiac.

My take on the Zodiac crimes is they were merely the foundation on which to taunt the police through the media. Therefore, I don't think the type of victim was much of a concern to Zodiac, as long as they were people the community would care about. (No prostitutes, transients etc.)
It's significant to me that at the peak of Zodiac's publicity, he chose to focus his letters on children. Not politics, ideals, etc, but kids.

Also, Gacy was a pedophile. So were Ramirez and Dahmer. And, based on the fact that he had sex with 12-year old Kimberly Leach, so was Bundy.

By Ezzy (proxy2-external.santab1.ca.home.com - 24.4.254.49) on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 10:50 pm:

Hi Chrissy, Jake, Tom, and all,

This is what Chrissy wrote: "I have a Ph.D. friend who works with released sex-offenders. He has asked me on several occasions to predict re-offense because he knows my line of study. In all the time we have spent going over blank-scenario cases, I have yet to see a serial-pedophile switch targets so radically as would be needed if what Mr. Graysmith said about the late Mr. Allen is at all true. (If anyone knows of some closed criminal cases contrary to this--please let me hear of them.)"

About a month or so ago my eyes got big when two detectives knocked on my door saying they wished to talk to me. After asking for I.D. I told them they could come in. It was about an employee we had for a few months who had just quit. Apparently he had given OUR address to his P.O., so they asked me if he was at home and if he still lived here. This absolutely floored me. To make a long story short we thought he was a sweet enough guy (after you get used to the fact that he physically looked like a homeless man) and he had spent several hours visiting in my home (having in-depth discussions about God, no less.)

I convinced them that he certainly had never lived here and then the story unfolded that he had recently molested his girlfriend's 8 year old daughter and that this was his third offence. He's now a fugitive and when they catch him he gets life. When he was on my couch and the "girlfriend" was on the loveseat I noticed that he never once looked at her. He always sat there looking straight ahead grinning and looking pleased "as punch" as she explained how her little girl absolutely adored him! He didn't seem interested in any women at all, the times I'd seen him around them. So-o-o, would a guy like that, or a guy like Allen have been able to switch their M.O. and go for young women to murder- that's anybody's guess. Almost everything about Allen could fit like a glove, which is why he's still definitely my favourite suspect. By the way, the detective told me that I was more than welcome to go to the Sheriff's Dept. to look at their computer data base. They give you 15 minutes time and you HAVE to know the zip code because you cannot search by Name or City. Sorry this is so long. I'm sure this is one of numerous stories of child molesters not being able to straighten out their twisted thinking patterns. These molesters are the equivalent to murderers in my book.

By Jake (spider-ti022.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.194.182) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 12:52 pm:

Tom Wrote:

"Also, Gacy was a pedophile. So were Ramirez and Dahmer. And, based on the fact that he had sex with 12-year old Kimberly Leach, so was Bundy. "

Gacy killed young boys. Ramirez was a drug casualty and was about as organized as a kindergartener's cubby. Bundy's crimes were overtly sexual in nature. He comes a little closer than the others, but none of these guys behaved like the Zodiac. The closest behavioral comparison I can think of is Berkowitz.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Bruce D. (pm3-04-42.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.17.42) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 01:30 pm:

Every person on this planet is unique, and as such some perp. may fit the generally accepted profile and some perp. may not. Profiling is not an exact science, in fact many" quote -unquote" exact sciences have proven to be not so exact. All living animals on earth breathe OXYGEN. That's what we all thought 'till scientists a few years ago found wormlike ANIMALS living near hot vents on the ocean floor breathing SULFER. Profiling is a science. There are no truths- only hypotheses that are always open to conjecture . That is what science is all about. And SOCIAL SCIENCE is LESS EXACT THAN PHYSICAL SCIENCE because of a multitude of possible mitigating factors. All profiling can do is give you a place to start ,but in many instances it is barely a step ahead of the police banging on all the doors in neighborhood when they have no other lead. It also placates the public and makes it sound like the police are heading in some other direction besides a 360 degree misadventure.
Bruce D.

By Tom Voigt (ac981881.ipt.aol.com - 172.152.24.129) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 03:03 pm:

Jake, since none behaved like Zodiac, couldn't that mean ONLY pedophiles are likely to become Zodiac-type killers? It goes both ways. I'm not implying I believe that, but since there are not many cases to learn from (and since the most crucial info about these guys comes directly from their untrustworthy lips) using Allen's pedophilia an an arguement against him being Z seems weak to me.

By Jake (spider-wl031.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.199.31) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 05:51 pm:

Tom wrote:

"Jake, since none behaved like Zodiac, couldn't that mean ONLY pedophiles
are likely to become Zodiac-type killers?"

Only if Allen's the Zodiac.

"....using Allen's pedophilia an an arguement against him being Z seems weak
to me. "

Obviously, the successful killers work undetected, and are thus unanalyzable. That said, from the examples shown to us by the killers who have been caught, and whose personal histories are available to us, the pedophiles who escalate into killers tend to kill the objects of thier deviance: children. Yeah, there will be exceptions, but I think this is a pretty reliable rule of thumb. As intriguing as Allen is, he should be regarded with the same skepticism as Kaczynski, O'Hare, and JonBenet's killer, especially when the distinct possibility that he was nothing but a big wannabe arises. Assuming even that Z wrote "The Confession," the real Zodiac wouldn't go out and buy a Royal typewriter with Elite typeface -- he would already have one with Pica type, which Graysmith misidentified. The real Zodiac would have known that only one knife was used at Berryessa (not two, as Allen said in the interview with Mulanax).

As a suspect, Allen looks better than most. To be sure, it's well within the realm of possibility that he jumped the "profile" and went on to kill young adults of both sexes in groups of two. But his past works against him just like all the others.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Debra (ppp126.ncfcomm.com - 204.77.184.186) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 06:06 pm:

Remember a pedophile commits on average 67 crimes before detection the first time. This could be one victim, many victims or a combination of both. This is according to national stats. Nobody on this board to my knowledge knows what kinds of crimes the Z committed prior to detection/advertisement, or since then for that matter.

By Mike in Oklahoma (csdu-24160.communicomm.com - 24.143.24.160) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 07:04 pm:

One question that bugs me is what led the police to question Allen after the Berryessa killing? I have not found this in any of the files about Allen and wonder what 'tipped' them. I doubt it was the sketch as while it resembles Allen it is generic enough to resemble two of my friends as much or more as it does Allen. Plus, I have previously expressed doubt that the young man watching the women sunbathe was Zodiac. The hunting buddy wouldn't relate his story of Allen to authorities for over a year, so why did they seek him out to question? In my mind the answer could have great bearing on Allen's probability of actually being Zodiac.

By Tom Voigt (ac87b466.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.180.102) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 09:56 pm:

Jake, I recall Allen was initially quoted by John Lynch as mentioning only one knife. Perhaps, with almost two years to gain his composure and get his story straight, he decided to add an "extra knife" to look less incriminating when interviewed by Mulanax and Co. After all, he seemed to sense he would have to one day explain his early statements to Lynch.
Besides...how many knives would a guy need to kill a chicken? They don't exactly fight back, unless you believe "Chicken Run" is a documentary.

By Jake (spider-ti013.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.194.178) on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 11:20 pm:

Tom wrote:
"I recall Allen was initially quoted by John Lynch as mentioning only one
knife. Perhaps, with almost two years to gain his composure and get his
story straight, he decided to add an "extra knife" to look less
incriminating when interviewed by Mulanax and Co."

The Lynch report of 10-6-69 doesn't say anything about any knives. To my mind, the real question is why, with two years to study the case and read every detail that had been been disclosed in the papers, he got the number of knives wrong!

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Mike (spider-wk082.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.187) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 07:28 am:

Isn't "Chicken Run" a documentary? Those teeth look so real...

I would also like to know where the subject of knives was discussed by Lynch and Allen. Tom, do you have another report written by Lynch on the same interview that nobody knows about ;)? One would think that if Allen mentioned a knife to Lynch, he would not have given him such a cursory once-over and immediately dismissed him as a suspect.

Mike

By Tom Voigt (ac948b61.ipt.aol.com - 172.148.139.97) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 12:34 pm:

Mike, Allen apparently never mentioned a knife to Lynch, however I have read Allen paraphrased as saying, "The knife I had in my car that day I used to kill a chicken."
Since Allen was known to carry multiple weapons in his car at all times (a tidbit of info that I received from some excellent sources), if he was Zodiac he might very well have had two knives that day. Perhaps the knife used in the attack leaked on the second knife while in the car. Who knows?
Let's not forget the reason Allen brought this up to the detectives was because, apparently, he was seen with a bloody knife or two the day of the Shepard murder. Or, he merely wanted police to THINK he had a bloody knife that day, which is quite taunting.
Either Allen was very much like Zodiac, or Zodiac was very much like Allen.

By Jake (spider-wd022.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.157) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 01:40 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Either Allen was very much like Zodiac, or Zodiac was very much like Allen."

Or Allen wanted us to think so.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Tom Voigt (ac8a5d63.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.93.99) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:05 pm:

Jake, that fits the profile, doesn't it?
Zodiac was thought to be someone who would cast suspicion upon himself. He would taunt, offer info, but not to the point of getting caught.
If Allen was not Zodiac, he was walking the same line.
Think about it this way:
Besides Zodiac, how many WMA's between 20 and 45 were also...

1) In Riverside in October and November 1966

2) In Vallejo on December 20, 1968

3) In Vallejo on July 4th and 5th, 1969

4) Had a bloody knife in their possession on 9-27-69

5) Exhibited handwriting similar to Zodiac's

6) Were proficient with knives and guns, and carried them in their car at all times

7) Were extremely familiar with, and fond of, "The Most Dangerous Game"

8) Had a naval background

9) Were heavy enough to leave the footprints at Berryessa

10) Were ambidextrous

11) Were ID'd by one surviving Z victim as being Zodiac, and described by another victim in terms of, "There's nothing about the way he looks or sounds to rule him out."

I could go on, but you get the point. The number of men this list would fit can't be more than a few, especially considering the distance between Riverside and Vallejo. When you eliminate those that wouldn't dream of taunting the police and casting suspicion upon themselves regarding criminal acts they didn't commit, the list shrinks even more. Plus, Allen just happens to be someone who several others claimed to have made incriminating, "I'm gonna call myself Zodiac" remarks.
Even without those remarks, it's hard for me to believe that after the process of elimination there could be more than one man left.
Oh yes...and he never had a solid alibi. Even after years of focus and scrutiny by law enforcement, nobody could find evidence placing him elsewhere.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-124.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.124) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:11 pm:

Gentlemen:

Bundy had no record of pedophilia. For the record, profiling is not the guess work it was even ten years ago. Because most offenders suffer common mental or personality maladies, then tend to behave in pathological fashion.

I would like to note that it is common for a sexual-homicidal predator to pick a less risky target while on the up-swing. The victims usually are young or the elderly. Unless that victim fits the taste of the perp., such a predator quickly moves on to victims that match the tastes.

I think--as Tom mentioned--that the threats against children were due to a wish on the part of Z to inflict terror. I doubt this individual(despite the elaborate plans shown) had the capacity to kill children. It is for this reason I tend to find K. John's story viable, even if the perp. never said a word about killing her. That her story has changed could simply be a reconstruction of events taken from her own fears, but I hardly see them as a conclusive rule-out.

Please take good looks at these perp.s mentioned and if you would relate it to work by Keppel, Douglas and Ressler before you throw out profiling. Forensic psychology is quite a conservative field compared to social psychology. Also, if you think criminals are quite unique, take a look at Dr. Samenows work. We may not be the chemists the forensic science people are, but we have sound material we work from.

Unless there is concrete evidence(not testimony)linking Mr. A. L. Allen to these crimes, I maintain he does not fit the profile and evidence. The latter--not the former--is the rule of law.

By Tom Voigt (ac8a5d63.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.93.99) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:20 pm:

Johns never told the police that she had been threatened or abused in any way. She claimed the man was "friendly."
Choosing to place credibility in her unlikely tail is not logical.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-124.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.124) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:45 pm:

Dear Tom:
I have not sat down with Ms. Johns. I believe you have and I know others have. I tend to interview a bit different and I would like to speak with the alleged in this case. I am not saying you are wrong in your judgement, nor am I saying your logic is flawed. I am saying that I do not know for certain and in this instance I would like to speak to the horse.

I am going on totally second-hand information, as are many. The only reason I would find this individual interesting is that it is what I would expect as a new way that the perp. might explore towards a new for of killing. I also believe there is arson in the perp's background. I am not building from Johns backwards, but from features in the other crime scene forward.

Have you, by yourself spoke with Ms. Johns and is this subjective conclusion based on such an interview?

By Edward (adsl-63-204-74-141.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.141) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:48 pm:

Crissy,
Who's throwing out profiling? Not being mean, but I don't know how, without seeing the case files and evidence that have not been released to the public, one can make a more than a rudimentary and esentially incomplete determination as to the Zodiac's profile.

I have a question for you. Based on the Crime Classification Manual and what is publically known about the case, what would you classify Zodiac's crimes as?

By Mike (spider-tl084.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.214) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 02:58 pm:

Tom-

That quote you use from Allen about "killing a chicken" is from the 1971 report by Mulanax. Anything Allen said at that time (that was possibly tainted by media coverage of the LB crime) has to be taken with a grain of salt. (i.e., Ranger White mentioned on TV on 9/28/69 that Hartnell expressed the notion that he was essentially "too chicken" to see Cecelia get stabbed first. That SEEMS to be the source of Allen's slick reference to "killing chickens". This exchange is not mentioned in the report by Robertson. Bryan simply states that Z took out the knife and started stabbing them with NO warning and no verbal exchange. You said on TV that Bryan "didn't see the knife coming and got stabbed in the back". The implication is that Bryan didn't even know he was about to be stabbed, which he would have if Z said that he was going to stab/kill them. Is there a police interview which indicates that the "too chicken" exchange even took place? I'd be very interested to know if someone else elicited that quote from Bryan.)

At any rate, my point is that there is no mention of the knife, "The Most Dangerous Game", "Treasure Island", the neighbor "Mr. White", etc., in the 1969 interview, when this info should have been fresh in Allen's mind. The fact that he gave a bare bones interview to Lynch (per Lynch's report) in 1969 and all of a sudden had all these embellishments in 1971 reeks of someone who added more details to his story as he learned more about the crimes. I know I've made this point before and apologize for repeating it.

If anyone did see Allen with a knife on his car seat on September 27, 1969, why is this not covered in detail by Lynch?! If that is the SOLE reason he was there that day, after a report by Allen's sister-in-law, I'd find it hard to believe that he would not question Allen about it SPECIFICALLY and mention the exchange in his report. Why WAS he out there that day, anyway? The speeding ticket at LB is apocryphal, per a very knowledgable source.

Mike

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-124.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.124) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 03:04 pm:

`Edward:

Sir, I am Chrissy, not Crissy. I have no text here at this location and to reply, I wish to site references, so if you would be so kind, I will draw on some resources and classify from those.

I have said that my profile was bare-boned and I heartily agree it is by any estimation. Give me enough and I'll point out the color of his bed sheets (on average). I will point out before I make a couple calls here (Post Monday sometime) that a long record of pedophilia would be as close to conclusive as needed to judge with in reason.

Again--forensic scientific evidence over-rules any profile.

Good question and worthy unless you have an ulterior motive here. CS

By Edward (adsl-63-204-74-141.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.141) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 03:26 pm:

Chrissy. Nope, no ulterior motive, just an interest.

By Jake (spider-tr024.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.184) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 03:28 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Jake, that fits the profile, doesn't it?"

It just as easily -- and more believably -- fits the profile of someone who wants to play games with cops.

"Zodiac was thought to be someone who would cast suspicion upon himself. He would taunt, offer info, but not to the point of getting caught."

This is pure opinion. If Z wanted to cast suspicion on himself, he had over two dozen opportunities to do so.

"1) In Riverside in October and November 1966
2) In Vallejo on December 20, 1968
3) In Vallejo on July 4th and 5th, 1969"

Allen being a Vallejo resident, the latter two aren't very shocking or convincing. So far you have one coincidence: the possibility that he was in Riverside sometime in November (October doesn't count unless you can pin him down on the 30th or 31st).

"4) Had a bloody knife in their possession on 9-27-69"

As far as I can tell, the knife story originated two years after the Berryessa attack. This is hardly a showstopper.

"5) Exhibited handwriting similar to Zodiac's"

See Ted K, Mike O, and the shipper/receiver for the warehouse next door.

"6) Were proficient with knives and guns, and carried them in their car at all times"

If you consider stabbing two hogtied college kids "proficient," then I think most people qualify. Ditto for shooting someone point-blank in the head: it doesn't require any great skill.

"7) Were extremely familiar with, and fond of, "The Most Dangerous Game" "

This was a short story before it was a movie, and remains more identifiable as such to this day. I read it in grade school. Z made little more than a passing reference to it -- the type of reference, in fact, that wouldn't even require having read it. Allen may actually be overqualified for this one.

"8) Had a naval background"

For sewing? For a simple substitution code? For shoes that could be picked up at an army-navy store? For a haircut that Allen wouldn't need because he was bald?

"9) Were heavy enough to leave the footprints at Berryessa"

Okay, you got me -- he was fat.

"10) Were ambidextrous"

How do we know Z was ambidextrous? If we don't know this about Z, how can we use it to include or exclude suspects?

"11) Were ID'd by one surviving Z victim as being Zodiac, and described by another victim in terms of, "There's nothing about the way he looks or sounds to rule him out." "

One victim wanted the whole thing done with. The other wasn't sure.

"I could go on, but you get the point. The number of men this list would fit can't be more than a few, especially considering the distance between Riverside and Vallejo. "

Tom, half of those criteria are meaningless. What we have is a fat guy who visited Riverside and liked to mess with cops.

"Plus, Allen just happens to be someone who several others claimed to have made incriminating, "I'm gonna call myself Zodiac" remarks. "

You know as well as I do that the man who made those statements about Allen was the father of a girl Allen molested. Mulanax stated this himself as the giant grain of salt to take with the man's statements. The case against Allen is a ball of string -- pull on it a bit, and the whole thing unravels.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Tom Voigt (ac8adbfc.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.219.252) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 04:56 pm:

Jake, let's debate further:

We know Zodiac was a WMA, certainly between 20 and 50 years old.
He wasn't obviously tall or short, probably close to average in height.
Evidence indicates he was probably over 200 pounds.
He was either balding or usually kept his hair short on purpose.
He was in Riverside on 10-30-66 and Vallejo on 12-20-68 and 7-4/7-5-69, and probably had strong ties to Vallejo.
He had ready access to various weapons, both guns and knives.

Between 1966 and 1969, Riverside and Vallejo weren't very large cities. Therefore, using the criteria above, the list of Zodiac candidates isn't terribly overwhelming. And Allen fits perfectly.
Of course, so far so did many others.
However, we seem to agree that if Allen was NOT Zodiac he certainly wanted people, including law enforcement, to think he was. When you eliminate all remaining candidates who would NEVER, EVER consider such taunting, bizarre behavior, the list shrinks tremondously.
Additionally, Zodiac had a warped attitude toward children (based on his ability to threaten them), as did Allen.

Your discounting of Mageau's identification is very biased, IMHO. To say he just wanted it "to be over with" is putting words in his mouth. And how can you claim Hartnell "wasn't sure?" His quote was "There was nothing about the way he looked or sounded to rule him out."
By saying there was nothing about Allen that didn't match Zodiac, he sounds pretty sure to me--at least as sure as he can be considering Z's hood.

By Tom Voigt (ac8b913b.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.145.59) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 06:06 pm:

Mike asked, "Is there a
police interview which indicates that the "too chicken" exchange even took place?"

I have all of the reports from the Napa County Sheriff's Department, including supplemental reports from the initial civilians at the scene.
Nobody quotes Hartnell as saying "chicken" in any context.

By Jake (spider-wa054.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.44) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 07:57 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Jake, let's debate further..."

Okie-doke. Just so's everybody knows, I'm carrying on like this to spark a little debate -- I don't have a suspect, I'm not hellbent on proving Allen innocent, and I have only respect and admiration for Tom and the site.

"We know Zodiac was a WMA, certainly between 20 and 50 years old.
He wasn't obviously tall or short, probably close to average in height."

Ok, so we have Everyman so far. This is exclusionary, and is only relevant to suspects like Hank the Angry Dwarf from the Stern show and, uh, Howard from the Stern show.

"Evidence indicates he was probably over 200 pounds.
He was either balding or usually kept his hair short on purpose."

Ok, agreed.

"He was in Riverside on 10-30-66 and Vallejo on 12-20-68 and 7-4/7-5-69, and probably had strong ties to Vallejo."

Agreed on Vallejo (though anywhere in the North Bay area would do), but Det. Shumway from RPD seemed to think that the Bates letters were phonies, that neither Bates' killer nor the Zodiac wrote them (at least, he said this to Mike Butterfield a few years ago). So I think that Z's presence in Riverside on 10-30-66, 11-30-66, or 4-30-66 is open to debate.

"He had ready access to various weapons, both guns and knives."

He certainly had an affinity for guns, using a different one in each attack. The knife appeared to some to have been homemade, or repaired at home, which also indicates that he had a strong interest in weaponry. However, incidence of weapon-friendliness skyrockets above the general population in subsets like Serial Killers. Many, many more people are fond of guns and knives than use them in multiple murders. This weapon-friendliness is also found in higher rates among military servicemen, of which there were many in the North Bay area at the time.

"Between 1966 and 1969, Riverside and Vallejo weren't very large cities. Therefore, using the criteria above, the list of Zodiac candidates isn't terribly overwhelming. And Allen fits perfectly.
Of course, so far so did many others."

Allen fits because the criteria are broad. Anyone who wasn't a midget or an anorexic basketball player fits the physical description, so really all we've got is someone from the North Bay -- Vallejo, maybe, or Benicia, Concord, Pittsburgh, Fairfield, Mare Island, etc. Riverside doesn't enter into it, now that we're looking at "Barnett" for the Bates murder.

"However, we seem to agree that if Allen was NOT Zodiac he certainly wanted people, including law enforcement, to think he was. When you eliminate all remaining candidates who would NEVER, EVER consider such taunting, bizarre behavior, the list shrinks tremondously."

You and others have listed plenty of reasons for Allen to dislike cops. His taunting of Lynch, Mulanax, and others would fit equally well if he were not the Zodiac. Furthermore, for a guy like Allen, whose perversion is regarded with almost universal revulsion and disrespect, being regarded as a Zodiac suspect would almost be like a promotion! Here was a supercriminal that had all of California gripped in terror, awe, and fearful respect -- why wouldn't Allen play it up?

"Additionally, Zodiac had a warped attitude toward children (based on his ability to threaten them), as did Allen."

These, I think, are two very different types of warp. Z used threats against children to get publicity -- the newspaper articles that followed them certainly bear this out. A braggart like Z would be aware of the public's perception of pedophiles, and would probably keep any such fixation a closely-guarded secret.

"Your discounting of Mageau's identification is very biased, IMHO. To say he just wanted it "to be over with" is putting words in his mouth."

You've posted plenty of words regarding Mageau's integrity and value as a witness, none of them particularly kind, and now you're going to take one photo ID decades after the fact and make a case with it? And call me biased?

Well, you'd be right -- sort of. Somebody's got to play Devil's Advocate here.

"And how can you claim Hartnell "wasn't sure?" His quote was "There was nothing about the way he looked or sounded to rule him out." "

I can claim that because that statement incredibly vague! In fact, it sounds like there would be a "but" immediately following it! If Hartnell felt strongly, don't you think he would have said something a little more stirring?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-66.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.66) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 08:18 pm:

Excuse me Tom, but would that not then be a circumstantial-profile and while I agree a possibility Allen fits, I also see enough to cast reasonable doubt here. I also am waiting for a case where the perp. jumped from underage molestations to after perpetrating the former to any great degree. Gacy, Dahmer both preyed on like victims within their patterns. Ramirez(did he have a series of pedophile crimes first?) I can not comment here. One single crime towards a child does not indicate a pattern. K. Leech I want to review. If I can see some evidence I am willing to alter it once I cross check the data.

Now about Ms. Johns, can you answer my earlier questions for my own clarification?

By Tom Voigt (ac9a9dcb.ipt.aol.com - 172.154.157.203) on Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 09:03 pm:

I haven't talked to Kathleen Johns, and don't want to. The emphasis should be on what she told police at the time, not some recent interview.

Further, you're assuming that if Allen were Zodiac he didn't start killing until the late 1960s, or "after" he had already been molesting kids.
Who is to say he didn't start killing in his early 20s like many other serial killers? That would have been the late 1950s. Whoever Zodiac was, it's doubtful to me that his first murder was in 1966 or '68.

By Bruce (pm3-01-01.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.16.65) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 12:04 am:

Again to disagree with all parties on both sides
of the Allen issue, the Ted K. issue, the Larry K. issue, the Richard M. issue, the A.K.A. Andy W. issue, why does anyone have to fit any one solution whether it be profiling or any other thing other than hard physical evidence. Hey this guy might not fit anybody's pet theoy no matter how much evidence is displayed for one method over another. A famous psychologist, Gordon Allport, used to say no matter what the probability that one fits a certain preordained analysis, in the end he or she fits it 100% or o%. A theory, a sociological evaluation, a pscychological evaluation, a criminal evaluation are all wrong or all right depending on only one factor(IT'S RAINING WHENEVER I PLAY BASEBALL,THEREFORE DOES MY PLAYING BASEBALL CAUSE THE RAIN OR DOES RAINING CAUSE ME TO PLAY BASEBALL OR DO THEY BOTH HAPPEN INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER)
We lose our objectivity when our subjectivity is self perceived as the only or most correct way.See, it's almost, if not, like a religion. Most everybody thinks they have either the right suspect or the right method of naming the suspect. It's like all the religions of the world fighting to the death to defend their true faith. Each one does believe that they have the answer and all others are wrong.
Bruce D.

By Ken (pppa9-resaleburlingtonnc1-1r7137.saturn.bbn.com - 4.54.18.38) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 01:03 am:

Nice exchange between Tom and Jake. I see Jake's points, but I tend to agree with Tom's line of thinking. I have studied this case since the mid-80's and have always thought Allen was the perp. One thing that proves to me that if nothing else, Allen wanted to be suspected is the comment he made while being interviewed at his place of work about wanting to see the day that "cops were not called pigs.", knowing that this was Z's favorite description for the police. Anyone should see that statement was a piece of bait. Also I once read a statement of one investigator who said Allen was very cooperative and helpful. Allen offered any assistance he could lend.To me, it sounds like he hoped the police would talk o him more about the crimes. This would be kind of like re-living them for him. This would be in line with the way that some killers are drawn to visit the scenes of their past murders. It might be like that when questioned about his involement. Maybe not.

By Ezzy (proxy2-external.santab1.ca.home.com - 24.4.254.49) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 02:42 am:

Tom wrote:

"That fits the profile, doesn't it?
Zodiac was thought to be someone who would cast suspicion upon himself. He would taunt, offer info, but not to the point of getting caught"

I haven't read the last series of posts yet, so hope this wasn't mentioned by anyone. A while back someone posted something to the effect that he would actually have the gall to go to his meeting with his P.O. holding the hand of a little girl. I was shocked by this, if it is indeed true, in light of the fact that this is what he had been in big trouble for already. He strikes me as having been an extremely belligerent taunting personality-type guy- one in a million- unbelievable brazen, bitter, vengeful!

By Mike (spider-tp041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.191) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 06:41 am:

First of all, Jake, is it true that Allen molested the daughter of one of the hunters? If so, that goes a LONG way towards dispelling their testimony, especially if it was the daughter of the one who was NOT the eyewitness to the 1968 statements.

To Tom--I was asking if there is proof in a police interview that there was a verbal exchange between Bryan and Z RIGHT BEFORE he stabbed them. Does Z indicate that he is "going to have to kill/stab" them, and does Bryan say that he wants to be stabbed first, since he can't stand to see Cecelia get attacked first? This is where the IMPLICATION of Bryan being "chicken" may have come from. But did that exchange actually take place? As I said, Bryan doens't recount it in the Robertson report, saying only that he was looking towards Cecelia and may or may not have seen him unsheath the knife, then got stabbed with esentially no warning. (In other words, was Ranger White the only person to report such an exchange. Is it apocryphal, or did it take place?)

With respect to Ken's statement, at that time, everyone who was under 25 called cops "pigs". For Ken to make the leap he made that since both Allen and Z used that word, it means that it was a clue, is a bit of a stretch. That is hardly compelling evidence in my opinion. The whole point about Allen as a possible wanna-be is that he obviously followed the case very carefully, even if he was not Z, and extracted elements of it to use in his 1971 interview with the police. This is how he would have made himself look like he was actually Z. The word "pigs" appeared in Z's letters. If Allen had read that word in published versions of the letters, then he'd know to use that term in order to make himself appear more Z-like, just as he used all the other Z "catch phrases" in the 1971 interview.
This is hardly incriminating stuff, IMHO.

Mike

By Ezzy (proxy2-external.santab1.ca.home.com - 24.4.254.49) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 08:49 am:

I'm curious about something. I suppose there's a 200% chance that Allen's brother would NOT want to be asked one single question relating to his brother. But if someone was insensitive enough to start plying him with questions, would you think that his response would be that he just plain didn't want to talk about it OR do you think it would be a firm/flat denial followed by his reasons as to why the "z" never in a million years could have been his brother.

By Douglas Oswell (119.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.119) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 10:10 am:

Mike--The Robertson report simply states that based on the interview with Hartnell, Zodiac struck "without warning." There's no mention of any particular conversation between the time Zodiac finished tying his victims and the actual stabbings. That's actually fairly consistent with Zodiac's m.o., i.e., he carries out the crime with a minimum of involvement with the victims.

The Unabomber-Zodiac Connection

By Mike in Oklahoma (csdu-27230.communicomm.com - 24.143.27.230) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 10:50 am:

As to the friendly debate between Tom and Jake I'm afraid I must side more with Jake's views. It has seemed to me most of those who believe Allen was Z do so because nobody has found a better suspect. All anyone has is circumstantial evidence. I am not saying Allen was not Z, just that I doubt he was, because:
1-Everyone ties Allen to Riverside, but the circumstantial case against "Barnett" is at least as strong as the circumstantial case for Allen being Z. If 'Barnett' killed Bates, as I believe, tying Allen to Riverside is Meaningless.
2-The fingerprints on the cab didn't match. Sure, maybe they were not Z's prints, but it still the best physical evidence to date.
3-Several handwriting analysts said Allen's and Z's printing was very similar,but NONE of them stated a positive match. In light of the fact that lots of 'positive matches' were found among various Zodiac writings, this tells me the experts had doubts about Allen's writing.
4-Hartnell wasn't sure. Saying there was nothing to rule Allen out is NOT the same as ruling him IN.
5-Much of the suspicion around Allen stems from the statement the hunting buddy made and the fears expressed by his sister-in-law. The hunter's statement is now suspect and the sister-in-laws fears just prove he was weird. Of course he was weird, he was a pedophile! I don't know of any hard evidence his family was able to provide.
6-Allen's property was searched several times and nothing was found. I know there is reason to suspect he had other places not searched and the only thing the searches proved was they did not find anything. That's my point, they did NOT find anything.
7-Allen clearly liked to frighten people. That's how he got his way, by presenting a sinister and dangerous demeanor. What better way to frighten than by encouraging suspicion he was the country's most famous serial killer to date?
8-Mageau did identify the picture, but how many years after Allen was publicized as a suspect? This taints this evidence even if Mageau's veracity was not suspect.
9-Vallejo may have been a small town in 1969, bit it was within an hour's drive of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. That doesn't narrow the field of suspects! Someone across the bay could well have picked Vallejo and Berryessa as locations to scout for their crimes, and remember, Stine was killed in San Francisco.

I could go on with minor details, but look at the key words in each point above; not, didn't, nothing, none, etc. While a circumstantial case can well be made against Allen, a circumstantial case against his guilt can also be made. In the absence of further hard data, I conclude Allen might have been Z, but I doubt it.

By Tom Voigt (ac9ca87b.ipt.aol.com - 172.156.168.123) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 12:08 pm:

Mike, Ranger White's report states the following exchange occurred before the attack:
Zodiac: "I'm going to have to stab you."
Hartnell: "Stab me first, I can't stand to see her stabbed."

Mike in Oklahoma:
Even if Barnett killed Cheri Jo, Zodiac was most probably still in the area in the weeks that followed the murder.

You're assuming when you say that Allen "clearly liked to frighten people."

Several possibly-incriminating items WERE found during the last two searches of Allen's house: 12" knife with sheeth and rivets, Royal typewriter, bomb diagrams, Winchester Western Super X ammo, disks labeled "Polygons", etc etc. What became of them? Were they tested/compared? Nope.

By Tom Voigt (ac9ca87b.ipt.aol.com - 172.156.168.123) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 12:24 pm:

By the way, about a year ago I spoke with one of the "two hunters in the woods" that Allen allegedly made incriminating statements to.
(I'll call him "SP.")
SP is a retired millionaire living in Los Angeles, and doesn't have occasion to see his old hunting buddy anymore.
It was SP's buddy that heard the incriminating statements by Allen. During our conversation, SP stuck to the story originally told to police, even after 29 years and Allen's death.

The best story SP old me was about Allen's need for attention:
In the mid-1960s, SP, his "hunting buddy", Leigh Allen and his brother, Ron, were together for the first time in a year.
Feeling ignored as the others were gathered around the kitchen table chatting, Leigh slammed a machete into the table. SP told me the only reason the others could come up with to explain his actions was Leigh's need for attention, and his temper.
When I asked SP if he would be surprised if told Allen tortured and molested children, SP said he would be shocked.

By Jake (spider-tl033.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.188) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 12:43 pm:

Ken wrote:
"One thing that proves to me that if nothing else, Allen wanted to be suspected is the comment he made while being interviewed at his place of work about wanting to see the day that "cops were not called pigs.", knowing that this was Z's favorite description for the police."

If someone could point to an example of Allen using this phrase BEFORE Zodiac did, it might mean something, although that term was in frequent use by counterculture types everywhere during the '60s. My hypothesis is that Allen wanted to be perceived as a Zodiac suspect, though, so anything Allen says AFTER Zodiac ("pigs," "kiddies," etc) only reinforces my point.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Ken (pppa86-resaleburlingtonnc1-1r7137.saturn.bbn.com - 4.54.18.115) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 01:18 pm:

Mike and Jake, I said that I think Allen made the "pig" statement to cast suspicion on himself. I did not say it was a clue that he actually was Z. Nor did I say he said it before Z wrote it in his letters. Does any one have an opinion on my other statement about him being helpful? How about Chrissy?

By Mike (spider-tl051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.196) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 02:30 pm:

Ken-

Sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. I agree with you that the "pigs" statement was part of his overall effort to cast suspicion on himself in the 1971 police interview. And he did a pretty good job of it, too!

Mike

By Mike (spider-tl051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.196) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 02:33 pm:

Tom-

If Allen actually did molest (or was accused of molesting) the daughter of one of the two hunters, can you tell me if it was the one who was the eyewitness to the remarks or the other one? (I'm not looking for prurient details here, just the facts as they apply to the case!) Obviously, this situation has to make you look at their testimony in a different light...

Mike

By Edward (adsl-63-205-196-198.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.198) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 02:45 pm:

The evidence regarding Allen is vast. It is circumstantial as well. Tom has already listed much of the reasons Allen is (IMHO) an excellent Zodiac suspect and Jake and others have tried to cast doubt on those reasons. One other reason for "Allen for Zodiac!" is that Allen owned a Zodiac diving watch and was the only suspect shown to have been familiar with one. (Yes, I think Zodiac took his name and symbol from that watch).

I will say that the one thing that bothers me with leaning toward Allen as the Zodiac is that the Justice Department had him in for a grueling Q &
A session sometime before his death. I would guess that they raked him across the coals pretty good and found nothing they could arrest him for
either. If you can get past the Justice department you're either innocent or very very good.

What we all wouldn't give for that one little piece of direct physical evidence...

What is interesting is that police found pipe bombs in his possession and did not arrest him for it. I wonder why not? They also found an ammo clip for a 22. Was it for a JC Higgins model 80? Was Hartnell ever shown the knife? Would he have recognized it if he had? Many many questions are unanswered in the public's mind.

If another suspect had this much against him, I would be leaning toward him. I can't find one as good (to my mind), and I've looked at everyone except Peter O and Walker, both of whom we never discuss because we know very little about them. Anyone checked them out as closely as Ted or Arthur or the others?

One other thing. Tom mentioned they found a computer disk labeled "polygons." To my eyes it looked liked "ploglams." I think Allen was spelling "programs" with an Asian accent.

By Mike (spider-wb084.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.189) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 04:53 pm:

Allen was misspelling the word "Programs", as we can all surmise, on purpose. This is the same thing he had done for thirty years--do and say things that made him look like Zodiac, but which always led down blind alleys. In that spirit, computer disks are of very recent vintage (i.e., the word was written on that disk in the 1990's, not the 1960's), and by 1991, we can all rest assured that Allen knew that Z liked to intentionally misspell words. This misspelling is, of course, of absolutely no consequence. It was just part of the game...

Mike

Mike

By Bruce D. (pm3-02-43.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.16.171) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 05:05 pm:

We don't know if this game was to make the police think Allen was Z (WHEN IN FACT HE WASN'T) or make the police suspect he was Z (WHEN IN FACT HE REALLY
WAS). He may have just wanted attention and known he'd never be caught because he wasn't the perp., or maybe he wanted attention because he really was Z and knew the Law was too stupid(IN HIS OWN MIND) to pin anything on him. I suspect the only one who knows besides Allen or and Allen and Z is the force that created the universe.
Bruce D.

By Jake (spider-wm065.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.199.198) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 05:47 pm:

Mike asked:
" Jake, is it true that Allen molested the daughter of one of the
hunters? If so, that goes a LONG way towards dispelling their testimony,
especially if it was the daughter of the one who was NOT the eyewitness
to the 1968 statements."

Arthur Allen's brother Ron was a friend of the two hunters who fingered ALA. Of these two, the man who first described ALA's alleged plan to tape a flashlight to his handgun, shoot up a school bus, and call himself "Zodiac" was a man I'll call DLC.

Ron Allen told Mulanax on 8-4-71 that DLC and his hunter friend SPP "were responsible people who would not have made such statements [regarding Allen's claims] if they were not true." However, Mulanax quotes Ron as saying that "he had received a complaint from [DLC] that his brother had made improper advances toward one of his children," and goes on to add that "this might be a motive why [DLC] would make such an accusation against Arthur Allen."

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Tom Voigt (ac9ea999.ipt.aol.com - 172.158.169.153) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 05:51 pm:

Guys, Allen had a disk labeled POLYGONS. This disk was not the same as the disk labeled PLOGLAMS.

By Jake (spider-wm065.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.199.198) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 05:59 pm:

Ken wrote:
"Jake, I said that I think Allen made the "pig" statement to cast
suspicion on himself. I did not say it was a clue that he actually was
Z. Nor did I say he said it before Z wrote it in his letters."

I agree on both counts, I was just pointing out that the evidence that some see as implicating Allen also leads to the implication that Allen was intentionally messing with Mulanax and Co. Allen's similarities to Zodiac that come after 1969 are practically meaningless.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Bill Baker (pool0353.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.189.98) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 07:31 pm:

Just a suggestion, based on no more than idle conjecture, but in reference to the computer disk marked "Ploglams" taken from a search of Allen's home, perhaps he had spelled programs correctly but used the checkmark style of lower case r that Zodiac was known to use, and the officers mistook the r's as L's.

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 08:07 pm:

The disks that were found, I thought was after he died? Polygons is something with more than four angles, what was he referring to? The word PLOGLAMS, now that is very Z like.One of the notes left for Darlenes sister had upside down Ls, and on one of the suspects notes (Jake you have a copy of the one I am referring to)Z wrote some letters that way!If you turn the Ls over you have the correct spelling of programs!A lot of people knew where Allen lived. The caller from Tahoe who tried to throw suspicion off of himself, could of planted anything he wanted to. The 12inch. knife with two rivets,all of my 12 inch knives have two rivets.A wooden handled one was put on the floor of my entry hall closet with what looked like chicken fat on the end of it! The police said: someone was playing a bad joke on me.Also the knife used in the trailside killings was just like the Lake B. one! The ground at Lake B.is covered with rocks like gravel,very little soft dirt between them.(Thats at the crime scene). The ground was and still is very uneven,so if Hartnell was standing in front of the killer,even two feet away,a man 5ft8 would look much taller.Z would of been standing west,facing east and on the higher ground.How the foot prints could be exact is a real wonder. Sandy

By Mike d. (spider-wc082.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.57) on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 08:31 pm:

Need I remind everyone that "chicken"is pedophile slang for minors?Hartnell and Shepard may not have been minors but if Z thought they were then the statement about using a knife to kill "chickens" would be accurate in his eyes.

By Anonymous (slip166-72-176-124.al.us.prserv.net - 166.72.176.124) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 02:20 am:

What reason did Allen give the police for having the pipe bombs in his home?

By Anonymous (gw2-uk.paribas.com - 155.140.123.250) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 05:14 am:

All,

Could it possibly be that Allen was just a 'patsy'. He may have known or been involved with the actual killer but made himself known as a suspect to divert attention off the real killer. Obviously he has enough circumstantial evidence to warrant extensive questioning, but they could pin nothing on him.. A lot of people on this board seem to think he is a main suspect, but again nothing is proved. Was the plan to have allen become a main suspect (knowing that there was not enough info to indict) whilst the actual killer remained nearly anonymous?

Thoughts please.

By Ken (pppa62-resaleburlingtonnc1-1r7137.saturn.bbn.com - 4.54.18.91) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 07:22 am:

That is possible. Kind of goes along with the "Team Zodiac" theory.

By Tom Voigt (ac9e8999.ipt.aol.com - 172.158.137.153) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 10:49 am:

Sounds like the plot to a bad movie to me.
The reality of the Zodiac case is probably much more simple.

Remember Ted Bundy? Before he confessed, he was thought to be some genius charmer, able to sweet talk his victims into his murder-customized VW Bug. (Complete with missing passenger seat.)
The truth turned out to be much different.
Bundy would pretend to have a broken arm, complete with phony sling. He would solicit "help" from whatever coed was closest, and would ask them to carry his books or briefcase. Just at the right moment at his VW, Bundy would drop his keys on purpose. When the coed bent down to pick up the keys, Bundy would slam a tire iron into her head.
Some genius.

By Tom Voigt (ac9e8999.ipt.aol.com - 172.158.137.153) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 10:57 am:

The reason Allen wasn't arrested for such obvious parole violations was because the Vallejo Police Department completely dropped the ball after each search. Captain Conway was an egomaniac, and would not involve other departments.
The knife recovered from Allen's house was NOT compared to photos of Shepard's wounds, which was a bigger blunder IMHO than Allen's non-arrest for the bombs and weapons.
Conway was quoted as saying he didn't think the Stine murder was the work of Zodiac. Why? Because he didn't have proof (at the time) to place Allen in SF. Moronic. The Stine murder was the most obvious of Zodiac's crimes.
After Allen died, Conway had most of VPD's Zodiac-related materials shredded.

By Edward (adsl-63-205-196-211.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.211) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 11:27 am:

Tom,

Thanks for shedding more light on the Vallejo debacle. It's no wonder, with all the ego's running around in this case, that it has yet to be solved. Captain Conway's skills notwithstanding, to shred documents in an ongoing investigation is absolutely criminal. Perhaps he was convinced of Allen's guilt.

After Scotland Yard sent their best Ripper suspect to the asylum, they had the Ripper patrols stand down.

By RANDY G (proxy-1376.public.svc.webtv.net - 209.240.220.193) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 08:04 pm:

Tom-In an earlier post you indicated that there is some evidence placing Allen in Riverside in Oct & Nov of 66. You dont mention it on your Allen timeline.Do you have some new evidence?

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Monday, August 21, 2000 - 09:00 pm:

Anonymous, I believe Zodiac used patsys many times.And yes he could have known Allen, they both had sexual hangups,maybe they were lovers? If the statement was true, that Allen had a paper that looked like Z codes,and his reply was:this was written by an insane person!That tells me he could of gotten it from the Zodiac.Also who ever called the VPD from Lake Tahoe, to claim Allen told him "he" was the Z . Could be the killer himself! When you wrote the name Robbin? Could that person be Robbie, Darlenes friend? Sandy

By Michael (ip15.lancaster5.pa.pub-ip.psi.net - 38.32.27.15) on Tuesday, August 22, 2000 - 07:13 pm:

Tom, your take on Bundy is right on he wasnt some super genius his method was effective though, and he got caught because a victim got away and the police got lucky. Again this is how in real life serial crimes get solved......unfortunately

Michael

By Anonymous (slip166-72-176-3.al.us.prserv.net - 166.72.176.3) on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 - 12:21 am:

Did the Vallejo police ever come close to figuring out who "Lee"(mentioned in the report on Darlene Ferrin's death) was? Is there any evidence that Arthur Leigh Allen knew Darlene or any of her family?

By Mike d. (spider-wc062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.47) on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 - 02:15 pm:

Actually Tom you short change Bundy a bit.No not "supergenious"but he planned well.He had several methods not just the fake cast bit.There where home invaision methods,posing as a cop,and picking up hitchikers.Also he liked to kill in different jurisdictions aware of the confusion and jealousy between cops this often causes.sometimes he dumped victims on the side off the road other times buried them in the woods after cutting off there heads.Later he kept whole victims with him for weeks at a time!An eclectic killer all told-like someone else we know!

By Linda (207-172-144-214.s23.as3.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 207.172.144.214) on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 - 02:20 pm:

Edward: In response to your statement that compared to Allen, you "can't find one as good (to my mind), and I've looked at everyone except Peter O and Walker..." what are your key reasons for not thinking Ted is as good a suspect as Allen?
Compared to all suspects, I think that Ted is at least comparable, if not a better suspect than Allen based on the extensive knowledge we have of Ted and the fact that there is no definitive alibi known for Ted during key Zodiac events.

Thanks for the response...

Linda

By Tom Voigt (ac9427ed.ipt.aol.com - 172.148.39.237) on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 - 10:17 pm:

Randy G, when Allen claimed during his 1971 interview that he had been in the Riverside area around the time of the Bates murder, an investigation was launched to find proof.
It was found that Allen traveled to Riverside on weekends while teaching in Calaveras County, in fact he was in Riverside the weekend she was killed. (Allen even missed work on 11-1-66...I have the absentee slip.)

I obtained this info last May from a retired California Department of Justice agent who worked all the Zodiac cases but Lake Herman. The reason I haven't added it to the Allen time line is because I don't yet have cooberation.

By Anonymous (slip129-37-78-96.ny.us.prserv.net - 129.37.78.96) on Thursday, August 24, 2000 - 05:20 am:

Not to take a side issue further, but in all likelihood Bundy decided on Florida because of the death penalty issue. How better to prove your brilliance than to flaunt it by killing there and trying to get away with it? Taunting and flaunting... ring a bell?

By geometer (192.149.1.86) on Friday, August 25, 2000 - 01:20 pm:

observations:


a polygon is a closed geometric figure with 3 or more sides.

the color of the zodiac's sheets (on average) will turn out to have been orange.

"ploglams" is a mildly racist remark.

questions:

isn't utah a death penalty state?

i thought z said, "i'm going to have to stab you people". was "you people" a misquote added by graysmith?

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-76.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.76) on Saturday, August 26, 2000 - 06:51 pm:

Dear Edward & Ken:

We are currently having a humid heat wave and my comp. room is not AC-ed. I will respond as soon as the weather clears to a less saturated air Edward and I wanted you to know I am not ignoring you.

To Tom: Conflicting statements are not always a rule out--why would it be in the Johns case? Just curious here. Bundy and Zodiac as perp.s have nothing in common other than murder in series. I stated sometime ago I felt the J/F were a number in a series and I feel that Stine was a show-staging and I just venture towards Johns because it fits with anonymous approach, and it fits with the failure to actually follow through with the threats to school children. I am neither yes or no on Johns and I would need to know the claimant to decide.

To the rest of you--please take care of yourselves and thank you for the exploration here. It is good to hear all the concerns expressed and ideas drawn out...CS

By Dave (rochcache1.roch.uswest.net - 207.109.208.97) on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 06:32 pm:

Albert Fish killed, screwed, and ate anything. There's at least one for ya.

By Hiho (Hiho) (spider-mtc-tb043.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.104.38) on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 05:27 pm:

This Allen guy does not look like the wanted posters so that makes me doubt that he is the Zodiac individual. The wanted posters from the SF cops are the only sightings of the Zodiac suspects. Any comments??

By Clark (Clark) (slip-32-102-176-72.or.us.prserv.net - 32.102.176.72) on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 09:57 pm:

The illustration of the suspect was based upon the report of the three teenagers who witnessed the killer from their second-story window across the street from the crime site. They met with the artist, who drew the suspect's face from their descriptions. The police officers never met with the artist; I have no idea why not. The artist ended up altering the face to depict a heavier man (as the officers had described), but this wasn't done with the officers' direct corroboration.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd131.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.131) on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 08:25 am:

HIHO:
This Allen guy does not look like the wanted posters so that makes me doubt that he is the Zodiac individual. The wanted posters from the SF cops are the only sightings of the Zodiac suspects. Any comments??

BRUCE M:
Correct. Allen looks nothing like any of the many different composites we have! Also, the three teenagers who definitely saw the Zodiac (the police officers were in a moving car and may or may not have seen the same person), describe someone not even close to a match for Allen.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.184) on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:31 pm:

One thing about the Stine crime scene: I've been there at different times of the day and night, and at night, while standing on the sidewalk outside of the teenager's home and looking at someone about 50 feet away in front of 3898 Washington, you cannot see very much in the way of detail as far as facial features are concerned. The street light washes detail out, so I can only imagine how much less the teens saw that night while watching Z through fog.

Thus, I think that the composite was more artist's impression than actual fact, and the little details, like the "ptosis" and the lines between the eyebrows, were all in the artist's mind. That might explain Toschi's comment (to paraphrase) "We didn't know how good it was in 1969," shortly after the 1978 letter was received.

With that sort of faith in the composite by the detectives, I'm not sure how to take it.

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0909.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.191.144) on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 10:39 pm:

Ed,
I have been to the Stine site every time I'm in SF, and I have to agree with you on your assessment of the scene in regards to visibility etc. One quick question: do you know if the scene itself has changed much through the years? To my untrained eye it looked pretty similar to what Graysmith describes, although i might add that if you use Graysmith's account you can become horribly confused when you arrive there.
An interesting side note. The last time I was at the Stine site (Aug.'00), I was walking up the street taking photographs and making a few rudimentary sketches. I looked across the street and to my utter amazement, I saw another man doing the same thing! He was creepy looking: 6-6'1, 200-220, long greasy hair, and a noticable scar on one of his cheeks. Perhaps the wildest part was that he was in his mid-40's to early 50's and he was wearing a Willie Nelson t-shirt! I didn't say anything, but he looked over and gave me one of those all-knowing 'members of the Illuminati' smiles. It scared the corn starch out of me!
Ed, were you in SF last August? Just curious.
Oscar
p.s. Despite my penchant for the bizarre, this actually did occur.

By Howard (Howard) (dialup-63.210.123.25.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.123.25) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:12 am:

EdN.-I think the kids got it right as Zodiac stated "1 I look like the description passed out[the poster]only when I do my thing,the rest of the time I look entirle(sic)different(good Lord -if this is true -then we really don't know what Z looked like!).I shall not tell you what my descise(sic) consists of when I kill ."Upon observing different mug shots the UPSTAIRS witnesses later thought certain suspects were too old,etc.They did give out that Z was about 5'8" and was of stocky build , around 25/30 yrs old ,wore glasses ,reddish or blond crew cut hair ,and also gave a description of his clothes,etc. They must have seen his face/person from upstairs as they gave a description that was even APPROVED by the Zod' himself!I have a greater problem with how the good officer recounted his description IF he and Zelms DIDN'T stop and talk to the Z!It was dark and foggy and the trees cast their shadows over the Z as he walked down the sidewalk. Now you have two men who have received an emergency call and they are going at a good clip; and understandably they are both tense("caution urged"), and as Foukes glances out the window he is able to quickly view this WMA and then, later give such a detailed description of him ,that to me,is surprising to say the least.They even gave an amended composite of that WMA!And it's my understanding that the PD even denied that their men saw the Zodiac.Bruce M. has brought up the possibility that the WMA could have just been a passerby. It opens ,at least ,the possibility that they did pull over and speak to Z as Z says in his letter.There is supposed to be a 'secret report' on this incident. Peterson could not get it and he did believe that the officers did pull up to Z and briefly questioned him. I guess the reason for the denial would be self evident-it was a major blunder(as was the BMA APB) of the first order.According to GS (!)the two patrolmen were "shattered and filled with despair" upon learning they saw(or SPOKE?-now that would fill ya with despair!)the Zodiac and were not able to capture him. It says that "The patrolmen's report and statement were placed in confidential files..."Until I see this and other reports on this incident I won't accept the S.F.P.D.s denials.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p120.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.120) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:23 am:

Oscar wrote:-"He was creepy looking;6-61 200-220,long greasy hair and a noticable scar on his cheek.He was in his mid 40's to early 50's and he was wearing a Willie nelson T-shirt."
"Ed were you in SF last august"
BWAHAHAHAHA Ed are you really that ugly?

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p29.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.29) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:35 am:

Ed,Oscar,
Given the police description of the suspect at the Stine killing;Would that not indicate that the "teenagers"did in fact get a good view of the killer.They are practically identical!

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca3f2de.ipt.aol.com - 172.163.242.222) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 11:40 am:

Foukes and Zelms never worked with the composite artist.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p85.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.85) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:22 pm:

Now Iam Confused.Can you explain what exactly happened and how we have two composites.Did the police officers ok the sketch?Thanks

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tc053.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.43) on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 05:30 pm:

Oscar: I'm 5'6", short hair, no scars, and not that old! Although when I really let my hair and beard go, I do get a real creepy Charles Manson look going... And a Willie Nelson t-shirt? Gag me with a spoon! Seriously though, it wasn't me...

One thing that has changed is that the trees in front of 3898 Washington were cut down, in the summer of 1999, I believe. Other than that, I believe it's still pretty much the same as in 1969.

Howard: I'm not saying that the composite doesn't look like Z, disguise or not, but the minute facial details were certainly in the artist's mind, because that streetlight washes such details out. For instance, on Jon Zychowski's website, there is some space devoted to the apparent ptosis observed in the composite's left eye, and the apparent ptosis in Peter O's left eye (see Comparison of Faces). I think that's just coincidence, because it is impossible for anyone to have observed such detail, ptosis or otherwise, given the circumstances of that night, unless they had binoculars and/or night vision. Since Foukes and Zelms had no input as far as the composite goes (I can't believe SFPD dropped the ball on that one!), the sketch is, I think, unfortunately more the artist's idea than the kids. But that's my opinion, for whatever it's worth.

However, I think that the composite does resemble Z in general. So general, in fact, that it seems a number of suspects look just like him!

By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:15 am:

I went there a few weeks ago with a friend,one stood where the cab would of been, the other stood across the street, closer than the teens would of been.The night was a clear one and no way could we see any details of a face! I once spoke to the artist who drew the composite, he was still at the S.F.P.D. I think his last name was Lee, couldn't someone find him again, and have him post what took place with that drawing? I thought he told me the officers did have him change it?

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 01:37 pm:

SANDY:
his last name was Lee.

BRUCE:
Another "Lee"! Man, this just adds to my earlier post about the inordinate number of "Lee's] in the area in this time period.

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0262.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.189.7) on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 01:34 pm:

Howard,
I read your post and i am glad that i am not the only person who beleives that the two officers most likely spoke to a suspect that night. The truth, as it usually is, is between the lines. I strongly beleive that the SFPD is hiding something.
Yours,
Oscar.

Sandy,
I did the exact same kind of 'test', but came away with very different results. It was quite easy to discern the basic outlines of someone's facial characteristics. I don't know what your vision is like, but I did not have a hard time with this, and I am certainly no teenager (although I have been accussed of acting like one!). I had three friends with me, and one of them stood where the cab was. This little 'test' took place at the same time as the shooting (roughly), and I was not told which friend would be standing there (two look rather similar). They were also free to switch coats, which further added to the eye test. I got it. Yes, it is not scientific by any means, but it is a good indication of the kind of vision required. By the way, I am slightly nearsighted. I don't think it is the Herculean task you are making it out to be!
Regards,
Oscar

By Howard (Howard) (dialup-63.210.126.244.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.126.244) on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 01:40 am:

Tom-I realize what is the "official line" -our officers did not see Zodiac at anytime, and yet,. they have never released any confirmation. Have ALL the reports been released?Why was a second amended composite drawn?This comp'is like Foulks TAPED statement on the man he SAW the night of the Stine 87'!I will hold to all of this until I see some hard evidence.I respect your comment to be sure, but I have not seen all pertinent reports yet, so I have my present stance.Stories given by detectives ,sometimes I have found, can be just as tainted as any other persons or civilians recounting of a case..Of course, I have a deep and abiding respect for law enforcement, but I have seen some of them use the story mill to their advantage and I found out later that they were totally wrong!I had one Chief of detectives tell me in no uncertain terms ,that a case was solved and that I was wrong in believing that it was unsolved. I finally got the case report and it sure was far from solved-he was saying that as it made his department look good and yet,the DAs office didn't find even the barest of evidence to adjudicate the case!

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (110.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.17.110) on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:16 am:

That, coupled with the information as given out by Tom that there was a good deal of evidence fabrication and tampering on the part of the authorities in the case.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tf021.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.181) on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 05:19 pm:

Does anyone think that Z could have been a cop or ex cop?

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 05:25 pm:

Hurley, I've wondered if a cop wrote the letters but didn't commit the murders. Along with this I think that there would have to be a break in the chain of evidence custody because some of the Zodiac letters included a piece of Stine's shirt.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca9573d.ipt.aol.com - 172.169.87.61) on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 06:45 pm:

Hurley, you need to start a new thread...

By Ty (Clayto) (spider-tp063.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.203) on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 01:27 am:

I find it hard to beleive that the VPD did not examine the "Royal Typewriter" found in the 1991 search warrant exucuted on Arthur Leigh Allen to determine if it was indeed the same typewriter used in the Zodiac letters. Also the VPD seized a footlong knife with rivets that was identenfied at the "Lake Berryessa" stabbings. Where is the DNA evidence that should be considered if there is any? It seems to me that The VPD has an attaquince for logic. I would think they have kept this evidence somewhere. And, Why not cure our curiosity on the subject of the "V" videotape?Now, K. Johns has said recently that in no uncertain way is Aurthur L, Allen "Zodiac". My thought is also the same except "of course" for different reasons. I find that Zodiac truly enjoyed publicizing himself. If Allen was truly Zodiac he would have confesssed and "most likely exxagerated" his total of victims before he would have succombed to a deadly disease. This is what he loved most of all. Put it this way, If I lived out my ultimate fantasy I would share it with the world to satisfy myself before I left. So therfore, I find it hard to beleive that Arthur Allen is our man. I find it more plausible that Zodiac either died suddenly or was incarcerated for anothr crime and died without telling his story. After all, Would you????

By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-03-03.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.16.195) on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 09:29 am:

If I wanted my more glorified self,ie. ZODIAC to become eternal and omnipresent, I would never want my mortal self,ie. ALLEN to become known because then Z would in essence not live forever as he does now. If I were Allen, if I could in death reveal that "I" was Z , I would still not do so because then "ALL HONOR AND GLORY" would pass out of Z. Z would become a mere mortal, something that the human embodiment of Z could never allow.
Bruce D.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb081.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.186) on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 05:53 pm:

I have read almost everything about Allen, please forgive me if this info has been posted but I need to know the time of Allen's birth. This is the only way of determining his rising sign.
I was wondering what the significance of the Taurus signs would be, as Allen is obviously a Sagitarius. We do not see any signs of the Archer on any of his correspondence as far as I know. His opposing sign is Gemini. I have a good working knowledge of Astrology and have done a chart on Allen. (His chart does have some serious afflictions though.) I cannot find much in the way of a Taurus influence, unless it is his rising.
Graysmith really makes a ridiculous comment on page 315 when he writes "either Z was born between
4-20 and 5-19 or he thinks he is a Taurus". That is funny. What reasonably intelligent person (which Allen certainly was as well as Z) would not know their sun sign, or mix it up with another???

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (238.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.31.238) on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 06:38 pm:

Sylvie, you may think I'm joking, but I recall a few years back looking up Kaczynski's sign and finding that he was born on May 22, during a two- or three-day period where there exists an uncertain area between Taurus and the sign that comes after it (I'm not sure which sign that is, as I'm not particularly into astrology, and I don't think astrology had much, if anything, to do with Zodiac). Another case of "zynchronicity," to be sure.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 06:42 pm:

Sylvie: See all the past posts on astrology relative to the Z case.For your info Manson had a Taurus ascendant, as I bring out in my book. Libra(my guy was born on the date of the blood/cross postcard-10/5/70(1942) is ruled by Venus and astrologers connect Taurus to Venus also.Davis was a Libra with Virgo rising.

This dual rulership concept that has been so popular was sternly opposed by genius astrologer and mathematician Carl Payne Tobey-see his site or rather Naomi Bennett's site.But Zodiac would probably follow conventional astrology.

Both of my guys were heavy into astrology and the occult. I -as well as premier Z researcher Dave Peterson-firmly believe Zodiac was a believer in astrology and "used"it,as did Hitler, for his own purposes.

The problem is how do you convey this to someone who does not understand the subject-especially from the standpoint of an adherant.They want statistics, etc, ,but that misses the point!

I determined I was going to research and understand this subject and the occult to see if there were any connections. Peterson did the same.For some it is far easier to bad mouth the whole premise because they are not willing to put the time in. Well and good, but they will not learn from those who did put the time in! Peterson had this problem.It is far and away the best way to get out of added research.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Doug: That is called a "cusp" and it lasts for just a few days. The next sign would be Gemini, so there was a cusp for your guy a Taurus/ Gemini ,but, according to astrology,Ted was technically a Taurus and would show signs of both.

One example. Taurus is associated with the outdoors and making things with the hands(!) and Gemini is associated with intellectual endeavors. and writing(!)-shore didn't fit Ted!

Could one of the reasons for these symbols be a hint that Zodiac killed 3 people under a full moon(or sun)in Taurus? Bates is just one example.Taurus rules the throat!FYI of course!

The 3 circled 8's are in reality circled Taurus symbols. Those that are ignorant of the subject, like Harvey Hines, claim they are circled 8's!The circle is a symbol for a full moon.It can also represent the sun with or without a dot in the center.

There was a full moon in Taurus when Bates was killed.The Buddhists celebrate Buddha's B-day on the first full moon in Taurus during the month of May.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb042.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.167) on Tuesday, June 05, 2001 - 10:38 am:

Wow, this takes me back to the days when I drew up charts for students to put myself thru college.
My charts became very popular because they were so insightful--I once discovered a guy was adopted when I saw that nothing fit and I sent him back home to get his "real birthdate".
At any rate Howard I couldn't with you more, the astrology connection has to be taken very seriously as it seems quite clear that Zodiac was involved or at least interested in it.
Unfortunatly some relate the science to the silly quips in the newspaper which have zero to do with
the real science. Yes it is also part intuitive but astrology is nothing if not Mathematics. A chart is a mathematical excercise, believe me. And let us not forget that all of the early great mathematicians were astrologers. (Gallileo as just one example.)
I've just read the past posts, Moonchild did not have Allen's time of birth either as she did not include the Rising. The rising sign is extremely important, so it is difficult to have an inclusive, thorough chart without it, but what is interesting is the lack of Taurus in Allen's chart (his moon is actually 0 deg. into Gemini).
But as I have said before his chart is terribly afflicted, and with the Scorpio in Saturn we see major sex perversions and frustrations.
I agree 100% that symbols in the said Z letter were that of Taurus, not 8's, and it is a pity that Hines didn't see it that way for it would have bolstered his suspect as he is the only Taurus that I know of for certain.
As for Ted K., Doug, he could have a Taurus Sun, although the 22nd of May is usually too late, but if it ran late that year and he was born early in the morning, it is possible. I could tell you in 30 seconds if I had the exact time of birth.
Note: Most atrologers do not adhere to the cusp--melange theory, if you are even 0 deg. into a sign, then you are that sign, period. Any characteristics you may have with the previous sign is due the influence of that sign elsewhere in the chart.
Howard, you are right about the Venus connection. In fact they are Sister Signs, yes I know about that other thing, but for now and certainly back then they were ruled by Venus.
I feel all of this matters , I mean, I think "the Zodiac" meant more to Z than just a type of watch or a cool name, as some would have it.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (cbrg1176.capecod.net - 63.211.188.160) on Tuesday, June 05, 2001 - 02:26 pm:

Sylvie:

"The real science"?
"All of the early mathematicians were astrologers?" Are you kidding? Name two. Gallileo? An astrologer? Please.
"If you are . . . 0 deg. into a sign, you are that sign"? I am 0 degrees into every sign but Taurus. What sign am I?

Howard:

If the sun is in Taurus in May, how can the full moon also be in Taurus. When the moon is full its 180 degrees from whatever constellation the sun is in. You mean 'new' moon ?

Tom:

How come my comments are a waste of time and space and those immediately above are not?

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-ta062.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.47) on Tuesday, June 05, 2001 - 03:02 pm:

Hi Peter,
I just always assssssume that people have a basic knowledge but I'll make it more clear -- if Ted K.
for ex. had his Sun 0 deg. into Gemini, his Sun would be in Gemini. Ditto for your Moon, Rising, etc.
But the point here is not to defend Astrology, think whatever you want. The point here is that Zodiac was! The Zodiac -- Astrology connection is
there, like it or not.
By the way Howard, it is interesting that Bruce's
birthday is the 5th. I suppose you already know (in numerology) the Karmic significance of 32 and 5.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (209.8.9.221) on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 07:54 am:

I understood what you meant. The count of a new sign begins with zero, rather than the first quantity greater than zero, as in all mathematical and scientific pursuits. Starting with zero -- which has not been accepted as mathematically accurate for the last couple of thousand years -- is like saying that 12:00 midnight tonight, June 6, actually occurs on June 7. About as accurate as saying that Gallileo, Copernicus, Brahe, and Newton were astrologers.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-td074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.184) on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 01:00 pm:

Peter: I've also read that Galileo (at the very least) practised astrology as well as astronomy. He supposedly cast a horoscope for the Duke of Tuscany in 1609 and said the Duke would live a long life. He instead died two weeks later. I can't say about the others though...

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-td064.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.179) on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 02:44 pm:

Peter,
I could also add Ptolemy and Euclid, but that does not mean they were walking up to people and saying "Hey what's your sign?", that is "pop astrology" which as I have already said bears no relation to a mathematically calculated chart. Astronomy and Astrology were part of the same discipline way back when.
At any rate, take it up with Linda Goodman if you wish, I find these splitting hairs tedious.
The whole point about all this was supposed to be how this relates to Zodiac.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-34.linkline.com - 64.30.217.34) on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 02:28 am:

Peter: My poet friend you are running true to form -as right brain as ever!

Please READ my post. I did not make a case for astrology, nor has Dave Peterson in the past.Switch over to left hemisphere mode.

Since the "killer/murderer" -as he called himself in the beginning -named himself Zodiac ,it needed to be determined, if indeed, he did have a true interest in astrology;and so we studied astrology and I consulted with a professional astrologer.

It was found, using various checks ,that it is plainly evident that Zodiac did adhere to the subject.Do you understand?

It does not matter what you 'think', as this is not your area of expertise ,as you show you don't understand the subject and its relationship to Zodiac and his crimes.

You have an 'opposing personality' and this is your focus-to discount or attack something you know nothing about just for the sake of contrariness.I am only speaking about this area and handwriting.

I admit you serve an excellent purpose on the board and have much to contribute. It is only through reconciling the opposites that we grow.

I am saying that you disregarded my posts' contents and misunderstood my words even though you could have taken the time to absorb them ,as you are a smart guy ,but choose to indicate my statement had no'value'based on your failure to comprehend what I said!

I know the answer to your questions -they have been asked a million times and answered as much, but that is not my job. I am advocating Zodiac used astrology, regardless, if it is true or false.

Since my suspect was into astrology I wanted to see if Zodiac left any indications he was into that subject and both Peterson and myself found that he did.

There are other reasons too, but this is the main import of our research in this regard.

Please go to archives and look up posts on this subject. My book covers the subject also.thanx for your past input on the board.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (63.211.187.183) on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 07:15 am:

Gallileo did a lot of things to save his hide and survive the ignorance and tyranny of his time, including pretending to renounce his most important discoveries because the church didn't like a non-geocentric universe. What else is he going to tell the Duke, "you're a dead man?" Especially in the realm of investigation, I would not consider the distinction between science and mythology to be splitting hairs. ANd as for a connenction between astrology and the Zodiac killings, I have yet to see a statistically significant correlation .

By Peter H (Peter_H) (cbrg0656.capecod.net - 63.211.186.148) on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 07:35 am:

Howard: What are you talking about. My only comment directed to you was a question relating to your statement about a Buddhist celebration of "Buddha's B-day on the first full moon in Taurus during the month of May". I was trying to nderstand what that could possibly mean, As I understand it, the sun is in Taurus in late April and most of May. Astronomically, the new moon would be in the same constellation as the sun (Taurus), and the full moon would be directly opposite it. Hence the question. What does a "full moon in Taurus during May mean"?

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 06:46 pm:

Sylvie: Yes, and there are 32 symbols in "my NAME is "which totals 5 as you stated. My guy was born on the fifth as given.My guy and Manson were heavy into numerology. FYI Zodiac is a 4 as is Bruce and Manson. There are numerological 4's, as Dave Peterson pointed out to me in our early correspondence, all through Zodiac's writings,etc.

I am not trying to demonstrate the validity of numerology just Zodiac's use of it.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 06:59 pm:

Sylvie: I forgot to mention that Zodiac on his 12/10/69 Sacramento Bee pasteup had "555" on a torn out page of a popular astrology magazine.It was a United flight # that took off from S.F. airport at 7:30 pm to San Diego. As you know 555 had occult significance. Crowley used the numbers.

The term "magic amulet" was also pasted on the page.I have a copy of it in my book.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-td072.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.182) on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 09:50 pm:

Howard:
Just for your info, in Numerology
the compound number of 32 is the communications aspect of the 5. Hence, writing. It is said to have the magical power to sway masses of people. A facet of the 32 persona is working well under pressure. It is a fortunate number of Karmic reward only if the person representing the number holds inflexibility to his or her own views and judgement in all matters.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-td072.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.182) on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 11:02 pm:

You know Howard,
Zodiac is actually the compound number 22. As I was going over some of my numerology books, I found some interesting things. 22 is symbolized by illusion and delusion, a man in a fools paradise, and a dreamer that only awakes when surrounded by danger, it warns of placing faith in authority. The karmic obligation is to realize one's own power over people and things and once this has been practiced and mastered one can be in control of all things in their world.

By Bill Bratton (Willy) (c1465163-a.sttls1.wa.home.com - 65.12.128.183) on Sunday, June 10, 2001 - 12:12 am:

Howard: Regarding the Aleister Crowley comments above, let me offer the following:

Crowley’s “table of correspondences”, equating numbers to word meanings, is called “Sepher Sephiroth” and it is contained within Crowley’s book “777 And Other Qabalistic Writings”. The dictionary (of sorts) was started by Allan Bennett in the 1890’s, and was expanded by AC. It covers selected numbers from 1 to 3321. 555 is listed, and it’s meaning is “Obscurity”.

To the best of my research ability, I believe that the Z symbol appears only once in Crowley’s body of work (note that in AC's symbol, the cross does not extend past the circle boundaries). It is in “The Book Of The Law”, part two, verse 47. This is not considered a book that Crowley “wrote". Supposedly, this short document was received by “automatic transmission” to Crowley’s wife (Rose Kelly). Crowley simply transcribed what she received telepathically. This book is considered to be the high point of AC’s life. That verse reads as follows:

‘This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared (symbol here) in it’s failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone (a word is obliterated on my copy here, possibly “shall”) he fall from it.’

Any tool used in a magical operation would be called a “magical weapon”. It could be a sword, a scepter, or a cotton ball. It is vastly preferable that a magical weapon be handmade, even to the extent of smelting your own metals (recall that the LB knife handle appeared to be handmade). Hoods and robes are worn during a magick operation. Crowley details the required robe designs in “Liber Vesta” from “The Equinox, volume 4, number one. The robes differ according to the societal rank of the wearer. All levels have robes with a symbol on the chest. These vary between pentagrams, hexagrams, and triangles…but no Z symbols.

I'd like to say here that I am not personally into magic (or magick), and my findings are from a person, outside, looking in. I've found other things that I have not mentioned because I don't feel qualified to interpret them. I've looked at about 15 books by AC, clearly a small portion of his output. And, by the way...I've found no instance where AC refers to "collecting slaves" or preparing for "paradice" (sic). As Howard has noted, I think that philosophy comes from Hubbard (who was connected to Crowley through Jack Parsons of JPL rocket labs). Crowley writes with a bit of humor at times, and he does condone human sacrifice...but only if the proper incense is not available.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Monday, June 11, 2001 - 05:13 pm:

Bill: Thanks for the feed.I believe that Manson/Davis were influenced by AC-like the black robe and hood. But I also feel that Ned Kelly's outfit(even to the part with gun extended as Z at LB-see Ned Kelly sites) was an influence too, but not to a T-it never is; there is usually some 'improvement' on the part of the one being influenced.

Manson thought he was that 'one who was to come ter' AC and ,therefore, called himself the Beast(after Revelation 13-the Man whose # is 666).

I think CM got the 'slaves in paradise' from some of the people that were into devil worship, as CM termed their belief system;the people that attended the house CM's people called the Spiral Staircase run by a lady"pumped up on devil worship" from S.F. Manson had met her on one of his many trips to S.F.

Manson told his closest followers that 'people would be waiting for them when they went to "paradise."'Tex Watson mentions in his book that CM wanted to torture people in a dungeon they would set up.I went through hundreds of CM's letters as I got copies through a collector and he writes of slaves and that people are his slaves,etc.

AC does mention slaves in a very serious way in his writings-I have copies.This includes torture and murder and in no way does he indicate he is jesting!

By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-74.linkline.com - 64.30.217.74) on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 01:05 am:

Sylvie-Thanx;it looks like we have the same books!

Zodiac was an occultist ,and to me ,it is an acid test relative to someone qualifying as Zodiac!

By Bill Bratton (Willy) (c1465163-a.sttls1.wa.home.com - 65.12.128.183) on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 10:07 am:

Howard can you tip me to which AC books refer in a serious manner to slaves, torture etc? I'll need to see these for myself...it just doesn't fit with the parts that I have seen. Thanks, Bill

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-td014.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.154) on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 12:50 pm:

Howard,
There certainly are alot of things that fit with you suspect. That anyone could not see the Astrology/Numerology connection is beyond me, and as you've said simply shows a lack of knowledge in these subjects. Naturally, another HUGE aspect is the fact that Bruce Davis is, unlike Allen, a known killer.
I have a hard time with the physical aspects though. While a majority of the American male population looked like the Z composite, Davis did not. Any thoughts on his disguise??

By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-185.linkline.com - 64.30.217.185) on Wednesday, June 13, 2001 - 01:13 am:

Sylvie: I have done many posts on this subject. You can look up the past posts.I can reference each description of Zodiac and make a good case for my guy-not a problem.

Some quick examples:Mageau said that the assailant was "short" and of stocky build. An LA Times reporter said Davis was "short, but husky".If you check out height it comes to about 5'8", the same as Mageau estimated and our teen witnesses.He said the attacker was "young"(Davis was 27). I got this from Dave Peterson as he was at the press conference and wrote a story on it.

Kathleen Johns told me that her abductor (Zodiac said,inspite of his defeat, he was that man)was about 5'8" and weighed about 160lbs or so.He had dark brown hair(Harnell thought he saw sweaty/greasy -which could rule out a wig-dark brown hair) and scars on his chin area all of which Davis possessed at that time.She told us he was'not a big man'.

It was a full moon that night and she was right next to him,so she got a good view for a "coupple howers"of the driver.He looked between 26-30 tops. Bruce was 28 then.

She saw my guy's photos and thought he looked like the man who was driving. Of course, she feels it could have been Larry Kane.The idea is that this was the first time she saw someone that truly competed with her previous ID.

Even Hartnell in the PD report said that Mr. hood could have been as short as 5'8" to 6'+. There was some doubt there, but he conceded that he could have been as short 5'8" or so.Nuff said.It's post serial time!

By EviI (Evii) (205.188.199.156) on Sunday, September 30, 2001 - 08:59 pm:

Hello,
I guess I should introduce myself, being that this is my first post on this board. I'm neither a police officer nor a journalist, so I don't bring any professional credentials in with me. However, I've been reading about serial killers for a long time, & have taken several applicable psychology courses at the college level. I'm an amateur, but pretty knowledgeable as amateurs go.
Anyway, I noticed a discussion on this thread as to whether or not a pedophile, like ALA, would turn his murderous urges upon adults. It's a reasonable objection to ALA, because it's not common for serial killers to show a preference for one kind of victim sexually, but for another kind when they murder. Though there have been many who are known to have preyed on both children & adults, we're looking at one who would've had to compartmentalize the murders from the molestations. However, I have some info that may point out a serial killer who did precisely that.
His name is Robert Hansen, & he killed approximately 17 in Alaska during the '80s. All but one were adult women (One was a teen). This is all public knowledge, & can be found in any number of published accounts of Hansen & his crimes. What I've been told about Hansen, though, is that he & a friend produced their own kiddy porn. This info came from a woman I knew several years ago (We'll call her Tracy)who told me that her boyfriend, who was from Alaska, grew up knowing a girl whom they used in their pornos. Tracy was also involved in organizations that protect children from sexual predation. I'm inclined to trust her.
I understand that others, not having known her personally, will want the information I got from her confirmed. Hopefully, it can be, one way or the other. Clearly, if it can be proven true, then it eliminates one objection to ALA as a Zodiac suspect.
Craig Stallone

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (24.141.193.74) on Monday, October 01, 2001 - 08:10 pm:

robert hansen
rh

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 11:50 am:

This is driving me crazy. In most of the letters written by Z, he occasionally will mispell words, but not too often. In one letter he mispells "cid" while in another spells "kiddies" with no problem. His writing is always slanted downward to the right and usually dots his "i" to the left side. It looks like the perp is probably left handed. However... Allen's handwriting is angled more to the left and he tends to dot his "i" to the right side. Besides the fact the man was a teacher.. had BA degrees and nearly a masters and he can't spell? Not even "cid"? I find it hard to believe. In his forged letters he typed he spells long and difficult words without any problem.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 12:37 pm:

1) If you believe Zodiac misspelled words on a "not too often" basis, that tells me you either haven't carefully read the Zodiac letters, or you can't spell very well.
(I picked a Z letter at random, the Belli letter, and found more than nine misspellings. And that was a rather short letter!)

2) Allen was ambidextrous. If he was the Zodiac, he probably wrote the Z letters with his "other" hand so it wouldn't match his usual handwriting and he, you know, wouldn't be sent to the gas chamber and stuff. (The sarcasm is intentional. Hasn't this all been covered already?!?)

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 01:11 pm:

If it has been covered...... excuse me.. This is my first post. The Belli letter is precisely what I was referring to. I obviously can spell as there aren't any in my post.. so you can rule me out! When the Belli letter is compared to the others, it has quite a bit more mispelling. Also if Allen had "switched hands", he's pretty good. He writes VERY well with both. Most people who try to write with the hand that is not usually used find it hard and difficult to read.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 01:19 pm:

Melissa, when you asked for an account I sent you a user name, password, and link to the "Getting Started" section of the board. Please click on it and familiarize yourself with board procedure, including the Keyword Search.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 01:23 pm:

Melissa, Zodiac probably misspelled on purpose to confuse the police. Read about the Titwillo/Allen thing. The line was "Oh willow, Titwillow, titwillow". Zodiac misquoted it as "Titwillow, titwillow, titwillow". There were kids who Allen taught that apparently remembered him always saying "Titwillow, titwillow, titwillow", the same incorrect way Z wrote it. Zodiac was probably afraid he may make a mistake like that where he accidently makes a spelling mistake in a Z letter as well as in real life. By intentionally mispelling a number of words, it takes away from the credibility of linking the incorrect spellings.

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 01:48 pm:

Perhaps I didn't state clearly what I was trying to get across on my first post. In most of the letters written by Z there are misspellings but not near as often as the Belli letter. Either he was having a bad day or..... possibly this letter is not one of Z's. Who knows.. just a thought? Anyway, as stated before, ALA had a BA and nearly his Masters, he was also a teacher. Don't you think you could have gotten "cid" right?

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:01 pm:

The Belli letter was written as a plea for help, perhaps the increase in spelling errors was one of his ways of appearing more unstable.

Those spelling errors were intentional. Whether you have a BA or not most people know how to spell "kid". If he was that stupid to have accidently spelled "kid" as "cid" he probably would have fumbled in other areas as well, and then mostly likely have been caught.

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:44 pm:

This is true Ryan. Thanks for the reply and lack of sarcasm. Seems to me that most are convinced that Z was ALA. I'm not as confident, but not closed to the idea either. I have looked at some other interesting theories while reading this MB and I have to admit the Zodiac-Batman site is interesting. Tom Voight has done an excellent job with this site. Hats off to him.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:45 pm:

Melissa appears to be the first person ever who believes the Zodiac was truly a poor speller, and that the mistakes were not intentional.

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldclm.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.178.182) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:48 pm:

Welcome to the board Melissa! This is a very curious case to be sure, and there are definitely many established facts which must be absorbed by a new investigator.

You should read Robert Graysmith's "Zodiac" to begin. Sure, RG likes to make himself out to be the super Z sleuth and embellishes often and makes some things up, but all in all, he does a pretty good job of getting most of the relevant facts organized. Also there is much which can be learned from reading the thousands of posts on here.

Belli letter not a Z communication? Maybe that can be your starting point. I'll give you a hint...there are two remarkable things about the Belli letter, one of which can easily be noted at a glance. The other assures us that this is indeed an authentic Z letter.

As far as the misspellings go, try to think of some other possible reasons someone who could spell properly would choose not to.

Ray

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:51 pm:

I just went back and picked another Zodiac letter at random to check for spelling errors. The "Zodiac Button" letter has five mistakes even though it's another short letter.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td053.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.173) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:56 pm:

Melissa wrote, ". . . if Allen had "switched hands", he's pretty good. He writes VERY well with both."

As has been noted, ALA was ambidextrous.

As Ryan has duly noted, there are a ton of reasons why Zodiac would have deliberately misspelled words while corresponding with the police and newspapers. Isn't it obvious? If you are working on your Master's degree maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't want your missives to represent that fact. See what I mean?

Scott

By Esau (Esau) (12-246-187-137.client.attbi.com - 12.246.187.137) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 04:05 pm:

Welcome to the board Melissa. It's always good to get a new person that's interested in contributing while eager to learn. I suggest that until you read these posts daily and get a feel for what's been covered. You should take Tom's suggestion and read about Keyword Search and read Graysmith's "Zodiac" as Ray N suggested. That will help you from getting kicked off the board and prevent you from being nominated for the Bebbole Award.
I'm not real high on ALA but I think he's a better suspect than the others and I wouldn't be suprised if it was proven that he was Zodiac. My personal opinion of him is he liked to play with the police and brought suspicion on himself. I think he was one of those people that loved attention and the feel of fooling people even if it turned his life upside down. I also have trouble believing that a child molester would be Zodiac.
Again, welcome aboard........

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 04:22 pm:

Thank you Ray and others for being so nice. I've kinda got off to a rough start with Tom, but from what I've been reading it's not the first time. I have read and have beside me, Robert Graysmith's book...... but as we know with the Warren Reports... not everything is accurate.

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (46.sanjose-07rh16rt-ca.dial-access.att.net - 12.81.21.46) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:04 pm:

RayN,
I have noticed a couple things from the Belli letter. At first glance, the handwriting does not seem the same. Though there are the apparent mispellings and the infamous opening line, it is very neat print,(unlike his other letters)and it lacks the apparent slant downhill. Also, maybe not important to most, the Z symbol at the end... in other letters it looks like it is signed quickly.... However, on this occasion the circle is also very neat and perfectly rounded and the cross is done to such perfection that if you note on the left side... the perp seems to go over it or connect to perfection. This attention to detail isn't noticed in any of the other signings. Perhaps the person writing this was paying to much attention to detail and overdoing it. Possibly that is why this letter seems to contain such obvious lack of spelling while the other Z letters aren't as bad(though obviously contains some of the same). I know... Tom's gonna love this!

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:11 pm:

Melissa, we know the Belli letter was authentic because it contained a portion of Paul Stine's bloody shirt.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-th012.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.47) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:25 pm:

Melissa,
ALA had two Master's degrees.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (pdx-cfi-90.navi.net - 208.211.19.90) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:29 pm:

That hasn't been confirmed. I have no idea where that "author" came up with that one.

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lde2i.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.184.82) on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 06:37 pm:

Melissa,

You see, Z had to include a swatch of the shirt in the Belli letter because it would likely be judged a fake otherwise due to the careful printing style, much in the same way he had to include a swatch in the letter in which he took credit for Paul Stine. Of course, that was written in the manic style, but the M.O. was all wrong for a Z strike, thus the shirt piece was included as proof of his claim. This action also suggests the probability that different guns were used at PH and BRS.

Ray

By Linda (Linda) (207-172-73-160.s160.tnt1.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 207.172.73.160) on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 04:08 am:

Hi, Melissa...

Zodiac was big on providing "proof" that he was who he said he was. Not only did he send "proof" through some of his correspondences by providing a piece of Stine's bloody shirt, in the 3-part cipher letter, 1969, he included the passage, "To prove I killed them I shall state some facts which only I & the police know," and in the Seven Page letter of 1969, he writes, "To prove that I am the Zodiac, Ask the Vallejo copy about my electric gun sight."

Zodiac didn't want someone else taking credit for his deeds. Providing "Proof" established his credibility for terror...a trait, quite coincidentally, shared by suspect Theodore Kaczynski, aka, the Unabomber.

See http://home.att.net/~mignarda/style.html for some extremely fascinating comparisons of both Zodiac and Unabomber correspondences….

Linda!

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acb62a93.ipt.aol.com - 172.182.42.147) on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 12:31 am:

Tom wrote:

Melissa appears to be the first person ever who believes the Zodiac was truly a poor speller, and that the mistakes were not intentional. (emphasis mine)

In Kelleher's book (pp. 96-97, 211), he seems to think Z's spelling mistakes were "inadvertent," but presumably that he was an otherwise good speller.

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 02:07 pm:

"Law enforcement confidence in the prints appears to be high. Literally hundreds of suspects were checked against them, including Arthur Leigh Allen, the most widely known. In Allen's case, Vallejo Police requested that the FBI "expeditiously compare" his prints to the two latents developed on the August 1969 Examiner letter, and "further requested [the FBI] to compare Allen's fingerprints with all prints developed in the Zodiac investigation as time permits." There was no match and Allen was "dismissed as a suspect", shedding light on the faith that both local and federal authorities maintain in their evidence."

By Melissa Presutti (Melissapresutti) (63.89.65.110) on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 02:09 pm:

"despite the best efforts of some investigators, not a single piece of evidence was ever developed that could tie him to the Zodiac crimes. In fact, Allen's alleged links to the case have been found time and again to be false, coincidental, or attributable to Allen's deviant personality."

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldf0h.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.188.17) on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 09:30 pm:

Melissa:

There are some very lengthy threads on the fingerprint evidence which you should read.

As far as other evidence, Allen did not become a suspect until 1972 as I remember and a warrant was not served on him until around a year later because he occupied various properties and the police were unsure where to search.

As far as him being dismissed as a suspect, he was hounded by the police (his own words) for 20 years until his death. Another warrant was served on him in 1991 and the police processed his residence after his death, confiscating a lengthy list of items. This is not consistent with a high level of confidence in the fingerprint evidence. There are obviously some investigators who are hesitant to put too much stock in these prints, because their origins and/or quality are dubious.

Furthur, there was a new round of fingerprint tests conducted recently in SF using new high resolution digital techniques. Admittedly, Insp. Carroll announced that there were "negative results", but again, read the fingerprint threads for a full explanation of what may well be wrong with all fingerprint comparisons in this case.

Ray

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acb44540.ipt.aol.com - 172.180.69.64) on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 02:16 am:

Allen was a suspect as early as October 1969 but dismissed by VPD. SFPD was on to him less than two years later, in July 1971. The search warrant for his trailer in Santa Rosa was executed in September 1971.