Allen's Status as a Zodiac Suspect


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Allen's Status as a Zodiac Suspect

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca2dbf0.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.219.240) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 12:35 pm:

Gregorypraxas,
Why don't you answer the questions I presented to you in our earlier discussion about Allen? (In the other thread, of course.)
You keep harping about Allen's "best suspect" label, and yet you have yet to come up with a suspect more deserving of the title than Allen.

If you want to claim Michael Jordan wasn't the best basketball player in the world, it helps to actually have another player in mind...as well as reasons supporting your player.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk013.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.153) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 05:18 pm:

You're asking the wrong questions, Tom, and I think it is due to the fact that you don't quite understand what I am trying to say.

The absence of that which is necessary does not render that which is nearest its logical or proper substitute.

Simply because Allen is the only suspect does not mean that he is the "best." To imply that he is the best suggests that he is not only better than all the rest, but that he is, indeed, the "best" suspect in the case. Your comparison to Jordan is ridiculous. Jordan is the greatest basketball player because he has demonstrated as much, and most people agree on that label. Allen, on the other hand, is not a great suspect -- he's just a suspect. He does not rise above all others due to any great collection of evidence, but rather the total lack of any other suspects and the unsubstantiated hunches of some investigators.

You seem to think that Allen must be the best suspect because he is the only one. I am saying that since the evidence against Allen is virtually non-existent, and since the standards used by his accusers are not only contradictory but hypocritical, there is no legitimate reason to refer to Allen as the best suspect. He's a suspect, that's it. He may be the best of the worst, but he's not the best simply because there are no others.

This logic seems lost on some people; others who are more than aware of the Allen "Double Standard, know what I am talking about.

It's not that there are other suspects more deserving of the title, Tom. Please pay attention if you want to argue this point with me. It's that Allen isn't the "best" because there is no legitimate reason to dub him so. Your need to continue calling him the "best" seems to stem from your erroneous belief that his solitarty status, by proxy, makes him the best, and, that Allen must be the best because some people say so. These same individuals have found no evidence to indicate that Allen was the Zodiac, let alone any evidence to justify the conclusion that he is the best suspect. These people are simply offering opinions, little more.

I say,in order for Allen to be the best suspect, there should be a criteria for such a label - IE: Some credile evidence to indicate that he might be the killer. In Allen's case, you have a few incredulous claims (please, before anyone attacks me with this "well, that's just your opinion" nonsense -- please go look up the definition of the word "credible"), a watch which is NOT the only place that the name and symbol appear, and the unsubstantiated opinions of a few investigators who, like most investigators, came to believe the subject of their investigation was guilty. Investigators almost always reach such a conclusion, although juries later acquit many of these individuals.

There's NO evidence to justify calling Allen the best suspect. This lack of evidence makes it impossible for him to be the best suspect because the suspect who should be labeled "the best" should be implicated by stronger evidence. With what you have on Allen, he's just a suspect, and not a very good one, either. If people would just admit that it is simply an opinion that he is the "best", it would be a lot easier to not break out into fits of laughter when these same people laud this lack of evidence over others who name other suspects (however inviable they may be).

So, why don't you answer my question: Is there one scrap of credible evidence to justify Allen's label as the "best"? Well?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca297e2.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.151.226) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 06:51 pm:

Gregorypraxas,
Maybe you are the one who doesn't read carefully.
As I have stated several times, I am not attempting to prove Allen was Zodiac in these posts.
You started all of this by actually questioning whether investigators considered Allen to be a viable Zodiac suspect. That's what I have been attempting to address.

You wrote,
"There's NO evidence to justify calling Allen the best suspect."
As I have posted, unlike with the other suspects, there is absolutely nothing to rule Allen out...and a TON of circumstantial stuff to rule him in.
(The pedophile arguement against being Zodiac Allen is bogus, simply because nobody knows Zodiac's identity, therefore his sexual preference is pure speculation.)

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.177) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:04 pm:

"A ton of circumstantial evidence" is a rather inaccurate and subjective appraisal of the "evidence" against Allen. That much is clear.

"A ton of circumstantial evidence" does not bridge the gap between suspect and the most "viable" or "best" suspect. I have asked someone to present one scrap of credible evidence to support the claim that Allen should be considered the best, and not simply one among many suspects. I have yet to see anything even remotely "credible," by the legal or dictionary definition.

The Michael Jordan metaphor is not appropriate. More appropriate would be to say that either Doodles Weaver, or Charles Durning, is the "best" basketball player simply because they were the only ones you could find. The absence of that which is necessary does not render that which is nearest its logical or proper substitute.

The fact that nothing rules him out does not make him the best. The fact that he was investigated the most does not make him the best. The fact that they got a warrant does not make him the best. The fact some investigators are of the *opinion* that he is the best does not make him the best. The fact that there are no other suspects who do not meet those standards does not make him the best.

Rather, I would think, in order to consider someone the best suspect, there should be some credible evidence to support the idea that he is the best suspect, not necessarily to *prove* that he is the Zodiac. Proof is not forthcoming, and when defining Allen as the "best," you simply ignore the fact that there is no logical, consistent, coherent or credible argument to support that conclusion.

The manner in which the other suspects are dismissed is based on the same standard which is ignored when accusing Allen. The "evidence" presented to support the claim that Allen is the best suspect is, in most cases, so tenuous and subjective that one can hardly consider it substantial enough to justify the continual label of "best." Quite often, this "circumstantial" evidence is no more compelling or important than that associated with other suspects, and dismissed by Allen's accusers.

How many investigations? By how many agencies? In how many years? He was the best suspect? And no one showed Mageau his picture until 1992? Are we really supposed to believe that they couldn't find him? And all this attention found what? Nothing. There is no "ton of circumstantial evidence." There are two stories which are hardly credible upon examination, some statements which were all made after the murders and do not reflect any prior knowledge, a watch, an unreliable eyewitness I.D., and a "ton" of molehills that have been transformed into K2.

When you and I have discussed this "ton" of circumstantial evidence item by item, and I have presented you with the information which diminishes this "ton" or at least renders it extremely suspect, you consistently resort to the position that none of these elements are that significant. These elements need to be very significant in order to justify Allen's "best" status. Without these elements, there is virtually no evidence against Allen whatsoever.

I maintain that any objective analysis of the evidence against Allen would lead to the conclusion that he may look like a good suspect, but the lack of evidence, balanced with the amount of investigation, and the more than questionable aspects of that evidence which has been obtained, all support the conclusion that Allen is simply a suspect.

The gap between suspect and "best" suspect is little more than opinion. I've asked for one scrap of credible evidence to support the claim that Allen can accurately be described as the "best" suspect. I have yet to see such evidence, and you repeatedly fail to offer any when I have made these requests. Instead, you cite the fact that there is nothing to rule him out. THAT does not constitute a rebuttal of any of my points, nor does it address the request itself.

I never said that you were trying to prove that Allen was the Zodiac, and I never said that investigators didn't think he was a viable suspect.

How many law enforcement agencies? How many consider him a viable suspect, let alone the best? Not investigators, agencies? I think that the investigators checked out these elements, and have reached the same conclusions that the rest of us have -- that there's nothing to indicate that Allen was the Zodiac, let alone continues to be the "best" suspect. The fact that some investigators believed he was "the best" does not make him so, and other investigators did not believe he was a good suspect, let one the "best."

I respectively submit that it is you who may need to read more carefully.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8a7919.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.121.25) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:44 pm:

Allen was the only Zodiac suspect that was ID'd by a Zodiac victim, and he was the only Zodiac suspect that had people come forward claiming he had made incriminating statements prior to the crimes.
Before you get into the whole Mageau-id thing, not to mention the validity of the ex-buddy claims, the two items I listed above simply make Allen the best, the top, the cream-of-the-crop Zodiac suspect. Why? Because the items I listed actually happened, and you simply DO NOT KNOW that Mageau's ID was bogus. Only he knows. You simply DO NOT KNOW that Allen's ex-buddys were telling lies. Only they know.
If the items are true, Allen was Z. But by discounting the items, you are ASSUMING them to be invalid, and assuming aint' scientific.

I'm not saying I believe Mageau and Co., however I DO believe Allen to be Numero Uno Suspecto of the bums I've seen.
(Followed closely by Vic Tayback, of course.)

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0598.cvx26-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.179.152.88) on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:54 pm:

Gregorypraxas,
Have you looked into the Vic Tayback possibility?He is my "best suspect".
The Big O.
p.s. Am I hallucinating again, or did Tom actually crack a joke?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk043.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.168) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 02:29 am:

"I DO believe Allen to be Numero Uno Suspecto of the bums I've seen."

Precisely my point. YOU believe he is the best suspect OF all the suspects. That does not make him the best suspect in the case. It makes him the best of the worst, which not the best, but the worst of the best. You've simply proven my point - It's just an opinion that Allen is the best suspect; it's not a fact.

I'm not assuming anything. I checked the facts. I said that the stories were not credible, and they aren't, not by the legal or dictionary definition. I don't "discount" these items, I assess their value along with the other available evidence, and form an opinion.

Thank you for resolving the issue. I knew there wasn't a scrap of credible evidence against Allen.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8eaad6.ipt.aol.com - 172.142.170.214) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 01:14 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"You've simply proven my point - It's just
an opinion that Allen is the best suspect; it's not a fact."
Well, duh! How long did it take you to figure that one out, Clouseau?

We aren't breaking any new ground here-it's ALWAYS been an opinion, whether mine or the 10+ law-enforcement agencies that investigated Allen. It just so happens that you made a post QUESTIONING if Allen was really EVER considered a viable suspect. THAT'S what I've been attempting to address.

The two items I listed actually happened. If true, they make Allen the Zodiac. Your opinion is the items are lacking in validity, but that's just an OPINION. The FACT is the items happened, whether you like it or not.
FACT.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-73-46.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.73.46) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 03:46 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote:

It's just an opinion that Allen is the best suspect

Finally! You get it! Congratulations!
Just like the opinion I knew there wasn't a scrap of credible evidence against Allen."

You've got a point. Wear a hat.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg044.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.39) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 03:51 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Allen was the only Zodiac suspect that was ID'd by a Zodiac victim, and he was the only Zodiac suspect that had people come forward claiming he had made incriminating statements prior to the crimes."

I'm not going to get into the Mageau ID deal, because that could legitimately go either way, but the circumstances of Allen's hunting buddies coming forth are patently ridiculous.

According to them, Allen pretty much outlined the entirety of the Zodiac case, going so far as to include the moniker, the flashlight sighting device, and the choice of a cab driver as a victim, all back in 1967.

However, they didn't come forth with this story until 1971 because they had forgotten all about it until an obscure murder case -- the "Green Acres Killer" or something -- jogged their memories. That is to say, the real Zodiac murders, with all these details provided by Allen years earlier, somehow slipped by them despite frantic media coverage and national attention. Then we find out that, shortly before these guys came forward, Allen had tried to molest the daughter of one of them. Does this really add up to an indictment of Allen as the Zodiac? Does it even qualify as evidence?

I mean, forget about what an attorney would do to this story. A layman can tell that it stinks from a mile away.

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

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.181) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 07:35 pm:

It IS an opinion that Allen is the best suspect. Yes, of course. I always knew that...some people don't, however. THAT was the point of my posts.

It is a fact that there is not one scrap of credible evidence against Allen. Look up the word in Webster's or Black's Law. The Mageau ID may be accurate (who knows) but his identification is not credible, and neither is Mageau -- BY DEFINITION. Same for the hunting pals (yes, I agree with Jake -- patently absurd, and even more so when you research the timeline, learn about the crime that DID make them suspicious, and check out the other elements of their stories.)

I know that it is an opinion that Allen is not the Zodiac. It is a fact that there is not one scrap of credible evidence against him.

Sorry, Edward.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-16.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.16) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 07:55 pm:

It IS an opinion that Allen is the best suspect. Yes, of course. I always knew that...some people don't, however. THAT was the point of my posts.

That wasn't the point of your posts. You seem to be hung up on the subjective term "best." The point of your posts was try to discredit the concept that there was any credible evidence against Allen. Again, subjective.

If you choose to ignore the facts as I and others have presented them, that's your choice. That Mageau's ID is not credible is subjective. But don't try and convince everyone that by simply saying "there's no credible evidence against Allen" enough times, it becomes truth. I've listed several items about why I feel Allen is the best suspect. You have choosen to ignore these. We both agree that Allen MAY NOT be Zodiac. You seem to want me to say he couldn't possibly be.

It's getting quite tiring arguing with you over opinions. No one is saying that you have to call Allen the best suspect. It's opinion that Allen's wearing of a Zodiac watch makes him a candidate. It's opinion that Allen's handwriting looks similar. It is fact that many consider him the best suspect based on their personal experience with the case. You'd have to be a dimwit not to at least recognize that these are opinions, and as such, do not require you to accept them as your own, just recognize them and respect others right to voice them.

Instead of this persistantly dull diatribe ignoring the facts that point to Allen why don't you show your cards on a "better" suspect?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.181) on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 08:12 pm:

There was nothing subjective about my assertion that the ID is not credible. Again, look up legal and dictionary definitions of that word, pal. This "debate" will be over as soon as you do...

You're not paying attention. It's not about "better" suspects, Edward. It's about providing something to back up the assertion that Allen is the best suspect. In case you haven't noticed, most people who believe Allen is the best suspect don't admit that it's simply an opinion until you practically beat it outta them. The rest of the time, they act as if a person is crazy if they aren't in awe of the "huge amount" of ridiculously circumstantial evidence against Allen. There's a DOUBLE STANDARD. THAT is what my posts are about...

I don't ignore the "evidence", Edward. Please. Pay attention. I examined that evidence, and, BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CREDIBLE, there is NO credible evidence against him.

It's very simple. Maybe that's why you have so much difficulty...And that WAS the point of my posts. I'm not hung up on the word, I'm hung up on how people use that word to mislead people, and the very same people who use that word are the ones who ignore the evidence in regard to other suspects. These same people ignore the exculpatory evidence in Allen's case, and then use the same standard they ignore to dismiss others. It's hypocritical. Jesus Christ on a crutch - can't you read?

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-73-252.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.73.252) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 12:11 am:

I'm hung up on how people use that word to mislead people...

Who's misleading whom here? I don't ignore evidence in regard to other suspects. But I certainly don't see why Ted should be considered a "better" suspect than Allen. Or Kane. Or any of the others. I don't dismiss Ted outright. I argue points based on whether or not they make sense to me. You seem to be assuming that by the definition of a word, I don't understand or accept your point of view regarding other suspects. I do. There is a lot of good stuff on Ted. Just as there is on Allen. You dismiss EVERYTHING on him, as if we needed a smoking gun. Well Ted doesn't have one either. It's not being hypocritical. I'm using my head to differentiate between the suspects in a hierarchical way. I do this based on facts which are indisputable. I don't ignore the exculpatory evidence in the Allen case because there simply isn't any.

Let's play your game. Exculpatory means "to free from alleged fault or guilt." It's synonyms are clear, exonerate, etc. I can't free Allen from guilt based on anything you've offered anymore than I could Ted K. In fact everything I've listed about Allen previously, points to him even more. You give me one piece of exculpatory evidence regarding Allen or anyone else.

Credible is "worthy of acceptance because of accuracy." Is it accurate that people came forward with stories about Arthur as Zodiac? Yes. Where we differ is in the acceptance of the accuracy of their stories. Could some of them be lying? Maybe. But it has never been proven. That one had a possible motive to lie doesn't mean he lied. I take what they say with a grain of salt. You want to throw out the fact that this was one of the things that brought focus onto Allen originally.

Is it accurate that Mike Mageau positively ID'd Arthur? Yes. Again that's credible, according to the definition. Where we differ is in the interpretation of it's validity. Was his ID accurate? We don't know. Is it possible that his ID was accurate? Yes. If the answer to that was no, I would agree with you. But it's not. Let's not throw everything out because we don't know. If we did that, no one would be a suspect. I take what Mageau said with a grain of salt. Just like all the other grains of salt. Add them up and the is quite a lot of evidence pointing to Allen.

More later,
Edward

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0067.cvx37-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 216.244.24.67) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 12:31 am:

zzzzzz...zzzz...zzz...zzz...zz..pass the Romilar, lest I wake up.
Oscar the Comatose.
p.s. Whether you like it or not, there is a strong circumstantial case against Allen.

By Gomper (Gomper) (slip166-72-176-41.al.us.prserv.net - 166.72.176.41) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 08:26 am:

There is indeed a lot of strong circumstantial evidence against Allen. I believe he MUST have been involved in the murders somehow...The only thing that bugs me is the contrast between his physical appearance and the SFPD sketch(which, I am well aware, might not have been accurate).

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (cache-rg05.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.188.197) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 10:09 am:

I don't dismiss Allen as a suspect. I'm just tired of listening to people say there is a lot of circumstantial evidence when that evidence is garbage. It may be evidence, and maybe some of it is true, some of it is not. Either way, Allen cannot be dismissed, but he shouldn't be lauded above all others and hailed as the best because there are no suspects who could really fit that bill.

I'm not comparing suspects, and I'm not saying YOU ignore evidence, but in order to have a theory in which Allen is the best suspect, you have to throw out EXCULPATORY evidence, like fingerprints, handwriting, etc. When someone does that, they can't cite that evidence to dismiss another suspect. Even if YOU don't do that, such evidence IS exculpatory, by definition, and other people do dismiss others and cite this evidence as reason.

This isn't a word game, it's an arguement about context, and about the proper use of words when describing the evidence. You're caught up in arguing the heirarchy of suspects when I am saying that there is no credible evidence to elevate Allen, and there is not, by definition. That you choose to believe that evidence does not mean it is credible. But suspects, and their heirarchy, are not the issue. The issue is whether there is any evidence to justify calling ALlen the best suspect, beyond a simple opinion? NO. Is the evidence against him credible, by the definitions of the word? No.

Both of the witnesses who said that Allen made these incriminating remarks had reason to lie about him. It's clear that you do not know some of the details regarding one of the stories, and that is not your fault. YOu cannot be expected to know everything, and I certainly do not.

I don't want to throw anything out. I keep it all. I examine it all. ANd when you stack it up, there is no huge amount of circumstantial evidence, and there is no basis for the conclusion that he is the "best" suspect. When you add it up, it stinks.

Exculpatory has several meanings, and you will find that there is a wealth of exculpatory evidence: the prints don't match (and I have yet to hear a coherant and plausible explanation to dismiss these prints), his handwriting doesn't match Zodiac's, and apparently "Experts" reached this conclusion. He passed a polygraph test. There is no credible evidence against him. Police investigated him for two decades and the absolute best, most compelling evidence they came up with was a watch, two incredulous stories, one very questionable ID, and a chicken story.

Zodiac never made any pipe bombs, none of Allen's guns were ever traced to any of those used by Zodiac, no witnesses placed him at the scenes but Mageau, who described a man who could not have been Allen, and if his description is not accurate, on so many counts, then he did not get a good look at the man and there is no foundation for his ID. It's very simple. IT's not an opinion, it's common sense.

The "hunter's" story falls apart when it is put under scrutiny. I will tell you in no uncertain terms that there is something seriously wrong with his story, something that I doubt investigators would have noticed then. Something that I don't think anyone on this board even knows about. I'll leave it at that, and someone who wants to do the work I did is welcome to learn what I found.

I've read your argument. It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't address any of the issues I have raised here. You, and others, continually fall into the same trap, saying "Name a better suspect" or "He's better than so and so". That is not the issue. WHether or not people really told stories, or really IDed someone is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is legitimate reason to really call ALlen the best suspect.

The fact that you choose to accept all these grains of salt as such, and then stack them until you think they reach the threshold of credibility ignores the fact they do not meet the criteria, or the definition. You beleive them, or give them weight. That doesn't mean they are credible, and if you understand the definitions, you can't argue with me on that. It's cut and dried. You may want to argue words, but I am arguing meaning, context and accuracy.

We're boring Oscar, and no one is making the slightest attempt to honestly or accurately assess this evidence, or my arguments. There's no point in continuing this non-debate. Enjoy yourselves.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-196-102.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.102) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:44 am:

You're the one who wanted to argue words, Gregorypraxas. Now you want to play the spoiled child who twists things to protect his ego. You're right about one thing. It is a non-debate. I'm sick of arguing with someone who so vehimently denies the obvious and hears nothing but his own voice. Good luck.

"Enjoy ourselves?" How quaint.


Sorry to bore you, Oscar.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac879513.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.149.19) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:55 am:

Gregorypraxas,
Did you speak to Allen's ex-buddy's, the hunter's?"
Well, I have...within the last two years or so. Their story made sense to me.

By Gomper (Gomper) (slip166-72-176-115.al.us.prserv.net - 166.72.176.115) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 04:44 pm:

Of all the known suspects, Allen is the best. This doesn't mean that the case against him is conclusive, just that he appears to be the most likely candidate.
I thought the hunters' story was a little fishy too, but beyond that, Allen volunteered the information that he had a bloody knife in his car on the day of the Berryessa murder...and his 1966 handwriting looks a whole lot like the Zodiac's to
me(no expert on handwriting analysis, I, but C'MON!).

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wj054.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.44) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 05:20 pm:

Edward,

I was not playing words games, and if anyone is spolied it's the people who are accustomed to be humored that there is any real evidence against Allen. YOur remarks are absurd, and you did NOT address any of the issues. Nice try, but no go, pal. I was pointing out that neither the legal or dictionary definition of credible can be applied to the evidence, and you disgree, proving that you cannot comprehend the definitions, or ignore their meaning. Either way, it is you who is ingoring the facts, Edward. Not me. You'r'e desperate.

I don't deny the obvious -- you do. You have ignored the facts in favor of ridiculously absurd "evidence" which is not credible. Just admit it. As always, you're perfectly willing to insult me, but can't address the issue.

Tom, no I did not speak with him. I know you did. I also know for a fact that you failed to ask him any of the crucial questionsw, and have not done the research that I have. That's why his story seems fine to you -- you simply just don't know what's wrong with it.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wj054.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.44) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 05:22 pm:

sorry about the spelling errors.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-196-238.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.238) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 05:39 pm:

Christ on a crutch! Can't you read?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac839c0e.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.156.14) on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 08:43 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"I also know for a fact that you failed to ask him any of the crucial
questionsw, and have not done the research that I have. That's why his story seems fine to you -- you simply just don't know
what's wrong with it. "
First of all, exactly how are you beating me in the research department? I know you've been at this for 15 years or whatever and I'm at five, but longer isn't necessarily better.
Also, how on Earth do you "know for a fact" that I failed to ask him any of the "crucial questions?"
You weren't on the other line, so you don't "know."
Seems I caught you ASSUMING. Don't you chastise others for doing that???

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb053.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.173) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:41 am:

When you talked to this person, I asked YOU several questions regarding the conversation, and I asked you if you had asked him certain questions. You said you did not. So, you have only caught me citing the facts.

I never said I was beating you in the research department. You, and many others, seem to be caught up in a competition of sorts, as if this is a game.

I did research pertinent to the details of man's story. You, apparently, have only spoken to him and, coupled the police reports, you believe him to be credible. There's more to checking out the story than that, and I guarantee that anyone who does that research will find this story incredulous, to say the least.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (248.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.248) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 06:50 am:

Well, to add my two cents' worth, we do know for a fact that Allen was stopped speeding away from the Berryessa crime scene, which is powerful evidence despite the "hunters' story."

By Mike (Mike) (spider-wj062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.47) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 09:21 am:

Hi-

Whew! This is a good one! First of all, Doug, I spoke to a former investigator from the case two months ago, who told me CATEGORICALLY that Allen was DEFINITELY NOT issued a speeding ticket that day by LB. Are you making a funny with your comment about the ticket (i.e., it tends to undermine Ted just a bit), or do you know something, like the Cheshire cat? I thought that the ticket had never been proven to exist.

Also, I cannot prove this, but there was no mention of killing school children in Z's letters until AFTER the night he killed Stine. I've made this point before and I'll make it again: I believe that Z mentioned school children to tweak the minds of the three kids he saw looking down at him from the window across the street from the cab. IF that is true, then the hunters did not hear Allen speaking about killing kids in 1968. Also, the fact that Allen was accused of molesting one of their children essentially excuses them as credible witnesses, thank you.

The bottom line, like Jake said, is that had Allen laid out his plans as openly and naively/brazenly as they say he did, how in the world did they take so long to come forward!? It is very troublesome to think they had to hear about the "Green Acres Murders" (sorry Jake) before they put twow and two together and got....well, whatever they got.

In case not everybody is aware of this, Allen never was proven to have owned the pair of size 10 1/2 Wing Walkers (or any other size, for that matter). NEVER HAPPENED! (Sorry. I keep bringing this up from time to time because it was never posted anywhere as a correction to the inaccurate info previously reported about ALA.) The info about the wing Walkers was an honest error by someone who read it off the list of things the police were looking for on a search warrant, NOT the things they actualy recovered.

As for the ex-cartoonist making Allen sound like Z by the little game he played with the dates of Allen's incarceration and the "Zodiac letter" that arrived the day after Allen was released, that is just plain distortion of the facts. Period. Allen's incarceration from mid 1975 to the end of 1977 postdates ALL the verified Z killings and letters. And the letter referred to was written by Allen himself under his own name to Toschi. It was only a "Zodiac" letter if you assume, as RG did, that Allen is Z. This is embarrassingly inaccurate stuff to be put forth as fact on TV, IMHO. A hack like me could have done a much better job presenting it accurately...or was that not the author's intention?

Mike

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (166.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.30.166) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 10:45 am:

Mike, I was speaking sardonically. Not too long ago some people were throwing these Allen factoids around as if they were the gospel truth, and there really was no way to answer them. The so-called speeding ticket, bloody knife, hunters' statements, and Wing Walkers seem to form the foundation upon which the Allen theory stands. A fairly flimsy foundation, to be sure.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-te042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.195.192) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 11:27 am:

Hi Doug-

I thought that was the case, as I alluded to in my post. Luckily, I noticed your sardonic grin, even though I at first mistook it for one of the Cheshire cat variety...

Mike

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-129.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.129) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 11:29 am:

Looking around, I could find no place where either myself, nor anyone else had mentioned that Allen HAD wing walkers in his possession. I could find no place where a speeding ticket was used as an argument for Allen. The bloody knife is a factual statement Allen made, and the hunters statements have been discussed and argued ad infinitum. That these things "form the foundation upon which the Allen theory stands" is simply not true.

Many posts have been made on this subject and heads have butted to no end. It serves no purpose to discuss things with persons who deny arguments with a wave of their wand, and want a forum exclusive to their ideas.

It would seem that (lately) this board is degenerating into a forum for the Ted-heads.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-te042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.195.192) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:03 pm:

Hi-

First of all, I am not a "Ted-head". You may have mistaken my civility towards Doug for my being an adherent to a particular theory on who Z was. I am not such an adherent.

I first joined in the Z festivities in August 1998. At that time and people were using and, I am sure, there are some who today continue to use the alleged speeding ticket at LB on September 27, 1969, as proof of Allen's being Zodiac. Trust me on that one.

As for the bloody knife, it is a fact that Allen made that statement to the police. It is not, however, a fact that he actually indeed had any bloody knives on his car seat the day he DIDN'T receive a speeding ticket at LB.

As for the size 10 1/2 WW shoes, I would refer you to the 1998 TLC special, where that item is discussed (VERY matter-of-factly) as part of the "evidence" against Allen. It has since been retracted as being actual evidence, but once it's on film, it's on film.

I also see no reason not to continue to discuss and dispute the testimony of the hunters, as long as it is still used in support of Allen being Zodiac. That evidence, too, is mentioned on one of the specials and is therefore out in the public domain as further proof that Allen may be Zodiac. While it certainly was fair game to mention the statements of the hunters--since they did actually make these statements--it is unfortunate that there is no mention of any possible tainting of their evidence (on the TV show, although it is in RG's book in a footnote)by the soured personal relationship between Allen and one of the two men.

Mike

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wo011.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.21) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:22 pm:

Edward wrote:
"The bloody knife is a factual statement Allen made..."

What Allen actually stated was that "the two knives" in his car that day were bloody from killing a chicken. He even got the number wrong.

Not a Ted-Head, not an Allenista, and no Pennitent,
Jake

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac80584c.ipt.aol.com - 172.128.88.76) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:44 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"When you talked to this person, I asked YOU several questions regarding the conversation, and I asked you if you had asked
him certain questions."

Like I wouldn't ask the guy the stuff that's on everybody's mind? Come on...

The best detail from that conversation was the tidbit about an enraged Allen taking a machete to his dining room table in 1967...

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (19.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.17.19) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 01:56 pm:

Looking around, I could find no place where either myself, nor anyone else had mentioned that Allen HAD wing walkers in his possession. I could find no place where a speeding ticket was used as an argument for Allen. The bloody knife is a factual statement Allen made, and the hunters statements have been discussed and argued ad infinitum. That these things "form the foundation upon which the Allen theory stands" is simply not true.

In that case, what are the elements that form the foundation upon which the Allen theory stands?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac87e75f.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.231.95) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 02:38 pm:

I'll post a new thread later today detailing why Allen is an excellent suspect.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (163.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.163) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 04:11 pm:

It ought to be an integral part of the website!

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-wb052.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.172) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 04:47 pm:

So when is somebody going to write a book of just FACTS on this case?

I'd also like Bio's on Zodiac suspects and how they became suspects in the first place. Darlene is also an interesting person. A lot going on there or so it seems from Graysmith's account.

Ya hearin' this Santa?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wj072.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.52) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 06:15 pm:

"Like I wouldn't ask the guy the stuff that's on everybody's mind? Come on..."

Well, I know you didn't ask him several key questions, and when you asked some questions, you seemed to accept vague, generalized answers.

Why don't you do us all a favor and tell us all exactly what he did say.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac99b6af.ipt.aol.com - 172.153.182.175) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 07:36 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote:
"Well, I know you didn't ask him several key questions, and when you asked some questions, you seemed to accept vague,
generalized answers."
Wrong.
First of all, I spoke with Sandy, NOT Don.
Sandy was NOT the buddy who heard Allen's alleged statements, Don was. Therefore, what would have been the point of "grilling" Sandy? He wasn't there, didn't hear the words come from Allen's mouth.
You would have known which buddy was which had you done as much "research" into this issue, as you claimed.

Doug wrote, regarding a new "Allen's connections to Zodiac" page:
"It ought to be an integral part of the website!"
This site isn't about Allen, he's just a small piece.
Besides, I'm really not concerned with who anyone believes to be guilty. I'm putting the page together for fun only.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wi062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.47) on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 10:34 pm:

You say you have spoken to both men,yes? That's what your statements above and earlier to me indicated. I asked you the questions regarding whoever had heard the statements, and you answered them. So, which is it? Did you only talk to Sandy, or Don, too? Who was it? You led me to believe that you had talked to the person who had heard the statements.

The Allen section should be an integral part of this website when you consider the lengths you have gone to in order to put him out here as the "best" suspect.

By Linda (Linda) (207-172-144-151.s24.as2.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 207.172.144.151) on Sunday, November 19, 2000 - 05:55 am:

I still think that the key to solving the Z murders is in the writings of the "suspects." As far as Allen is concerned (and I've asked this before and I don't believe I was ever responded to)... What type letters and/or corrsespondences were uncovered in Allen's possession (either before his death or after). Did Allen like to write (whether it was to the newspaper, family members, friends, etc). Are there copies of any of these writings? Too, was anything ever uncovered that indicated he was interested in ciphers or codes of any type? With the searches done by police on Allen as a Zodiac suspect, I would think any writing materials would have been confiscated by them and hopefully there would be samples floating around somewhere.

I have seen but one or two samples of Allen's writings and although there are some similarties in some of the individual letters, I don't see a remarkable likeness. Also, with such little to go on, it's hard to analyze Allen's style of writing. I think it's not only important to compare the characters of the writing, but the content and/or style of writing used by ANY of the suspects. (This might make a good topic for a separate discussion).

Linda

By Gomper (Gomper) (slip-32-100-21-172.al.us.prserv.net - 32.100.21.172) on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:09 am:

Linda,

I think writing style and handwriting analysis are very important to this case as well. Some of the samples of Allen's writing don't appear to match up, but I was deeply impressed by the 1966 sample posted on this site a few months ago. It doesn't prove anything, I know, but it's a heck of an interesting comparison.
Also interesting is the sample of Cane's handwriting; while it doesn't look anything like the Zodiac's, I couldn't help but notice that Cane confused his lower case "b" and "d"("a d c b...").
I would guess that this has something to do with his brain damage. Assuming that Cane was somehow involved in the Zodiac business(and I know there's not a great case for this), could his writing style and speech patterns have had any influence on the manner in which the letters were written?
Just a thought.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wj014.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.24) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 10:25 am:

Tom,

Since you refuse to permit access to the dozens and dozens of pages of relevant documents which you have in your possession, I hereby respectfully request that you post the following information:

1) Dates, times, places, and circumstances pertaining to ALL police interviews of Don and Sandy, and the investigators involved in those interviews.

2) The questions they were asked, and whatever answers and/or statements they offered.

3) All pertinent information regarding any police attempt to verify or check Don's story.

Thank you.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wa022.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.27) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 11:01 am:

Tom wrote: "Did you speak to Allen's ex-buddy's, the hunter's? Well, I have...within the last two years or so. Their story made sense to me. "

Then, when pressed, he wrote: "First of all, I spoke with Sandy, NOT Don. Sandy was NOT the buddy who heard Allen's alleged statements, Don was."

Uh...so, what? The first statement was a lie?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8a4017.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.64.23) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 11:41 am:

Your above two posts helped me realize how you've managed to follow the case for so many (15?) years, yet had so little success at accumulating Zodiac information on your own.
When you rely on others to provide you with case information, as you do, you're most certainly NOT going to get anywhere by questioning the honesty of your source.
The truth is, I put a total of a half-second of thought in my responses to your questions about Allen's ex-hunting buddys. If you found a contradiction, congratulations. It must be Watergate revisited.
Request denied.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb044.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.169) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 05:48 pm:

Wrong again. I don't rely on others always, Tom. In case you forgot, you got a lot of your stuff from me. You relied on me then, I tried to rely on you. Mistake. I followed the case for a long time, yes. That isn't how long I have been doing research.

You can't answer the question? Won't? Denied? If you gave it a few seconds of thought, that's your fault, not mine. I was asking you about the facts, and you responded with little thought? Seems to be how you operate, period. I mean, you still don't see what's wrong with your post, do you? That says a lot more about your methods than mine. YOU should be questioning the sources, Tom -- you're the one who is posting what they have said, not me. I'm trying to do the work you are obviously not interested in doing - checking the facts. If you were doing the work, you'd know that there is a serious problem with your sources, and the problems with your so-called "connection" post would be obvious.

If you were interested in the truth, you'd share your information, and anything else. Obviously, you have different concerns, and believe me, they are showing.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca58d60.ipt.aol.com - 172.165.141.96) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 05:53 pm:

If there's a problem with my facts, let's hear it.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca58d60.ipt.aol.com - 172.165.141.96) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 06:05 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"If you were interested in the truth, you'd share your information, and anything else."

Ok, I'll post everything I have left, leaving nothing to trade for new information, should trading become necessary...which it has been, countless times.
Duh, that sure makes sense for me to do.

How would sharing what I have make me "interested in the truth", anyway? That makes no sense. Besides, I HAVE shared the information. It's at the Allen File, in the form of text. If you choose not to believe it, that's your problem.

Go get it yourself.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tl012.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.177) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 08:14 pm:

No, you haven't shared the information, Tom. You posted that he said some things. You offered no evidence to support your claim, you presented the information without context, and cited no details. You simply said that he said something, and said it was in a police report. Judging by your selective use of the facts, I have no doubt that there is more to this story than you are telling everyone.

It's not a matter of what I choose to believe, Tom. It's whether or not something is actually believable. Don's story is not. Anyone who was objective would know that much.

Tom, tell us the information. Keep hoarding your documents for all I care, just tell us what the documents say. If you were interested in the truth you would post what you have learned, instead of keeping information to yourself and releasing only those scant details which support your opinions. Posting the information doesn't affect your "trade" (although I think it is clear that you are embracing a different definition of that word than you indicate). So, tell us the facts. You have the information in your possession. If you cared about serving the truth, you'd share it. You're "trading" excuses don't cut the mustard, and I know for a fact that it is just that - an excuse. When I tried to discuss this issue with you, and clearly pointed out the flaws in your excuses, you would drop that excuse and move on to the next one. So save me sob stories about trading...

There are a lot of problems with your "facts," Tom, and I tried to explain it to you. Your "connection" post was nothing but a one-sided version of the events, and that crap about the dates was just plain absurd. The way in which you deliberately avoided presenting any information that contradicted your theory was truly Graysmith-like. When I called you on this, you said "Well, it wasn't called the Allen-Zodiac disconnection." Well, it should have been. You knew that it would be hard to make it seem as if there was a connection if you presented the facts objectively, so you left out all conflicting information in order to construct your "connection." That's not responsible journalism or research, Tom -- that's propaganda. From our discussion, it's clear that you don't understand, or choose to ignore, the difference between the two.

You're the one posting that Don's story is credible. I asked you to present the relevant information. You can boohoo about your trading, and about me, all you want, but the simple fact is that you took the responsibility of putting the info out there, and it's your responsibility to present the facts to support your presentation. Since we don't have those documents (yet), it behooves you to bring the facts into this discussion. Otherwise, there's really no point to even having this message board if all you plan to do is sit on your throne and belittle others for not knowing what you know.

I tried to clear up the facts regarding your interview with the "hunting buddies," and instead of addressing the issues, you have responded with false information because you didn't bother to take the time to give a correct answer, you have attacked me, and you have now used this pathetic excuse to avoid addressing the issues and dealing with the facts which are pertinent to your own presentation.

I've known you for some time now, Tom, and if there's one thing I learned about you right from the start, it's that you don't listen, you don't pay attention, you view the facts through your Allen goggles, you can't handle a real debate on the facts, and that you are simply incapable of giving a straight answer to a simple question.

You put the a tidbit of information out here about Don and his incredulous story, and then ask all of us to swallow it as truth simply because you cite a police report. I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is, and back up what you are saying. Can you do that?

Just give us the information. You can keep your documents, and choke on them for all I care. Heaven knows I wouldn't want to interfere with your "trade"...

Being the sole authority and disseminator of your version of the Zodiac truth might be nice for you, but it's not serving the truth. And you know it.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca5cf36.ipt.aol.com - 172.165.207.54) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 08:48 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"No, you haven't shared the information, Tom. You posted that he said some things. You offered no evidence to support your
claim, you presented the information without context, and cited no details. You simply said that he said something, and said it
was in a police report. Judging by your selective use of the facts, I have no doubt that there is more to this story than you are
telling everyone."

Uh...you might want to retract that statement, ol' Greggy. The report Don filed in 1971 had been POSTED at my site for at LEAST a year, right up until a few days ago. So, that would be PROOF that Don went to the police and made statements regarding Allen's guilt.
I can't offer you proof that the incriminating conversation actually took place, however, since only Don and Allen were alleged to have been involved in that conversation.

Gregorypraxas went on to write,
"It's not a matter of what I choose to believe, Tom. It's whether or not something is actually believable. Don's story is not."
Ok, fine! Don't believe it! I truly don't care.
But whether you believe it or not, it IS one of the details that CONNECTS Allen with Zodiac, which was the point of the update.
Is this rocket science for you?

By Mike (Mike) (spider-wa011.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.21) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 09:00 pm:

Hi-

A propos of this current line of thinking, is it naive of me to say that the way in which we can infer that the police did not buy into the story of the two hunters, is that they never used it to bring Allen to trial? IF they had two credible people come forward and say that Allen had blathered on about all these intimate facts of the case as far back as early 1968, would they not have seized upon them to be the star witnesses at Allen's multiple homicide trial in Solano County?

Mike

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca5cf36.ipt.aol.com - 172.165.207.54) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 09:12 pm:

Only one person, Don, was present when Allen allegedly made the incriminating statements.

I believe that since both SFPD and VPD used Don's statements to secure search warrants is proof they believed him, or at least could not find sufficient cause to doubt him.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb052.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.172) on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 10:00 pm:

I guess it is rocket science, Tom, because you're trashing and twitching about as if I had asked you to construct an atomic weapon.

Try real hard to pay attention here. You wrote: "Uh...you might want to retract that statement, ol' Greggy. The report Don filed in 1971 had been POSTED at my site for at LEAST a year, right up until a few days ago. So, that would be PROOF that Don went to the police and made statements regarding Allen's guilt."

I never said he didn't go to the police and make the statements. I have the reports that prove that much. Geez...If you would make at least some effort to pay attention, you'd know what I was saying.

Where in the reports that you had posted or given to me does it say that Allen was going to disable the cars of women? This, and other information, apparently came from some other report which you are not only refusing to provide copies of or post, but are also refusing to elaborate on, cite, quote, detail, place within a context, give a date, a time, a place, investigators involved, or anything even remotely resembling some sort of source or factual information. You said "police reports". Well, I don't see that information in my police reports, so, where did it come from?

Am I the only one who sees the HUGE problem here? I don't believe that. Someone has got to see what I am talking about...

Let's just take a fast look at what you said in your "connections", and if you can't see what I am talking about, well, then, you never will.

"Connections" to Riverside? "Placed" in Riverside?
Some people said he might have been in Riverside during the Bates murder. Some investigators found information to suggest he might have been there at the time. No one "placed" him there. You may see this as a word game, but it's about the facts, and reporting them accurately, responsibly and objectively.

You never mentioned that experts concluded that Allen did not write the Zodiac letters. You never mentioned that the same person who connected Zodiac to the Riverside writings was one of these experts. You never mention any potentially exculpatory evidence, conflicting information, or problems with your theories. You tell people that it was possible that Allen used Philip's car, but don't even mention that, when writing his report, Mulanax stated that his investigation seemed to rule out the possibility, or, at the very least, failed to find any evidence to support the theory. Philip said that, to the best of his knowledge, Allen had never used that car. Little things like this are important when presenting the case against Allen on your site for people who are new to the case and looking for some honest answers. There are bigger larger problems with your presentation, but, the heart of the issue for me is the way you are taking advantage of the uninformed who come to your site, in order to create "connections" where the whole truth is not as helpful in serving your purpose.

If you can't present your "connections" without addressing the conflicting evidence, you might want to rethink your "connections."

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tj031.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.186) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 03:15 pm:

Gregorypraxas Is Not Alone.

Even a cursory comparison between this site's "Suspects" page and "The Allen File" will reveal preferential treatment that would never pass the smell test in a newspaper or journal. On the other hand, this is Tom's site, and if we don't like it we can post our own stuff on our own server space, right?

I've been thinking about an article detailing the case against Allen, but presented from an objective perspective. This would include Allen's pass at the hunter's daughter as an explanation for his coming forth, not to mention the suspicious timing and the absurd explanation for that timing. It would include Mulanax's confidence that Allen never used anyone's car, the absence of a handwrtiting or fingerprint match despite numerous tests, and the distinct possibility -- if not outright probability -- that Allen was playing psychokiller to draw attention away from his pedophilia.

It's important that this exculpatory evidence be given as much attention as possible, primarily because Allen is still named as the unofficial Zodiac by Graysmith -- and thus by every newspaper and TV segment on the Zodiac murders. There's practically no way to discuss the case without discussing Allen, and it's important that the full story reach as wide an audience as possible to counteract what 'Praxas accurately called "propaganda."

So ... Any takers?

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8f8447.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.132.71) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 03:24 pm:

As I told Gregorypraxas, my addition to the Allen File is called "The Allen-Zodiac Connection," not
"The Allen-Zodiac Disconnection."
He had been asking for reasons Allen was connected to Zodiac, and I listed most that I could think of. Now, I'm being criticized for not doing the opposite of what was asked of me.

I don't care who believes Allen to be Zodiac. He's not "my" suspect. I've collected a ton of info on the other suspects, as well...there's just nothing much of interest in comparison.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.181) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 04:28 pm:

Tom is simply being disingenuous. He has a lot of interest in perpetuating Allen as the Zodiac. That much is clear just by looking at this site, his presentations, and his statements.

I didn't ask for a whole bunch of incredulous crap to "connect" Allen to the Zodiac case, I asked for some credible evidence to indicate that he should be considered the best suspect. Tom did not do what I asked, he did the exact opposite. Instead of presenting any credible evidence, Tom presented his "connection," selectively choosing only that information that supported his theory, ignoring all the exculpatory information, and offering a lot of garbage about dates in place of anything remotely resembling a connection. As is evident by his comments, Tom just doesn't understand that there IS A difference.

As for his remark that he doesn't care who believes that Allen is the Zodiac, well, it's just plain laughable. So why does Tom go out of his way to mislead readers, distort and omit the facts, and implicate Allen, sometimes using the most ridiculous of methods? Read this snip from his post to a true crime newsgroup, announcing the posting of his "connections" article: "I just added all of the reasons that make Arthur Leigh Allen the Zodiac killer."

As I said, the article should have been called "disconnections," as it is clear that Tom cannot support his so-called "connections" within the limits of the truth.

Egads -- it's...Son of Graysmith!

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac806a2f.ipt.aol.com - 172.128.106.47) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 04:44 pm:

Ok, come up with someone better.
After all, you've had 15 years to accomplish something. Surely you have SOMETHING to offer?