Allen's Status, Continued


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Allen's Status, Continued

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tj042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.192) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 08:05 pm:

What we all have to offer, and what we should be refining instead of sniping over, is a great wealth of knowledge regarding this case and its peripherals. Between the two of you, the discussion of Allen as a suspect ought to be an illuminating, accurate "point-counterpoint," but it's becoming an unreadable mish-mash of one-sided laundry-lists and offensive and defensive generalizations, not necessarily in that order.

Just be cool, guys. Tell the truth, and everyone will listen.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8af08c.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.240.140) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 08:12 pm:

Every item I listed at "The Allen-Zodiac Connection" is a fact. Don and Spinelli DID file police reports about Allen allegedly incriminating himself. Philip DID allow Allen to drive his brown Corvair. These are facts and are detailed in police statements. However, if you choose to dispute these facts, there are still a number of very interesting items left on the list.
It would be nice if we could discuss the remaining items for a change.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tb071.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.181) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 10:23 pm:

Whether the facts are credible or not is irrelevant. Those facts were obviously enough for the police to seek and a judge to issue three search warrants over two decades in order to execute a search of Allen and his property for any Z-related evidence. Whether they found anything or not is irrelevant either, because these facts, whether credible or not (in retrospect) were more than enough to raise suspicion against Allen and keep it raised for 31 years and counting.

I'm not arguing for or against Allen, just stating that these facts, for whatever they are worth, were the ones that were (and still are) used to show Allen's viability as a suspect. Whether he is a good or bad suspect is another story, and is not the issue here.

In fact, I was the one who discovered that Ethan Allen died on what would have been Darlene Ferrin's 24th birthday, and that Allen and Stine shared the same birthday (they were six years apart), which is why I passed those facts on to Tom.

Those two facts are highly suspicious in any case, because the implication is that, if Allen was Z, he might have helped his ailing father into an early grave. He might also have discovered through casual conversation in the cab that Stine happened to share his birthday, and thought his death would be a good clue to his identity. But then, the same could be said for many of the other suspects as well. But Allen is the one we are discussing in this thread, not the others.

Anyway, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone on these points, just putting in my two cents worth.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tl032.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.187) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 11:07 pm:

I asked for some evidence -- Tom provided more propaganda, and ommitted the pertinent facts where they conflicted with his theory. I simply pointed out what was wrong, and tried to discuss the facts.

Philip may have said that he allowed Allen to use the Corvair, but what Tom never bothered to tell anyone was that he said that years later. When first interviewed by police, he said that, to the best of his knowledge, Allen had not used the car. An important detail when discussing the whol e "Corvair" scenario, yet, one which was conspicuously missing in Tom's presentation. Why? Changing a story years later is good reason to question the information. Omitting the information is suspicious.

THAT is my issue, and although I readily admit to being a pit bull in this regard, I hardly think I am engaged in petty bickering. We're talking about accusing a man of murder, and doing so in a one-sided and subjective manner. That might be fine if it was just Tom and I talking here, but he posted that information for people to see, and when those who are new to the case come here, and read that, they are simply being mislead. It's very simple.

Whether or not the evidence is credible is a very important issue, and if you believe otherwise, I'm not sure what kind of standards one should use. Are we to accept anything just because the police did at one time? Do you have any idea how easy it is to get a search warrant sometimes? And they had next to nothing when they got the warrants on Allen. Are we to accept whatever someone says, and not ask the person who has some information that could shed some light on the issue to elaborate when presenting only that part of the truth which supports their claims?

Jake said "Tell the truth." Well, I have been trying to do just that, and see to it that the facts are presented, but no one seems interested in the truth. I am not attacking Tom - I am attacking the manner in which he practices buffet style "journalism" when presenting the case against their suspect.

I'm all for a "point-counterpoint" discussion. In fact, that's what I have been attempting to do here. I've made my points, and I receive either silence or attempts to avoid the issue in return. It takes two, and so far, the other team cannot or will not play.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8b65e5.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.101.229) on Friday, November 24, 2000 - 11:18 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"Philip may have said that he allowed Allen to use the Corvair, but what Tom never bothered to tell anyone was that he said that
years later."

You don't know that he said it YEARS later. In fact, you don't know WHEN he said it, period. Admit it. You're ASSUMING he said it years later.
Now THAT'S propaganda.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk081.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.186) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 02:21 am:

Tom, I'm saying that based on what little information I was able to pry out of you, and it seems that the only only time you're willing to present pertinent information is when someone is hounding you and pointing out the inconsistencies, so -- here I am.

It wouldn't be an issue if you would simply cite this basic information when you present these tidbits instead of selectively offering them without context or detail. Why are you being so deliberately obtuse about the facts? Instead of attacking me, why not simply present the information you have in your possession and clear up the issue for good? I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just want the facts, and I think everyone else does, too. And puuuhhleeezzeee, spare us the crap about trading. No one is aksing you to provide free copies of all your documents - just cite the dates, etc. It shouldn't be too hard for you, after all, you said you spent nine hours checking (and selectively choosing) the facts for your "connection", so, you should know without even looking at a document. It should be a simple matter of saying "Philip said this originally, and then, at such and such a time, he said otherwise." Is that so hard? Is it too much to ask you to present all the relevant details, like the fact that he changed his story, which you never mentioned at all? What is the problem here? This is S.O.P.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tr051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.196) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 09:16 am:

Tom wrote:
"Every item I listed at "The Allen-Zodiac Connection" is a fact."

I'm not arguing that Allen didn't live at 32 Fresno when he was 32 years old, I just question its relevance. This particular nugget seems to me a lot like the 8-ball in the 13-character cipher that proves Larry Kane was the Zodiac. The reference to Allen's posession of "codes featuring identical symbols" to the Zodiac cryptograms is also kind of shaky, since it was determined that someone else at Atascadero had written them.

"Don and Spinelli DID file police reports about Allen allegedly incriminating himself. Philip DID allow Allen to drive his brown Corvair. These are facts and are detailed in police statements."

Yes, and they are presented fairly in those police reports, with the detectives themselves ruling them out as legitimate evidence against Allen: for the former, Mulanax wrote that Allen's pass at Cheney's daughter "might be a motive why Cheney whould make such an accusation agains Arthur Allen,"and for the latter he pointed out facts that "would seem to negate the possibility Allen could have used this particular car on July 4, 1969." So, sometimes there's a difference between a fact and the truth.

"However, if you choose to dispute these facts, there are still a number of very interesting items left on the list.
It would be nice if we could discuss the remaining items for a change."

There's the typewriter. My understanding is that the Riverside typewriter used Pica font, but in the Allen file it's referred to as using "Elite or Pica," apparently to link it to Allen's machine, which used Elite -- the font referred to in Graysmith's book. If there is legitimate confusion regarding the Riverside typer's font, then so be it, but if it was indeed definitely Pica, then this link should be thrown out.

There's the term "bussy work," which is hardly exclusive to schoolteachers. Anyone who has worked retail or data entry is familiar with it.

There are half a dozen dates that are no more or less convincing than the dates linking Ted K, MOH, or certain other low-profile suspects.

I don't have a hard-on for eliminating Allen as a suspect, but aside from Mageau's ID, I just don't see anything very strong in the case against him.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8f178f.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.23.143) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 01:11 pm:

Obviously, the symbol at the bottom of two of the Bates letters meant something to the writer.
If the symbol is a "32," which it looks like to me, should I have ignored the fact that Allen lived at 32 Fresno, and was 32-years old at the time Bates was killed? I never said it was proof he was Zodiac.

It was never determined that someone from Atascadero wrote any ciphers. That was just a story Allen told people.

The Corvair story is solid. I never claimed Allen drove it the night of July 4, 1969. He did, however, have access to a brown Corvair, one he had previously been allowed to drive and that was unattended.

Even if you discredit the stories of Don and Spinelli, there is still Philip's troubling statement to police regarding Allen's interest in hunting people.

Do you guys mean to tell me that if Stine had been headed to the "O'Hare Condominiums" when he encountered Zodiac, you would have felt it not worth mentioning in TIMES 17?!?

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (104.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.104) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 01:58 pm:

At the outset, having only Graysmith's account to go by, I assumed that the scrawled symbol on the bottom of the Bates letter was nothing more than a form of the letter "Z." It was only later, when I could see the same symbol identically reproduced on a second letter that I inferred that I could make absolutely nothing of it at all. Of course, if I wanted to be really creative, I'm certain I could find some element of the symbol that directly relates to Ted Kaczynski.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac842507.ipt.aol.com - 172.132.37.7) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 02:58 pm:

I believe it was Penn who first suggested the symbol was a "32," so that probably guarantees that it is not.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wk044.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.169) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 03:50 pm:

"The Corvair story is solid"? That's laughable. The man is asked if Allen had ever used the car, and he said no. Then he is asked later, and he says yes. That's anything but solid. And that is good reason to question his credibility. You act as if anything they say is "solid," even when it conflicts with earlier statements, AND, you don't even mention that they have given conflicting accounts. And just when did Philip tell police that Allen had talked about hunting people? When he was first interviewed, he didn't say anything like that. These are the kinds of issues that are important, yet, are completely ignored in your one-sided presentations.

You wrote that the symbols on Allen's paper were "identical" to Zodiac's, even thought the Mulanax report, which details the interview with these witnesses, refers to the symbols as "similar," and not "identical." There IS a difference between those two words, but, apparently you don't feel it's necessary to be accurate or precise. As long as you can use something to make Allen look guilty, it's "solid," not matter how many holes there may be in the story.

32? Are you joking? And why not mention in your "connection" that the same handwriting expert who linked Zodiac to the Riverside writings also concluded that Allen did not write the Zodiac letters? After all, it IS kinda important when presenting what you claim are "connections."

The manner in which you present information on Allen is biased, incomplete, less than accurate and deceptive. I can't believe that you have the audacity to attack others for the manner in which they present their theories when you obviously have no standards whatsoever.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-th032.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.57) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 04:25 pm:

Tom wrote:
"It was never determined that someone from Atascadero wrote any ciphers. That was just a story Allen told people."

Well, by that line of reasoning, it was never determined that Allen ever had any paper with symbols on it. It was just a story that Sandy told people.

"The Corvair story is solid. I never claimed Allen drove it the night of July 4, 1969. He did, however, have access to a brown Corvair, one he had previously been allowed to drive and that was unattended."

But Tom, if it's certain that Allen couldn't have used the car on the night it was allegedly spotted, what is that story doing in a list of connections to the Zodiac? Allen could have "had access" to a square black hood, but if that hood was unavailable to him on 9/27/69, then it means nothing.

"Even if you discredit the stories of Don and Spinelli, there is still Philip's troubling statement to police regarding Allen's interest in hunting people."

Allen himself dropped that hint when he was interviewed by VPD in 1971, long after the cryptogram was solved. Allen, whom you've described as a fan of "The Most Dangerous Game," no doubt spotted the Zodiac's literary reference and used it on Mulanax.

Do you guys mean to tell me that if Stine had been headed to the "O'Hare Condominiums" when he encountered Zodiac, you would have felt it not worth mentioning in TIMES 17?!?

You aren't exactly putting yourself in great company there, Tom!

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8cdfd0.ipt.aol.com - 172.140.223.208) on Saturday, November 25, 2000 - 05:14 pm:

Jake,
It is NOT "certain" that Allen could not have used Philip's brown Corvair the night of the Ferrin murder. What IS certain is that the Corvair was for sale and unattended during the summer of 1969, and that Allen had been allowed to use it in the past. Philip also had allowed Allen to use his Pontiac. Even though Philip was living in Berkeley, the Corvair had been parked at a service station in Vallejo where Allen had recently been employed, and where he was living just minutes away.
Regarding Allen's claims of a maniac at Atascadero being responsible for the Zodiac's codes (as well as responsible for the codes he had in his basement), he never admitted to the police that he ever had codes of any kind in his possession.
And finally, Allen's conversation with Philip regarding hunting people for sport occured long before Zodiac ever wrote a letter or code referring to "The Most Dangerous Game."

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"You wrote that the symbols on Allen's paper were "identical" to Zodiac's, even thought the Mulanax report, which details the
interview with these witnesses, refers to the symbols as "similar," and not "identical."

On page A-13, Philip was quoted as saying Zodiac's codes appeared to be "the same" as the codes shown to him by Allen.
Greggy, "the same" and "identical" mean the same thing in my dictionary. Get a life.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wi084.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.59) on Sunday, November 26, 2000 - 11:58 am:

Tom wrote:
"Jake,
It is NOT "certain" that Allen could not have used Philip's brown Corvair the night of the Ferrin murder. What IS certain is that the Corvair was for sale and unattended during the summer of 1969, and that Allen had been allowed to use it in the past. Philip also had allowed Allen to use his Pontiac. Even though Philip was living in Berkeley, the Corvair had been parked at a service station in Vallejo where Allen had recently been employed, and where he was living just minutes away."

We should make it clear that Allen had been fired from his job at the Arco station three months before the BRS murder, and that, when asked by Mulanax, neither Philip nor the owner of that station were even sure that the Corvair was being stored there in July '69. Further, while Philip stated that he had let Allen drive his Pontiac, he stated outright that he had never let Allen use the Corvair. This is all spelled out in the Mulanax report of August '71. Nonetheless, it is possible that Philip's Corvair was still parked at the Arco on July 4th, and Allen could have broken in to "borrow" the keys that night. A creepy guy like him probably would have taken notice of any weak spots in the station's security, and could have performed some kind of inside job. This is not my suspicion, but I'll cede that it's a possibility based on another possibility.

"Regarding Allen's claims of a maniac at Atascadero being responsible for the Zodiac's codes (as well as responsible for the codes he had in his basement), he never admitted to the police that he ever had codes of any kind in his possession."

Philip described them as "handwritten and pertain[ing] to a person who had been committed to Atascadero State Hospital for molesting a child. It rambled on and on about this person having been betrayed by his attorney, using language of a legal nature or terminology. Also in this script were various symbols similar to those used by Zodiac in his coded messages. Symbols and code very neatly done [sic]." Given that Philip's wife, Joan's assessment is entirely consistent with her husband's, there seems no doubt that there was such a sheet or sheets of writing. The questions now are who wrote it and when. Their recollections are never dated, but Philip said that it was around the time that Allen said he had been questioned by the police as a Z suspect. If Allen was telling the truth, this would be in early October '69, well after the first set of cryptograms had been received, but long before Allen was sent to Atascadero. What would he have been doing with a letter from an inmate? Was he part of the pedophile community already? Did he write the letter, framing a copy of the Zodiac cipher in sham letter as an alibi?

It's an intriguing incident, but it shares the same weakness that every other Allen/Zodiac link has, which is that it shows Allen acting in a Z-like manner, but not the other way around.

"And finally, Allen's conversation with Philip regarding hunting people for sport occured long before Zodiac ever wrote a letter or code referring to "The Most Dangerous Game." "

It looks like you've out-researched me there. The earliest documentation I have for any TMDG reference is July 1971. Would you care to cite or quote something?

Finally, I screwed up a few posts back, saying that the Atascadero codes were a story that "Sandy" told people. I was eating Trisuits and watching Peter Pan, and my mind was wandering. I meant Joan.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8b9b24.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.155.36) on Sunday, November 26, 2000 - 01:42 pm:

Jake, I had to edit your above post to remove the last name of Philip and Joan.

Here is my thinking on the Corvair:
If you lived in Boston, would you park your car in New Bedford in order to sell it? I wouldn't. Most people, when displaying their vehicle for sale, park it reasonably close to their home. That way, they not only can keep an eye on it (since it's unattended), but they can also get to it quickly should someone call and say, "I'm interested in your car. I'd like to drive it." Makes sense, right?
Philip was living in Berkeley when he decided to sell his Corvair. Yet, he displayed the Corvair in Vallejo, where Allen was living. The car was parked just a couple of minutes from Allen's home, at a service station where Allen had been recently employed.
Now, regarding the choice of where the Corvair was parked for sale, you either have to believe:
1) The choice was dumb luck
2) Allen had an influence on the decision
I believe Allen influenced Philip to park his Corvair at that location. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea of Philip, for no reason, driving to Vallejo and just happening to pick THAT service station.
Therefore, if Allen influenced Philip, the question is, "Why?" When one tries to influence someone, it's because they have an INTEREST in the result. Allen had an INTEREST in having Philip's Corvair parked unattended within a couple of minutes from his home.
Since Allen always owned two or three cars of his own, why would he want access to another one?

Jake, Allen discussed hunting people "like animals" with Philip on a skin diving trip prior to September 1968.
(9-68 was when Tucker got married, and didn't go skin diving with Allen after that.)

Regarding Atascadero, Allen actually worked there in 1961-62. He worked in the "Mental Hygeine" department.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg012.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.22) on Sunday, November 26, 2000 - 09:44 pm:

Your theory about Allen's influence is a pretty good one, but it isn't supported by any pronouncement to this effect by Philip himself. He apparently had no problem discussing Allen as a possible Z suspect, and talked openly about the codes and, apparently, TMDG. He spoke to the police at least twice, and at least once spoke in detail about the Corvair -- don't you think he would have mentioned Allen's interest in the car if he'd noticed any?

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac817550.ipt.aol.com - 172.129.117.80) on Sunday, November 26, 2000 - 10:06 pm:

Jake wrote,
"Your theory about Allen's influence is a pretty good one, but it isn't supported by any pronouncement to this effect by Philip
himself."
Well, I doubt anyone asked Philip why he parked his car all the way in Vallejo. After all, Philip only answered questions...he never offered anything. In fact, in 1991, Philip gave VPD's George Bawart some new info. Bawart asked Philip, "Why didn't you tell the police this back when you were interviewed in 1969?" Philip replied that he was asked only to answer their questions, and they didn't ask.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-mtc-tg053.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.173) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 12:35 am:

Oops... did VPD drop the ball yet again??? Surprise, surprise... they dropped it so many times that I now have to wonder if it was by chance or design! I get the definite impression that they have no real interest in solving the Z crimes, then or now. I wonder why?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wi024.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.29) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 03:28 pm:

In 1971, Philip told police that Allen had not used the car. Then, later, he changed his story. Tom wrote that it was certain that Allen had used the Corvair. I don't see how anything is certain here. The guy was asked the question, he said no, and then (sometime) later, he says Yes? sounds suspicious to me.

In 1971, Philip mentioned that Allen talked of attaching a light to a gun. He never mentioned anything about "hunting people" at that time. Sometime later, Philip ( we don't know when because Tom seems to think it's best to keep the facts and details to himself ) told a different story.

If Tom wants to accept these changes and not use his common sense when evaluating them, let alone be thorough and accurate when presenting them to his readers, that's his choice. But, people have a hard time accepting these changing stories, and even more difficulty accepting the obtuse and selective manner in which Tom is presenting this information. Something stinks here, and I think it's you-know-who and his you-know-what. Oh, and, Tommy - Get a brain, pal. Better yet, try using the one you claim to have. You report the facts like a Russian newspaper, Tom. You've learned well from your master.

PS: Mageau alegedly told Bawart that he was not shown any pictures of suspects, but that wasn't true, either. I think the fact that Philip seems to have had more to say after Graysmith's book appeared is good reason to suspect any apocryphal changes to his story. But, that's just me, - I can see how some people might simply ignore all these problems in favor of believing anything which helps them make a case against their suspect....

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac95a08c.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.160.140) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 03:45 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"If Tom wants to accept these changes and not use his common sense when evaluating them, let alone be thorough and accurate
when presenting them to his readers, that's his choice. But, people have a hard time accepting these changing stories, and even
more difficulty accepting the obtuse and selective manner in which Tom is presenting this information. Something stinks here,
and I think it's you-know-who and his you-know-what."

You know, I can tell you are just fed up to HERE with me. In fact, I wouldn't blame you if you actually got off of your butt and tried to do a little fact-finding of your own, instead of merely criticizing what others have accomplished.
Ever thought of giving that a try? Or, is that why you are so frustrated...because you know you'd fail.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-39.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.39) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 05:54 pm:

Jake,

Not sure which item you're using as a reference regarding the typewriter used in the Riverside confession. The DOJ Special Report on the Zodiac homidcides (which you have) identifies it as a "Royal Portable - Elite type - canterbury shaded."

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tr013.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.178) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 06:32 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Well, I doubt anyone asked Philip why he parked his car all the way in Vallejo. After all, Philip only answered questions...he never offered anything."

It says in Mulanax's report that, without any prompting, Philip volunteered the information "that approximately three weeks prior he had been contacted by Karen Allen, sister-in-law of suspect, and requested to contact Allen re-seeking some type of psychiatric treatment..." The report goes on to decribe further complaints against Arthur Allen by angry parents.

The point is that Philip knew what the cops were looking for, and didn't have any problem giving it up. The influence that you're ascribing to Allen in order to link him to the Corvair is just another floor in what's getting to be a pretty shaky house of cards.

By the way, Mulanax also reported on a conversation between Philip and another former Allen employer wherein the two discussed Allen as a Zodiac suspect. According to this former employer, this conversation "came about primarily because of Allen's suspected possibility of of being a sexual deviate towards children and physical description." No intimations here of Allen describing Zodiac hallmarks before the Zodiac murders, no mention of flashlights on handguns, cab drivers, radians, or even The Most Dangerous Game -- just the weakest of weak links.

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

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.58) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 06:46 pm:

Edward wrote:
"Not sure which item you're using as a reference regarding the typewriter used in the Riverside confession. The DOJ Special Report on the Zodiac homidcides (which you have) identifies it as a "Royal Portable - Elite type - canterbury shaded." "

The DOJ report that I have does not identify the typewriter. It refers twice to a "typewritten confession letter," but doesn't mention a make or model. Nor, for that matter, do the two FBI reports posted on this site. Tom himself was the source of the Pica rumor, and he's usually very good about uninterpreted facts like these. Graysmith mentions a "portable Royal, Canterbury, shaded with Elite type;" which source are you quoting? Is there another DOJ report floating around out there?

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8df918.ipt.aol.com - 172.141.249.24) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 07:06 pm:

The December 1966 FBI report I posted goes on to identify the typewriter as "most probably" a Royal Merit with Pica.
However, Morrill apparently developed different information, so I'm not sure which is true.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8df918.ipt.aol.com - 172.141.249.24) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 07:15 pm:

Jake wrote,
"By the way, Mulanax also reported on a conversation between Philip and another former Allen employer wherein the two
discussed Allen as a Zodiac suspect. According to this former employer, this conversation "came about primarily because of
Allen's suspected possibility of of being a sexual deviate towards children and physical description." No intimations here of
Allen describing Zodiac hallmarks before the Zodiac murders, no mention of flashlights on handguns, cab drivers, radians, or
even The Most Dangerous Game -- just the weakest of weak links."

Well, perhaps that's because Philip was responsible enough to only answered the questions of the police. This might suggest he wasn't into just spouting info for all to hear.
Philip stated he only answered the questions of the police, just as he was asked. If you find an example of him doing otherwise, then you've found an example of him being a human being.

I'd like to hear your idea as to why Philip's Corvair ended up in Vallejo.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-39.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.39) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 08:06 pm:

Jake,

I have the 7-page report issued by the DOJ/Division of Law Enforcement/Bureau of Investigation. The typewriter is specified on page 7. It is interesting to note that the Bureau of Investigation maintained a file on suspects that had been eliminated as a result of handwriting comparisons. And that"pending receipt of any additional evidence, handwriting is the most positive method of identification or elimination of suspects." Not fingerprints. Handwriting. It makes one wonder as to the validity of any of the recovered latents in the case. Or, perhaps, it was just easier than acquiring someone's prints.

Edward

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tr044.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.194) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 08:46 pm:

Edward -- thank you for pointing this out. It looks like my copy is a page short! I mentioned to Someone once that it ended rather abruptly after a discussion of the Stine murder, but They said that was the end. I'll trade ya!

In any case, that report is probably the closest thing to the insider's guide to the case, so I'll have to withdraw my opposition to Allen's typewriter as a Riverside link.

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

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tr044.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.194) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 08:47 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Well, perhaps that's because Philip was responsible enough to only answered the questions of the police. This might suggest he wasn't into just spouting info for all to hear. "

You're suggesting that Philip was civic-minded enough not to tell his friends that Allen had incriminated himself, and in the next breath you assert that he wouldn't tell the police either unless they said the Magic Word.

"Philip stated he only answered the questions of the police, just as he was asked. If you find an example of him doing otherwise, then you've found an example of him being a human being."

Assuming for a moment that Allen did exert some pressure on Philip to leave his car in Vallejo, I think it would be perfectly human for Philip to mention that pressure during an interview that focused at one point on Allen and the car. The only reason for him to lie by omission would be to protect Allen, which he obviously did not care to do. Mulanax didn't ask Philip if he owned a Corvair, he asked if Allen did. If Philip was the android you're painting him as, he would have responded with a simple "no." Instead, he says "No ... but I did!" and goes on to tell Mulanax everything about it (except that Allen asked him for the keys so he could kill some kids at a golf course).

"I'd like to hear your idea as to why Philip's Corvair ended up in Vallejo."

You say "ended up" like it was shipped there from Troutdale. You no doubt have more info on Philip than I do, but since he worked at the Greater Vallejo Recreation District in the late '60s and early '70s, you don't have to be a Vulcan to suspect that he worked there during the in-between years as well, and possibly lived in Greater Vallejo at one point or another. Three years after the Corvair was left at the Arco, the owner still remembered the car and its owner, which suggests to me that he and Philip were friends, or at least knew each other. Tell me, does it seem so outrageous that Philip's Corvair "ended up" on display at a place where every customer is interested in cars, which was owned by an acquaintance, in a town that Philip worked, and possibly lived, in for years?

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac952545.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.37.69) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 09:25 pm:

Jake wrote,
"You say "ended up" like it was shipped there from Troutdale. You no doubt have more info on Philip than I do, but since he
worked at the Greater Vallejo Recreation District in the late '60s and early '70s, you don't have to be a Vulcan to suspect that
he worked there during the in-between years as well, and possibly lived in Greater Vallejo at one point or another."

IF Philip he was working in Vallejo in mid-summer 1969, which is a possibility (I'll have to check), that's an even better reason for him NOT to park his car in Vallejo. Why?
Most people work 9 to 5. So, wouldn't it have been a tad more logical for Philip to park the car where it would be easily accessable when he, the owner, was available to show it? And isn't it likely he would have been most available after work, when he was back in Berkeley?

Jake wrote,
"Assuming for a moment that Allen did exert some pressure on Philip to leave his car in Vallejo, I think it would be perfectly
human for Philip to mention that pressure during an interview that focused at one point on Allen and the car."

I never meant to suggest that Allen bullied, or was somehow obvious, in his attempt to influence Philip's decision. Allen was probably very subtle, therefore not raising suspicion. IF my theory is correct.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac952545.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.37.69) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 09:30 pm:

Edward wrote,
"I have the 7-page report issued by the DOJ/Division of Law Enforcement/Bureau of Investigation. The typewriter is specified
on page 7. It is interesting to note that the Bureau of Investigation maintained a file on suspects that had been eliminated as a
result of handwriting comparisons. And that"pending receipt of any additional evidence, handwriting is the most positive
method of identification or elimination of suspects." Not fingerprints. Handwriting. It makes one wonder as to the validity
of any of the recovered latents in the case. Or, perhaps, it was just easier than acquiring someone's prints."

Actually, the report is nine pages and includes the three-part cipher, as well as pics of Wing Walkers. It's also got a magazine-style cover, perfect for anybody's coffee table.
By the way, the report was prepared by Dave Toschi.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wo033.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.33) on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 09:40 pm:

Tom wrote:
"IF Philip he was working in Vallejo in mid-summer 1969, which is a possibility (I'll have to check)..."

I arrived at this assumption because, in 1971, Allen was asked whether he had had any conversations about the Zodiac with anyone else. Allen responds that he might have with Philip or the head of the GVRD when he worked there five years ago. It certainly bears checking, though.

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

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wc034.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.34) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 02:16 am:

Tom, you just don't get it.

You don't tell the whole story, because you know that it is not possible to make Allen look like the Zodiac when you tell the whole truth. Therefore, you selectively choose and misuse only that information which suits your purposes, omit that information which conflicts with your theories, and you seem to accept anything -even the most absurd - as long as it incriminates Allen in some way.

I'm not going to fail, Tom. It's obvious what the real problem is here -- you can't handle a debate on the facts, fair and square, and people like me, who want to stick to the facts and not the nonsense you're shoveling here, are a threat to you and your theories. You feel threatened, and, since you know you can't handle a fair fight, you take cheap shots, cheat with the facts, and try your best to divert attention from the truth.

I'm not criticizing the work you've done, Tom. I'm criticizing the irresponsible, deceptive and subjective manner in which you use and disseminate the information you've obtained doing that work. Don't try to change the subject by attacking me. I am criticizing your methods, and you earn that criticism daily.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8f09a1.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.9.161) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 10:30 am:

Gregorpraxas wrote,
"You don't tell the whole story, because you know that it is not possible to make Allen look like the Zodiac when you tell the
whole truth."

You know, you are absolutely right.
I should have known better than to publish my own opinion, at my own site, regarding the documents that I collected.

From now on, I'll try to be more like you. That way I'll always be right.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq064.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.74) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 01:30 pm:

Tom,

Don't even play games with the truth. You weren't posting your opinion - you were selectively presenting the facts in order to make Allen appear as guilty as possible when you knew the truth wouldn't be as useful. You weren't expressing an opinion, you said that certain things must be true because you have some documents which indicate as much, even tho the same documents apparently contain a wealth of contradictory information.

This isn't about opinions, and you know it. It's about being irresponsible and selective with the truth. As usual, you'll do anything to avoid dealing with the truth, whether that truth is about Allen, or your own, irresponsible and deceptive methods.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tr083.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.213) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 09:56 pm:

Here are a few passages from VPD Capt. Roy Conway's affadavit attached to the 1991 warrant to search Arthur Allen's house on Fresno Street. They recount SFPD Insp. Bill Armstrong's experiences investigating Allen in the early 1970s.

First, regarding Allen's coded sheets of paper, Conway says that Armstrong had Ron Allen poke around in Arthur's basement looking for incriminating evidence. Apparently this is how they do things out west. Anyway, "Ron Allen informed him that he had observed some cryptogram-type materials, but he was unsure if they were related to the Zodiac." This is a little different from Philip's statement that the codes were "the same." No action was taken regarding the codes, so it seems that Armstrong had little faith in their legitimacy.

Second, regarding handwriting, Armstrong said that Allen's left-handed and right-handed writing were checked by experts against known Zodiac writing, and that "experts indicated that the handwriting was similar but definitely was not that of the Zodiac killer." There is no room for interpretation of this statement; it is as close to definitive a statement as can be made about a suspect's writing, given the DOJ's advice that handwriting was the most conclusive litmus test for a suspect's viability.

The lone holdout to this assessment was Terry Pascoe of California BCII, who said that "if writing had been the product of a mental state, the writing of a subject can be different when in a different mental state, or it could be a case of intentional deception." Sherwood Morrill did not agree, and "indicated he did not feel a mental state would alter handwriting." Pascoe and Morrill would clash again years later when the 1978 letter fell under scrutiny as a forgery; Morrill felt that it was genuine, while Pascoe smelled a fake.

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

By Dave (Dave) (hr0-cf9a43c5.dia.impulse.net - 207.154.67.197) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:52 pm:

I've lurked here long enough. I've got to add my two cents worth.

For all the arguments presented here, the only real “evidence” against Allen is the famous conversation reported by Don and the “Hunting Humans” conversation reported by Philip. These are certainly intriguing and, if they are credible,they might even be sufficient basis to conclude that Allen was Z even if no other evidence is found. If they can be demonstrated to be not credible, then there is nothing, Nada
on Allen.

I have never read Don’s verbatim account but my understanding is that Allen told Don of a plan to commit (or to write a novel about) a series crimes practically identical to what Z had done. These planned crimes that Don reported were so “on the money” close to the crimes attributed to Z that I must conclude: 1) Allen gave Don a very detailed description of what he planned to do OR 2) Don made the whole thing up. One of the planed crimes was an abduction very similar to what allegedly happened to Johns. If Johns could be clearly linked to Z, Don’s report would be quite incriminating. On the other hand, if it could be established that Allen (or Z,whoever he might be), did not do Johns, then I would have to conclude that Don’s story is untrue. It would be just too much of a coincidence. The most probable explanation would be that Don read about all of Z’s crimes and gave the SFPD a story sure to implicate Allen. Does this make sense?

I have always suspected Johns was just a domestic problem that she blamed on Z in order to protect a boyfriend or something similar. The only link to Z is the fact that Johns thought her abductor look like “z” in a wanted poster she saw while she was reporting her abduction.

It is almost certain that the image she saw was the SFPD composite that shows a rather thin faced man with glasses and rather short hair brushed back. This was the image that was well publicized. I lived in the Bay Area at the time and I remember it well. (I believe I have seen a wanted poster with this image in one of the Zodiac Web sites) The composite did not look anything like Allen, who had a “fat” face and was practically bald at the time. I have read reports that this composite was not accurate and should not be considered reliable. Johns described her abductor as “5’9”, 160 lbs. Allen was 6’+, 240 lbs. Not even close. One of two possibilities exit. 1) Johns was mistaken/lying. Her abductor was not Z. Or 2) The composite was reasonably accurate and Johns correctly identified her abductor as Z. In this case, Allen is not Z. Does this seem reasonable.

With Don’s report discredited, we have Philip’s report. Interesting, but regardless of when Philip allegedly heard the reference to “the most dangerous game”, he discussed it with the police after the cipher had been well publicized. This could have influenced Philip’s memory. The story was widely published in short story anthologies in the 50’s and 60’s and many young men at the time probably made some reference to it without being Z.

I work in the insurance industry and have seen many “anonymous letters” that implicate people in various frauds. I have seen many letters where an acquaintance who genuinely suspects fraud will embellish the facts in hopes of getting us interested in investigating the situation. I have been involved in two cases where the letters writer referred to overhearing the claimant brag that he had committed fraud. Upon investigating we determined that fraud was a distinct possibility but It was extremely unlikely that claimant had bragged about it in the presence of the letter-writer. Perhaps Don saw Allen as a legitimate Z suspect. He had strong ties to Vallejo and was certainly smart and perverse enough to pull off the crimes. The report of the conversation may have been a ploy to get the police to take a serious look at Allen. Perhaps they would come up with something. Apparently they never did.
I’m not arguing that Allen is not Z. He can’t be eliminated as a suspect even thou the handwriting doesn’t seem to match. He may even be the “best” suspect anyone has found. He was a reasonably smart, anti–social type who lived right in the middle of Z’s territory. But that’s about it.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:10 am:

When one views these and other pertinent events in chronological order, one can be left with little doubt that Don's story is absurd. Perhaps he really thought Allen was Z, and exaggerated in order to get police to take a good look at him. Perhaps he had other motives. Who knows. One thing is clear : the story that Don tells is not only incredulous, but, once compared with the known facts and the events are put in chronological order, his story is simply ridiculous.

The problems with the "lugnuts" story are so big, so undeniable, that I really don't think that Don considered the implications before adding that tidbit to his story, and it's obvious that someone who has cited this information has not done so, either. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been so eager to put the story out there.

When Philip was originally questioned by police, he told police that Allen did NOT use his Corvair, and never mentioned anything about Allen talking about hunting people. Some time after this initial interview, Philip changed his story. That should be a red light to an objective observer, but, alas, some people just gobble it up and cite his story as if it were fact.

This is just a brief look at the problems with the "huge amount of circumstantial evidence" against Allen. There are many, many more problems - most of which don't even appear to have been recognized, let alone examined, by those who tout Allen as the best suspect. I agree with your assessment: Without Don and Philip, there is no evidence against Allen. Nada.

And to think that THIS so-called "evidence" is the best that they can come up with in 30 years, and that THIS so-called "evidence" serves as the basis for calling Allen the "best" suspect. It's sad. Very sad.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:22 am:

On a side note: If anyone wonders just how much the irresponsible reporting regarding Allen has influenced the unwitting public, here's a tidbit for ya: Tonight I was in a Pasadena Border's, and happened to see John Douglas' new book CRIMES THAT HAUNT US (I think that's the title). I flipped the book open and found a section on Zodiac. Needless to say, a lot of Douglas' information was inaccurate, but nowhere more so than at the end of his chapter, where he discusses the "best" suspect in the case, and erroneously states that Allen could be placed in all the jurisdictions at the times of all the crimes, and that he had received a speeding ticket near Berryessa on the "evening" of that attack. There were more factual errors, such as Douglas' statement that the suspect died of a heart attack, etc.

Now, people all over the country, if not the world, will read this nonsense, and most likely accept it as truth. Lord knows, Douglas probably isn't even aware of his factual errors. Yet, one wonders, where did he get that erroneous info?

The internet.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca154ab.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.84.171) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:45 am:

I'm responsible for the "Allen got a speeding ticket at Berryessa" error. Poor John!

It's nice to know that you two brainiacs are impartial and objective enough to discredit Don, thereby ruling him to be a liar, without even having the decency to interview him yourselves before rendering your decisions.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:55 am:

Tom, I told you before, that you don't need to talk to him to know that much. Just examine what he said in context with the known facts, and other pertinent events. What doesn't make sense is you offering this criticism, when you are the one claiming he is credible and you have not only not spoken to him, either, but have not done the research I have talked about. If you had, you wouldn't be here telling us that his story seems credible.

We "brainiacs" seem to be able to retain some objectivity and common sense when examining the case against Allen. You seemed to have checked your brain at the door, pal. So, save the "brainiac" crack for yourself. It's far more appropriate.

Um, I thought we weren't mentioning his last name...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca154ab.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.84.171) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:12 am:

I haven't done the research you have? Puhhleeze.
Maybe you'll list for us the Zodiac items you had before I came along. (Minus what you bought from Bill Nelson, of course.)
Even if you are referring specifically to the "Don" research, your statement is STILL a laugh. And the fact that you keep eluding to (but never quite point out) some magic mistake in his story I have yet to notice makes it obvious you are grasping at straws.

In fact, as ironic as it might be, it's far more likely that it will be me, and not you, to find proof Allen was not involved with the Zodiac crimes.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:38 am:

Tom, I'm not grasping at straws. I did research which you have not done. That much is obvious. If you had done that research, you would never be here telling us that his story is credible. I stand by that statement. When you do the research that I have done, I have no doubt that you will drop this "Don" story as fast as you possibly can.

I really don't care to engage in this "competition" you seem so obsessed with, but, I will tell you this much: Judging by the standards you use, and your total inability to view anything related to Allen objectively, I have no doubt that, were you to find evidence clearing Allen, you'd never recognize it as such.

In closing, I will say this: You seem to think it's perfectly OK to sit on pertinent information when it suits your purposes. Well, I'm sitting on some information which would make ANYONE seriously question Don's story and motives, and some of that information was located right here on your website. You didn't recognize the HUGE problem then, so I don't think you will now. It's there -- just because you haven't noticed doesn't mean it's not there. When you see it, finally, you will be amazed you missed it all along. You don't feel it's necessary to enlighten anyone else, unless it suits your purposes, so, why on earth should I help you out? It would be much more fun, and far more fitting, to simply sit back and watch, and wait until this whole thing explodes in your face. Talk about irony...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac831ea4.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.30.164) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:49 am:

Ok, I'll wait for your book.

By Eduard Versluijs (Eduard) (s340-modem3498.dial.xs4all.nl - 194.109.173.170) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 06:25 am:

Why are people attacking each other here?
Let everyone have his own favorite suspect (it doesn't mather because every known suspect is also linked indirectly to the Zodiac-crimes).
Oke, then there are more than eight suspects, so what? Then there are also more than 8 zodiac-links investigated. I don't see any problem with this, we must investigate every possibility.

What I DO find a problem are the people who try to convince everyone that their suspect is THE ONE (they have a little Jehova-attitude). Those people must understand that their suspect is a possibility but nothing more than that.

The Zodiac-crimes can only be solved if physical-evidence is showing up at some time.

So people understand this:
Everyone has a suspect he can link indirect to the crimes.
For the police this means nothing.
So everyone is in the same stage of research as anyone else.

Please, don't play games like that you know more than others.
Help each other out even if you do not agree on the identity of someone else his/her suspect.

I get the feeling that "status" is big on this board, I feel that is harmful for everyone's investigation!

Be nice to each other,

Eduard
P.S. Hell, I sound like Mother Theresa..and she is death!

By Dave (Dave) (hr0-cf9a42e9.dia.impulse.net - 207.154.66.233) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 10:38 am:

Tom, I ment no disrespect in my comments. I do hope you are able to "solve" this case and perhaps write a sucessful book. I do, however, believe you are making the same mistake Greysmith made. You have "fallen in love" with a suspect and lost some of your objectivity.

I'm not claiming Allen isn't Z, only that Don and Philip are worthless. The "magic mistake"in Don's story is the "lugnuts" detail that links Allen to Johns.

Law enforcement has ways of separating real witnesses from those who would lie or embellish to "get in the act". One effective way is to release a "false detail". Any witness who weaves this "false detail" into his story is probably not being truthful. In this case, the Johns "abduction" is the "false detail". Is there any other conclusion?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca2a333.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.163.51) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:25 pm:

Dave wrote,
"The "magic mistake"in Don's story is the "lugnuts" detail
that links Allen to Johns."

And how is this not an assumption on your part?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg024.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.159) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 03:03 pm:

Well, obviously Dave has thought it out. You haven't.

You won't have to wait for my book. I'm not saving anything for exclusives, and I'm not in this to make a name for myself like some others. No, this will explode in your face, and I probably won't have anything to do with it. It's just inevitable.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-th053.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.68) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 03:23 pm:

Dave wrote:
"The "magic mistake"in Don's story is the "lugnuts" detail that links Allen to Johns."

I'm the first to label Allen's alleged stories as dubious, but what's all this about the lugnuts?

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac81a6c3.ipt.aol.com - 172.129.166.195) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 05:43 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"You won't have to wait for my book. I'm not saving anything for exclusives, and I'm not in this to make a name for myself like
some others. No, this will explode in your face, and I probably won't have anything to do with it. It's just inevitable."

You'd think a guy writing a book on Zodiac would be out there talking to people involved in the case, instead of sitting behind a keyboard criticizing the people who HAVE taken the initiative. Some book that's going to be...

Jake wrote,
"I'm the first to label Allen's alleged stories as dubious, but what's all this about the lugnuts?"

Wouldn't we all like to know.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg021.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.156) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 07:45 pm:

Tom, I have talked to people, and I have done my own thing. When you came on the scene, I didn't want to stand in your way, or compete for information from sources. So, you did your thing, and when real life intruded, I had other things to do than research this case. I won't claim to have done as much work as you, but it is clear that gathering documents and information is far more important to you than how those documents and that information should be used. Your remarks are deceptive, as you know that I have traveled to California for the very purpose of conducting such research. Stop trying to play personality and "mine is bigger than yours " games. I'm not criticing the work you've done - I'm criticizing the way you mislead your readers, withhold pertinent information, selectively reveal the facts, and more. Don't try to change the subject. It's clear that you are not willing to address these important issues, and, instead, choose to mock and ridicule me in an attempt to distract attention from the criticism you have earned.

As for "Wouldn't we all like to know", your remarks are amusing. Tom, you'd know if you had done some basic research regarding this issue, and gave the subject some objective thought. You have most of the answers already, and anyone who does that research and gives the subject some objective thought will see the problem. In attempting to present what you thought was damning evidence against Allen, you may have done the exact opposite. The case against Allen was tenuous at best to start with, but it went from tenuous to almost absurd practically over night. The case against Allen now rests on a series of scenarios, none of which are all that plausible, and most are hanging by an almost invisible thread. Just wait. Once you, or someone else here, sits down and does some real thinking on this matter, you'll all know.

By Dave (Dave) (hr0-cf9a42ac.dia.impulse.net - 207.154.66.172) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 10:27 pm:

Tom, in your section “The Arthur Leigh Allen Files” you wrote: “According to police statements, within weeks of receiving the watch, Allen is alleged to have made the following claims to his friend, Don:
(Allen used the premise of writing a novel to communicate this fantasy.)
He would like to kill couples at random.
He would taunt the police with letters detailing his crimes.
He would sign the letters with the cross-circle symbol from his watch.
He would call himself "Zodiac."
He would wear make-up to change his appearance.
He would attach a flashlight to the barrel of his gun in order to shoot at night.
He would fool women into stopping their cars in rural areas by claiming they had problems with their tires, then loosen their lug nuts and eventually take them captive.
Don eventually took this information to the police, and in 1972 the San Francisco Police Department “
Does this not clearly link Allen/Z to the Johns “abduction” ? It creates problems for Don’s credibility either way. I presented an argument that I think is pretty strong. If you or anyone else is privy to some facts or insights that that you have learned from your investigations or if you can point out the errors of my logic, please do.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8334cd.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.52.205) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 10:49 pm:

So, this is the "in Tom's face" blockbuster, told-you-it-wasn't-Allen zinger Gregorypraxas has been glowing about? What a letdown.

The man Johns encountered, Zodiac or not, didn't invent the "lugnuts routine" of disabling women's cars.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-to056.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.26) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 02:01 am:

No, that's not it. But Dave does have a good point, though, which you're ignoring.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (186.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.30.186) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 09:36 am:

If these Allen statements were anywhere near credible, Allen would probably have made claims that differed from the details of the Zodiac crimes in the actual event. I think that a good analogy is the so-called Ripper diaries, that appeared to give confessions to the Ripper crimes but elaborated on details exactly as they were reported in the press and popular lore; neither more nor less.

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0564.cvx37-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 216.244.26.54) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 08:57 pm:

Wow! Now this is what I call a great slugfest...and it's cheaper than HBO. As much as Tom can 'steam my clams' at times with his bullish tactics (he's no charmer, that is for sure), I would have to side with him on this. Gregorypraxas, if you do have some devilishly clever clue that would be of help, why not spill it? I'm sure that your book would be no worse for it, as any other writer with any ethical standards would credit you with this amazing discovery. Besides, you would have the added pleasure of seeing Tom squirm on the board like a nun in a disco. So, how about it? Tom does readily admit that he holds back information from those of us who are not worthy, but he has- as far as I can tell- never intimated that he held a'key' peice of evidence, or a theoretical construct based on fact that he wouldn't be willing to share, provided that he gets other information in return. Why not trade what you have?
Tom, you don't have to drag every dissenting 'heretic' into the principal's office for a good canning! This board is becoming about personalities to a large degree. If you can't find a way to deal with Gregory, why not just challenge him to a weenie-waggin' contest? At least this would be more entertaining and useful in the long (perhaps, short?..) run. Geesh! (Yes, I know I can be quite the wag, but darn it man(ther is that profanity check again), have some fun).
Can't we all just get along?
I am proposing a meeting of the Zodiac brotherhood. Perhaps we should convene in California (Vallejo?) for a three day conference replete with beer and a cage for pit-fighting, or at least a sandbox for those of us who like to get extremely infantile and petty. Road trip to Berryessa? Jake, bring some of those Mass. clams!
"CHILL OUT PEOPLE! HEY, THIS IS THE LOVE CROWD, RIGHT? WE COULD BE GROOVY TOGETHER..." (Spoken by Jagger at Altamont- think about it.)
Oscar the Pleasant Waif

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-to048.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.24) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 10:49 pm:

I'm not saving any information for my book. That's not the point. And Tom does withhold crucial information -- it's just that he's so biased that he is often incapable of recognizing such information.

There's no point in continuing with this so-called "discussion." Tom is going to sit on information which conflicts with his theories, and only offers info when it helps his theories. You can't have a real debate under these circumstances. If Tom was interested in a real debate, let alone having any credibility, he would put the information out there for everyone to examine and then a real debate could occur. Tom is only concerned with controlling information. That is how he can maintain his "authority" status over everyone else - by keeping important information to himself, and keeping others in the dark. It's an old tactic, and in this instance, it's transparently self-serving.

So, Oscar, while I would be happy to enlighten you and everyone else, the simple fact is that any person who was seriously concerned with learning the facts regarding this issue would have done so long before posting the information on this issue. The fact that Tom has failed to do so speaks volumes. As he is so fond of saying, it's not up to him to do my work. Well, I would say the same in response. Go out and find the information if you're really interested in getting the facts. Tom should have done this a long time ago.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac86e9ac.ipt.aol.com - 172.134.233.172) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 11:19 pm:

How convenient!
As always, you've got nothing.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-wk023.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.198.158) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 09:40 am:

Hi-

I was perusing the additional info about Allen this morning. Presumably, Allen has been placed in Riverside (by DOJ, etc.) because he attended a race at Riverside Raceway that weekend (October 30, 1966, that is). On what basis did they determine that? Were there eyewitnesses who can or could place him there, etc? Or was it a club trip? (BTW, does anyone know which auto racing club Allen supposedly belonged to at the time? It is a silly, nagging question that should be answerable by someone.) Did Allen not also say that he was a "student" in Riverside proper at that time?

Then I see that Allen said he was in Pomona that weekend, which is not exactly the sister city of Riverside (about 60 miles away, I think). If Allen wanted to place himself in Riverside, why not just say that he was there for the race? If he were going to lie, one might expect that he would lie to place himself anywhere else other than Riverside (i.e., Pomona, etc.), in order to deflect suspicion away from himself. And yet he apparently told them the truth about being in Riverside but just gave them a false reason for it (i.e., being a student, not attending a race).

He is an exasperating person to look at. He seems even to lie about the truth, if that is possible!

Let's just get it over with and vote for Oscar for President in 2004...;)

Mike

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac832cfd.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.44.253) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 11:01 am:

Mike,
There is no evidence I am aware of that Allen was a student in Riverside.
Yes, Allen is very irritating.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-mtc-tc062.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.177) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 11:40 am:

Gregoryp States that Allen dying of a heart attack is an error. How did Allen die?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac899f8b.ipt.aol.com - 172.137.159.139) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 01:22 pm:

Allen died of arteriosclerotic heart disease.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg052.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.172) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 03:20 pm:

Tom, just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I have nothing. Stop trying to wish away the problems with the case against Allen.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac82de99.ipt.aol.com - 172.130.222.153) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 04:14 pm:

So, if I claimed to have magic proof of Allen's guilt (but refused to post it) would you have no comment? We both know the answer to that.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-tl052.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.197) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 08:06 am:

Hi Tom-

I saw recently that you had mentioned "Charlie Chan at Treasure Island". I saw the movie recently, and it is not so much about murder as it is about blackmail and suicide, thus making it more similar to a "Titwillow" reference than anything else. Also, Dr. Zodiac does not mail any letters to the police, boasting of murders/crimes that I am aware of. The only handwritten letter from Dr. Z comes at the end of the film, when he puts a letter on the door of the magician's (Cesar Romero) theater and accepts a challenge to a magic act "duel" with Romero. (The only murder Dr. Z commits is when he kills his assistant at the end of the movie. One person commits suicide on a plane at the beginning after receiving a threat of blackmail from Dr. Z., who is a sham medium who gleans embarrassing info from people in his "seances", then uses it to extort money from them.)

Two of the scenes from the 1998 TLC special, which are purported to come from this movie are, naturally, from another one! The scene with the "scientist in the lab" (who is obviously hard at work trying to isolate and analyze the Riverside DNA) and the one with the "lady in a trance", are both from other films, unless I missed something along the way. (Of course, you'd never know that from watching the special!)

Mike

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8b906a.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.144.106) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 10:05 am:

I believe there are actually a few versions of the Chan movie.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wn073.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.183) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 04:27 pm:

Tom,

The info is there for anyone who is interested to find. Someone who makes a concerted effort to put Allen out there as a suspect should be interested. You, apparently, are not. That's not my fault. You say it's not your job to do my work, and I would say the same to you.

You're more than willing to tell us that someone made damning statements about Allen, yet, you're unwilling to tell us when they made the statements, under what circumstances, to whom, etc. You also don't think it's important to mention that these witnesses changed their stories, and that one of them said "NO" to an important question when he was first asked. You just cite the time he said "YES" to that question, in direct conflict with his previous statements. That speaks volumes, Tom, whether you want to admit it or not. So, save us your pathetic excuses, and stop harrassing me. I'll give you the info I have when you're ready to act like a responsible person and come clean with the facts that you have selectively and deceptively suppressed to suit your purposes. Until then, stop your whining.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8f64e2.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.100.226) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 05:50 pm:

Don't you have anything better to do?
I'm not going to continue arguing with you.
I stand by my info and presentation, and if you don't like it I invite you to leave.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-tp062.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.202) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 06:58 pm:

Hi Tom-

I was going over the recently-expanded ALA section and have a question. As is now legend in the Z case, Bates was killed on "Halloween eve", 1966 (i.e., October 30th). That day was a Sunday. Therefore, October 31st was a Monday. If Allen missed work on Tuesday, November 1st, does that mean that he DID go to work on October 31st? Can you account for him on October 31st? If he did work on Monday the 31st, what's all the excitement about November 1st? Unless Halloween was a school holiday in those days (or ALA was teaching in a Catholic school that celebrated that All Saints' Day as a holiday), missing work on November 1st meant that Allen DID go to work the previous day (unless there is osmething I don't know). On that day, his facial wounds would presumably have been even more pronounced, right?

With respect to "Charlie Chan", are you saying that there are different versions of that movie with different plots floating around? I don't understand. Have you seen a version of that movie with the "scientist in the lab" and the "lady in a trance" scenes in it? The movie that I saw is more about suicide, not murder, and did not have those scenes in it.

Mike

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac822c31.ipt.aol.com - 172.130.44.49) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 08:37 pm:

Mike,
I don't know where Allen was on 10-31-66, but I'd like to find out.
Regarding Chan, I don't think I ever claimed the villain killed people, or that the plot centered around murder. The version I have doesn't have the scenes you mentioned.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wi063.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.48) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 09:27 pm:

Don't I have anything better to do than point out the obvious fact that you presented a biased, incomplete and deceptive presentation against Allen? Yes, I do.

I notice that you never address the issue, and, when cornered, you simply revert back to attacking me or insulting me. You just can't address the issues, let alone admit that you are misleading your readers by only giving them the half of the story which supports your theory.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg033.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.163) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 09:37 pm:

Tom wrote: "Allen was in Riverside the weekend of the Bates killing."

Tom also wrote: "I don't know where Allen was on 10-31-66"

Um, so, which is it?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac822c31.ipt.aol.com - 172.130.44.49) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 09:57 pm:

Bates was killed Sunday, 10-30-66.
Allen was absent from work on Tuesday, 11-1-66.
I don't know where Allen was on Monday, 10-31-66.
Is that clear enough for you?
I hope you have help writing your book...

By Dave (Dave) (lsanca1-ar14-248-191.dsl.gtei.net - 4.41.248.191) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 10:37 pm:

Per Tom's research, Allen was also at work in Calaveras County every day of the week 11/28/66 through 12/2/66. How could Allen have mailed the "confession" letter from a Mail Box in rural Riverside County on 11/29/66 if he was 400 miles away that week?

It's pretty obvious that the Bates Letter-writer, whether or not he was also the murderer, had a pretty solid presence in the Riverside area. He must have been following the story in the local papers. Why bother with the letters if you can't see the results.

Now it is possible Allen subscribed to one of the Riverside papers by Mail from Calaveras County but I bet some police agency checked that out when Allen became a suspect (or if ANYONE in Calaveras County did). I'm sure, if anything was found, we would have known.

Is there any evidence that Allen had any ties to Riverside county after 10/31/66?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8484db.ipt.aol.com - 172.132.132.219) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 11:05 pm:

Dave wrote,
"Per Tom's research, Allen was also at work in Calaveras County every day of the week 11/28/66 through 12/2/66."

I don't know that. Perhaps Allen was on vacation or on a school business trip.

Dave continued,
"Is there any evidence that Allen had any ties to Riverside county after 10/31/66?"

It was common at the time for Allen to travel to Riverside on weekends.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg051.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.171) on Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 11:44 pm:

So, you know he was there on the weekend of the murder, because someone said he MIGHT have been there, and some investigators came up with some information that indicated he MIGHT have been there? THAT is the basis for your *certainty* that "Allen was in Riverside the weekend of the Bates killing"? Is that what you're asking us to accept? Oh, my...

I don't need help keeping the facts straight, Tom. You apparently need help acknowledging the difference between a statement supported by the facts, and an assumption. It would be more accurate, if not more honest, to say that he MAY have been there at the time because there was some information which indicated he MAY have been there at that time. You act as if it is a fact that he was there at the time, yet, you cannot support your statement with anything except "maybe." In short, that means you do not know where he was the weekend of the Bates murder, and that you are assuming, based on that information, that he was there.

As usual, you lead us to believe that you have a definitive answer rather than simply admit you do not know. It's VERY clear to me.

By El_Shaddai (El_Shaddai) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 12:03 am:

MIKE WROTE:
Hi Tom-

I was going over the recently-expanded ALA section and have a question. As is now legend in the Z case, Bates was killed on "Halloween eve", 1966 (i.e., October 30th). That day was a Sunday. Therefore, October 31st was a Monday. If Allen missed work on Tuesday, November 1st, does that mean that he DID go to work on October 31st? Can you account for him on October 31st? If he did work on Monday the 31st, what's all the excitement about November 1st?

BRUCE:
Excellent observation, Mike! I had missed that one myself, but your mention of it goes along with my further questions of specific Riverside vs Allen dates regarding the CONFESSION letter and the three BATES HAD TO DIE letters mailed to the media, RPD, and Bates' father:

(1) The CONFESSION (Mailed IN RIVERSIDE on Tuesday, Nov. 29, 1966) A WORK DAY FOR ALLEN! I'm waiting to see some evidence that Allen was in Riverside to mail the letter!

(2) The BATES HAD TO DIE (Mailed IN RIVERSIDE on Sunday April 30, 1967) Not a work day, but still days that must be accounted for in showing Allen's whereabouts on key dates in the chronology. If Allen could be shown to be in the Bay area during this time (for whatever reason) would immediately PROVE that he was not in Riverside, at least.

MIKE:
missing work on November 1st meant that Allen DID go to work the previous day (unless there is osmething I don't know). On that day, his facial wounds would presumably have been even more pronounced, right?

BRUCE:
Another excellent point!

Regards,

Bruce Monson

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8d92d0.ipt.aol.com - 172.141.146.208) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 09:08 am:

Gregorypraxas,
There is no MIGHT or MAYBE about Allen being in Riverside. Quit speaking for me, as you are not very accurate.
As I've stated, Allen was placed in Riverside the weekend Bates was killed. Not "maybe," not "might have been."
If you choose to believe it's a lie, more power to you. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tf051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.196) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 04:06 pm:

There would seem to be many MIGHTs and MAYBEs about this story. As usual, you do everything in reverse. You say he can be placed there, because it suits your purposes, but you don't give any facts to support the claim (also to suit your purposes). You don't give any details until you're pressed, and then you only offer scant information.

So, just how was he placed there? Someone said he might have been there? Detectives found that he was part of racing club that had a meet in Riverside that weekend? What is it?

Is this the LAW & ORDER version, where the guy from the club remembers Allen and checks his records to find that Allen had been at the Riverside race that day and that his race ended in the RCC parking lot? Or is this, "Yeah, I think Allen might have been there, but I'm not sure"?

It would seem to me that, long before you came out here telling everyone that Allen can be placed there, you would have made some effort to explain this story in some context and with the facts. So far, you haven't done either.

Oh, and if you were going to "argue" with me, you'd have to address the issues and the facts. So far, you've done neither. So far, you've done little more than run around, doing your best to avoid the issues raised and present the facts to support your claims. When you're ready to "argue," I'll be here.

By Mike (Mike) (spider-wb012.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.152) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 05:12 pm:

Hi-

If Allen only missed one day of work in all his time in Calaveras county, doesn't it stand to reason that he was present and accounted for on October 31, 1966?

Where does the record sugggest otherwise?

Mike

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (105.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.105) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 06:08 pm:

I find it hard to believe that Allen would have missed work on Tuesday but not Monday, supposing he had anything to do with Cheri Bates's death. Certainly he would have been quite scarred by the encounter, as evidenced by the bits of skin and hair found under Cheri's nails. Another thing, however, is that given Allen's size and his supposedly legendary strength, it's hard to see how someone as small as Cheri Jo could have given him such a hard time in that driveway. It's also hard to see how someone his size could have had a wrist only seven inches in circumference.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca281c4.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.129.196) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 06:58 pm:

On his 11-1-66 absence slip, "School business" was the reason given. However, apparently it was determined to not be a valid reason, as Allen was eventually charged with a sick day.
My thinking is that perhaps Allen had an excused absence on 10-31-66, and tried to milk it an extra day.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.58) on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 07:04 pm:

As far as I can tell, opinion is split over whether the Zodiac wrote all of the Riverside letters, none of them, or only the "Bates had to die" letters. Only the "Bates" letters were matched by handwriting to the Zodiac letters, however, so the Allenistas need only put Allen in Riverside on the day they were mailed in order to meet the criteria described by one-third of the Z researcher community.

As far as the watch goes, they may also disregard any physical evidence found at the scene, since it was probably "Barnett's." They do, however, get points for the size 7 (men's XXL) gloves found in Stine's cab.

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