Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Mageau Identification, Continued

When last we heard from The_Adversary and Gregorypraxas, they were taking me to task for all of my malfeasance regarding the Kathleen Johns incident, as well as my handling of information in general. (Including the Mageau identification.)

What I have a hard time understanding is how these two guys can chastise me for my opinion regarding Johns, when they apparently haven't even given proper consideration to the glaring weaknesses in her story.

Kathleen Johns:
-->1) Has told multiple versions of what happened to her the night in question, including differing versions to the police immediately after the incident.
-->2) Has identified at least two men, and maybe three, as being the responsible party.
-->3) Was quoted in a police report as saying the man was quite friendly, and DID NOT THREATEN HER IN ANY WAY!

Was this in attempt at insurance fraud on Kathleen's part?
Did her wheel fall off on its own, the car catching fire due to faulty wiring? (Johns didn't use a key to start the engine...she rubbed wires together.)
Was Kathleen having a bad acid trip?
Nobody knows for sure, especially Kathleen Johns.

**OK, The_Adversary and Gregorypraxas might ask, how does this effect Allen as a Zodiac suspect?**

It doesn't. Whether or not Johns was the victim of a crime, Allen still could have made his claims to Don back in 1968. He still could have been Zodiac, and he still could have been the stranger in Kathleen's "nightmare."

**But Tom, The_Adversary and Gregorypraxas are harping on Kathleen's lack of an identification of Allen**

That's the funny part. Here's a woman that can't accurately remember, or communicate, what happened to her hours (or minutes) earlier, and yet we are supposed to believe she has the capacity to correctly identify the culprit years later???

**But Tom, Mageau's ID of Allen took place many years later, and you include it as a connection between Allen and Zodiac**

That's because Mageau's ID is one of the reasons we are still talking about Allen. It IS a connection between Allen and Zodiac, just as a Johns ID, however worthless, would be.
Does it mean I think Mageau's ID is valid, 100%, foolproof? No. But it's a connection, a reason for Allen's status as a Zodiac suspect.

Tom wrote:
"Kathleen Johns:
-->1) Has told multiple versions of what happened to her the night in question, including differing versions to the police immediately after the incident.
-->2) Has identified at least two men, and maybe three, as being the responsible party.
-->3) Was quoted in a police report as saying the man was quite friendly, and DID NOT THREATEN HER IN ANY WAY! "

While Johns has given different accounts over the years, the stories she gave to Stanislaus and San Joaquin County Sheriffs and the SF Examiner the day after her abduction were essentially the same. The crazy variations from her initial statements don't start appearing until late 1970.

Her statement to Stanislaus does say that the driver was "quite friendly," but after he spent an hour and a half of actively avoiding service stations, "she became quite frightened, feeling the suspect possibly intended to do some physical injury to her."

"Here's a woman that can't accurately remember, or communicate, what happened to her hours (or minutes) earlier, and yet we are supposed to believe she has the capacity to correctly identify the culprit years later??? "

Johns' various suspect IDs aside, she didn't flub any statements in the immediate aftermath of her abduction. They match the condidtion of the wheel, lugnuts, and hubcap as described by Deputy Bauer, and they're consistant until Paul Avery got ahold of her.

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

Boy, Tom - I was right. You CANNOT read. You just don't get it, do you? I am not chastising you for your opinion. I'm saying you're missing the obvious problems created by the "lugnuts" story.

Even if Johns wasn't the victim of a crime, the "lugnuts" story is the last nail in the coffin of Don's credibility. As I said, you obviously haven't thought this out, or you would know what the problem is here. I know you want to ignore this, but it's not going to go away. Go back and read what I wrote, and try to use your brain this time. That is, if you still know where it is...

What is SO funny is that whenever someone disagrees with you, it's because they "didn't read carefully" or "weren't paying attention."
In other words, you are ALWAYS right...and if everybody doesn't realize it, it's because they didn't pay attention.

I don't care if the first mention of "lugnuts" happened in the LA Times immediately before Don went to the police. Would it mean Don made everything up? Perhaps. Or, it could mean that the lugnuts detail sparked his memory. Who knows? Don knows, Zodiac knows.

You don't.

No, you're still missing the point. If you had read what I wrote, and addressed the issue, and then disagreed with me, that would be fine. Yet, your comments prove that you still don't get it. It seems as if you are simply blind to the obvious, as is so often the case. Again, go back and read what I wrote. When you address those issues (which is NOT the LA TIMES), then I'll be happy to accept your dissenting opinion. So far, it's clear you still haven't grasped the obvious and blatant problem here - which is that Don claimed Allen professed a desire to commit a crime which was later, and, apparently, wrongfully attributed to the Zodiac. Go back, and think that over for a while. It only took me a few minutes to grasp this obvious problem. It's obviously been noticed by others in a very short period of time. Maybe if you think real hard, and use all your might, it may only take you a few months...

Gregorypraxas:
"So far, it's clear you still haven't grasped the obvious and blatant problem here -
which is that Don claimed Allen professed a desire to commit a crime which was later, and, apparently, wrongfully attributed to
the Zodiac."

I grasped that long ago.
You seem to forget that I knew of Don's "lugnuts" claim at least a year before you did.
In fact, if I were to put together an "anti-Allen" page, I bet I could come up with many tidbits you haven't even considered that cast doubt upon Allen's involvement.
Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete to rule him out...just as there is not yet a smoking gun to hang him.

No, you haven't grasped it, Tom. Your comments prove it. In fact, I would say that the problem has gone right over your head.

Anyone wanna join in and point out the obvious to Tom? I can't be the only one who sees the problem here...

Gregory,
Why don't you quit wasting space and tell me what I've missed?

Don's Story, true or false, doesn't seem to advance anybody's ball here.

1. Suppose its true. If A was Z, then he could have taken credit for Johns without actually doing it simply because he had thought about it, as reflected in his bragging to Don. In fact, there is a whole buch of stuff that suggests that Z claimed it and a lot of other things without doing it, regardless of whether Z was A. It does make it highly unlikely that A would have mentioned the lugnuts in the story if he weren't Z. Possible, but a big coincidence unless Don just made up the part about the lugnuts precisely to lend a story credibility. that's not nearly as big a stretch as either Don or A coincidentally predicting the lugnuts element. See below. Which means that if the story is true, or basically true, its consistent with either A being Z or not being Z.

Same if the story is false. Suppose it is false. Don told it and made it up way after the fact based on widely known info, including the supposition, true or false that Z did Johns. that doesn't in any way mean that A was not Z. We know from any number of examples that its just as likely that someone will try to frame a guilty man as an innocent one: Furman and O.J.; Nixon and Hiss; everyone and: Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Sacco and Vanzetti, Lizzie Borden etc.

So IMHO? Nothing rides on the veracity of Don's story. Its a "connection", but not much of one.

Tom,

I told you. You're just too biased, and apparently too dense, to notice. It's right in front of you. I'm not wasting any space - you're apparently wasting your brain matter. If you had tried to use logic, common sense and reason, you'd see it right away. That you can't see it, or won't see it, is your fault, not mine.

Since I'm apparently the only one that hasn't a clue what in the hell you're talking about, I invite someone else to fill me in.

Call me dense, unprepared, or too worn out on Allen to care, but I'm in the dark.

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

I can only guess that it might be this:

"Don claimed Allen professed a desire to commit a crime which was later, and, apparently, wrongfully attributed to the Zodiac."

If that's it, according to the poster, this is some type of irrefutable proof that Allen could not have been Zodiac.

Is this really the silver bullet in the Allen case that Greg's been sitting on like a hyenna?

It's not proof that Allen is not the Zodiac. You'd know that I was not making that argument if you had actually bothered to read what I had written. Tom glossed over everything I wrote, and fixated on the LA TIMES thing. Proof that he doesn't pay attention, either. It is evidence that Don was either lying about the entire story, or lying about something.

Go ask an actuary what the odds are that Allen would make these "Zodiac" and lugnuts statements, and then, years later, once the Zodiac crimes had begun, a "lugnuts" crime would be (perhaps) erroneously attributed to the Zodiac. Really. Think about it for a minute. An actuary would implode trying to figure those numbers. It's an absurd stretch. It requires one to abandon all common sense and reason. (And Tom, please don't chime in with "Johns makes inconsistent statements, or may not have been the victim of a crime, or Zodiac, or any of the other lame excuses you've offered. That's not the point. It's the linking of the Johns event to the Zodiac that is the real issue here.)

Even if you were to somehow ignore this very serious flaw in Don's story, and the conflicts with the Allen theories, there is a wealth of other, very serious problems with Don's story.

Don said that Allen had said he would shoot people, disable women's cars, write taunting letters to the newspapers, and call himself "The Zodiac." Don said that he had "read and seen" articles in the LA TIMES. An examination of the LA TIMES articles in the year before Don went to police demonstrates that these articles stated that a man was killing people in the Bay area and writing taunting letters to the newspapers, calling himself "The Zodiac," and was linked to an incident in which the Zodiac was said to have disabled a woman's car in exactly the same manner allegedly described by Allen. Almost EVERY detail that Don attributed to Allen appeared in those articles, yet, Don somehow either failed to make the connection, or dismissed it as coincidence. Either way, it's a preposterous scenario.

Don read these articles, and did not report Allen to the police. In fact, months and months and months passed before he finally read a newspaper article about a crime which was not similar to those described by Allen by ANY stretch of the imagination. For some reason, this article, and not the others, jogged Don's memory, and he called police.

Do you buy that? Really? Even if he had not read the LA TIMES articles and only saw the headlines, that, alone, should have been enough to jog his memory, as some of the headlines mentioned that a man calling himself "The Zodiac" was killing people in the Bay area and was taking credit for the crimes in taunting letters to the press.

And those are just some of the problems. There are many more. So, if you guys choose to buy this story, that's fine with me. But let's not pretend that it's credible. Please.

If that's your idea of a scoop, perhaps you could get hired at The Comical...

There's more to it than that, Tom. And, as usual, you completely ignore the issue and choose to insult me instead. You just can't deal with the facts.

If anyone is qualified to work at that paper, it's you, Tom. You've mastered the art of misleading your readers, omitting the facts and distorting the truth to the point where I am sure that you would be welcomed at such a tabloid paper with no regard for the facts.

If these so-called confessions were actually genuine then it's almost certain that some of them would have contained details not generally associated with the Zodiac crimes as they were known to the public, or not (for one reason or the other) actually perpetrated by Zodiac.

Gregory's point above is well-taken. The chances against Allen confessing to minute details of a crime that Zodiac actually did not commit are rather large, in my opinion. A good example of this kind of thing can be found in the purported diary of Jack the Ripper, in which the expression "ha-ha" appears at more-or-less frequent intervals throughout the text. "Ha-ha" was an expression employed in one of the alleged Ripper letters which has been demonstrated to be of doubtful authenticity. It defies both reason and common sense to think that coincidence could have led the true Ripper to mimic such an expression by one of his hoaxers.

Tom, I feel we all have reached a sort of impasse here that can probably be settled. I introduced the "lugnut" problem with Don's statement and I felt you were quite dismissive. Other posters (particularly Gregory) have taken my point and laid it out about as clearly as possible yet you dismiss it rather than address it. Part of the problem is that you seem to see it as an attack on the "Allen as best suspect" argument. It does not attack Allen's status as a suspect. It attacks Don's credibility as a witness. Of course, if Don is discredited, there is very little left in the "pro Allen as Z" column.

I suspect that you are concerned that if Allen is removed from the suspect list, the crime becomes unsolvable and your Web site becomes obsolete. This was pretty much Greysmith's problem. I suspect his editor pressured him into "solving" the case by identifying several suspects then demonstrating (not always accurately) that Allen was the best suspect of the lot.

After following this and Jake's site for a while, I have come to the conclusion that there in NO evidence linking Allen to any Z crime. He has been thoroughly investigated and nothing has been found. Its time to move one to other suspects or, perhaps to through in the towel and declare the case unsolvable.

Dave,
What do you want me to say?
Yes, Don could be lying. So could Philip and Spinelli. Mageau could have been mistaken. Hartnell might have exaggerated.
Now what?

Dave wrote:
"I suspect that you are concerned that if Allen is removed from the suspect list, the crime becomes unsolvable and your Web site
becomes obsolete."

That's ridiculous. If Allen is proven to NOT be Zodiac, that means the real Z might still be alive and out there somewhere. In that event, this site would be more important than ever.

My goal is to either find evidence that Allen was Zodiac, or to discover something that rules him out forever.
"Could have" and "might have" don't cut it. Does that mean I don't consider the big picture? Absolutely not.

Tom, don't mislead your readers. I think it's perfectly clear that your goal is to make Allen look as guilty as possible, no matter how much you have to distort the facts, omit exculpatory evidence, omit information which conflicts with your theories or casts doubt on the witnesses against him, and on and on and on.

If you were concerned with presenting the facts, let alone proving his guilt or innocence and shedding light on those issues, you wouldn't read those reports and then tell your readers that Allen had used Philip's car. You'd say that he may have used the car, but, considering that Philip first said Yes, and then NO, there is good reason to question the story. You'd mention, in your "connection," that ALL the handwriting experts had dismissed Allen. You'd mention the exculpatory evidence, the conflicts, etc., so that your readers would know the real story, not just the story that makes him look guilty. And, you'd leave out all the nonsense about the dates, which was obviously designed to make it appear as if Allen had something to do with non-suspicious deaths, and you'd stop touting these "confession" stories as solid and credible, and address the real problems with the credibility of the witnesses. You'd mention that Allen was IDed by Mageau AFTER he had been named in the media, and AFTER he AND Mageau had been featured on the same TV show. You'd mention that Bawart can't even remember when the ID occurred, that his report is vague in that regard, that his date conflicts with the date of the ID as given in the FBI reports (which you might want to actually read sometime...)You'd mention that Mageau's original description did not and cannot match Allen. You'd mention a lot of other things that are VERY important when discussing ANY so-called "connection" between Allen and Zodiac.

But, you didn't. No - you slanted everything to make him look guilty. You left out all the pertinent and conflicting information. WHY?

I think it's obvious to everyone why you did it. Once you're honest with yourself about your own motives and deceptive methods, you'll know as much yourself. Until then, please - spare us your sob story about how you're just trying to find the truth. That ridiculous excuse insults the intelligence of your readers, and the facts prove otherwise.

You might want to try addressing these issues and criticisms for a change, instead of insulting me and others, shrugging off these major conflicts without comment or with some snotty retort, and selectively ignoring the facts. THAT would give you some credibility on the matter. Until then, your behavior, your manner, your deceptive methods and your inability to address the facts, let alone discuss the real issues, will continue to earn you the moniker "Son of Graysmith." If anyone would be right at home at the Chronicle, it'd be you, pal...

RE: Philip and Allen's possible use of the Corvair

Should read: "First said NO, and then YES."

Sorry, folks.

Gregorypraxas,

Please produce your evidence that "ALL the handwriting experts had dismissed Allen?" Show me where Sherwood Morrill "dismissed" Arthur Leigh Allen.

In addition, what TV show did Mageau and Allen both appear on?

Edward, I have Morrill's 1971 report on Allen's handwriting.
According to Morrill, Allen's handwriting did not match Zodiac's. The samples of Allens that were used for the comparison were from a bank application and checks. I also have these items.
Footage of Mageau and Allen was featured on "Now It Can Be Told" with Geraldo Rivera.

Gregorypraxas:
"You'd mention that Allen was IDed by Mageau AFTER he had been named in the media, and AFTER he
AND Mageau had been featured on the same TV show."

Mageau wasn't given Allen's name during the photo lineup. Furthermore, the footage of Allen used on Geraldo's fiasco was distorted, so even if the show DID air before Mageau's id, Mageau would not have recognized Allen. However, I don't know if Geraldo's show appeared prior to mid-1992.

Thanks, Tom. Do you know who analyzed Allen's 1972 search warrant samples?
It would appear that, barring a glitch such as Allen's ambidextrous talents or an ability on his part to disguise his writing or a lack of significant writing samples to be analyzed, the only Z suspect left would be Ted Kaczynski, since I assume his was never officially tested by handwriting experts in comparison with the Zodiac's.
My eyes still say that there is something about the handwriting sample taken from Allen during the first search warrant that resembles parts of the Belli letter. It is for this reason alone that I still don't accept that Allen couldn't be Zodiac based on handwriting.
As for the TV show where Allen's face was silhouetted in profile and close-ups shown of his mouth and eye, you're right, I don't believe Mageau could have identified Allen from Geraldo.

That Allen was in silhouette is not the issue, and I was not trying to say that Mageau IDed Allen's face from the show.

The issue is that Allen had been named in the media for more than a year before the ID took place. Mageau was interviewed for and appeared on NICTB. We do not know for sure that no one mentioned Allen to Mageau, or did not show Mageau a picture of Allen. If Mageau had watched the show, he could have at least learned Allen's name.

We do not know that Mageau was not given Allen's name when the ID took place, and we do not know that the ID was sound. We have only Bawart's word for that, and while I would not call him a liar, the man cannot even remember when the ID took place, the VPD has apparently engaged in less than professional photo-line-ups in the past, and, for all we know, Mageau may have seen Allen's photo before, and simply could not remember. After all, Mageau said that, in the past, he had not been given pictures, but only asked if certain names were familiar. Well, since we know for a fact that Mageau HAD been shown photos of suspects in several instances, Mageau was either mistaken or lying. If he was mistaken, he could have seen Allen's photo before for all we know. AND, it would seem that it is perfectly possible that, if the police had given him names in the past in the hopes that he may remember that name or the person, that one of those names may have been ARTHUR LEIGH ALLEN, so-called top suspect for years and years. Come on- it's not a stretch at all.

I believe that Now It Can Be Told aired in November 1991. I'll have to check, but I think that's when it was.

Kaczynski's handwriting was checked against Zodiac's, with officials for the SFPD concluding that he could be neither ruled in nor ruled out, based upon the specimens at hand.

VOIGT:
In fact, if I were to put together an "anti-Allen" page, I bet I could come up with many tidbits you haven't even considered that cast doubt upon Allen's involvement.

BRUCE:
Oh, really? Well, Tom, since this is EXACTLY what I have been asking for you to do, and what I have been criticizing you on for your failure to do, then why don't you do just this for the Allen file? Why don't you complete a list of "tidbits" that "cast doubt upon Allen's involvement" and present it here?

PETERH:
1. Suppose its true. If A was Z, then he could have taken credit for Johns without actually doing it simply because he had thought about it, as reflected in his bragging to Don. In fact, there is a whole buch of stuff that suggests that Z claimed it and a lot of other things without doing it, regardless of whether Z was A. It does make it highly unlikely that A would have mentioned the lugnuts in the story if he weren't Z. Possible, but a big coincidence unless Don just made up the part about the lugnuts precisely to lend a story credibility. that's not nearly as big a stretch as either Don or A coincidentally predicting the lugnuts element. See below. Which means that if the story is true, or basically true, its consistent with either A being Z or not being Z.

BRUCE:
The problem with this, as I have written extensively on in earlier posts here, is that Allen cannot be "Z" (or at least he cannot be the ONLY "Z") if the statements are true. If the statments are true and Allen is "Z" then that means that the Johns event was a TRUE ZODIAC EVENT (the sheer detail of all statements is remarkably remarkable)! And unless Allen is able to change his height, weight and command hair growth at will (not to mention have unlimited access to Philip's light-tan car that must still be "for sale" at the service station, even ten months later...), then the person ID'd by Johns CANNOT BE ALLEN! The ID given by Johns (in 1970, not two decades later!) doesn't remotely match Allen. Don't forget that ORIGINALLY both Johns and Mageau had given close agreement on descriptions of their attackers, none of which even remotely match Arthur Allen (of course, Tom doesn't want to go with Mageau's original comments; he is stuck on the 23-years-late ID of Allen).

But if the Johns event WAS NOT a true Zodiac event, then the quotes made by "Don" have to be fabrications after the fact with intent to implicate (for which motive has been shown).

All we are asking of Tom is that he be objective and present ALL THE EVIDENCE with equal fervor instead of picking-and-choosing among the evidence for material in support of his position and ignoring the problems as though they don't exist.

Bruce:
"(of course, Tom doesn't want to go with Mageau's original comments; he is stuck on the 23-years-late ID of Allen)."

The update is called "The Allen-Zodiac Connection."
Mageau's initial description of Zodiac was not a connection to Allen. However, his 1992 identification of Allen as the shooter WAS a connection. Get it?
Heavy set, round face, short hair...that's Allen.

VOIGT:
Was this in attempt at insurance fraud on Kathleen's part?

Have you put Mageau and Don, and others under the same dismissive microscope?

BRUCE:
Evidence for this conjecture, Tom? Or are you just filling in blanks where you see fit?

Have you put Mageau and Don, and others under the same dismissive microscope?

VOIGT:
Did her wheel fall off on its own, the car catching fire due to faulty wiring? (Johns didn't use a key to start the engine...she rubbed wires together.)

BRUCE:
Evidence for this conjecture, Tom? Or are you just filling in blanks where you see fit?

Have you put Mageau and Don, and others under the same dismissive microscope?

VOIGT:
Was Kathleen having a bad acid trip?

BRUCE:
Evidence for this conjecture, Tom? Or are you just filling in blanks where you see fit?

Have you put Mageau and Don, and others under the same dismissive microscope?

VOIGT:
Nobody knows for sure, especially Kathleen Johns.

BRUCE:
Oh? I think you mean "ex[cept] Kathleen Johns!" And since you have never deemed it important enough to even INTERVIEW Johns (seeing the problems associated with the Don vs Johns = no Allen issue, I suspect), I take exception to your constant barrage of ad hominem personal attacks and dismissive rhetoric heaped in her direction! Whether you believe her or not is irrelevant--the fact is THE ZODIAC KILLER ASSUMED CREDIT FOR THE EVENT, which, in and of itself, makes it deserving of SERIOUS attention (especially so in lieu of the statements put forth by this Don character!).

If you are just going to interpret every lead in terms of your own liking (because it suits your purposes), then it's high-time you put a disclaimer on the front of your web page (in large bold letters) explaining that "the evidence presented on this site contains a substantive amount of speculative conjecture, given in order to lend support for my [Tom Voigt's] conclusions in favor of Mr. Arthur Leigh Allen being the Zodiac Killer."

This is not a game--certainly not once you became a television "authority" on the case and started presenting "your views" about the "evidence" as you see it!

We're talking about real people here; real victims, real family members of victims, real suspects (plural), and a real case that is STILL OPEN AND UNRESOLVED! If you want to tout Allen as being Zodiac while suppressing the problems, then so be it, but it's time you step down from the podium as a party genuinely interested in discovering the truth (where ever that truth may lead), because you have demonstrated your inability to be objective with evidence gathering and reporting.

Prove me wrong, Tom! Show us your true *objectivity* and start presenting unbiased evidence in column format that separates absolute fact from circumstantial evidence from pure adulterated speculation (of which runs rampant in the Allen file). And if you actually have "evidence" in your possession in support of your assertions, then PRESENT IT! Present the PROS and CONS for ALL suspects (and that means allowing others to give an overview of their evidence in the same format) on your website, ALONG SIDE ALLEN! If you have evidence that CONCLUSIVELY rules-out a particular suspect, THEN PRESENT IT instead of just making unsupported assertions as fact! It is you who has bombasted the methods employed by certain police agencies, particularly on how they would not share information and work together, and yet you are doing the exact same thing on your website in your admitted conformity to popular opinion in favor of one particular suspect, while neglecting all other suspects and negative evidence with dismissive nonchalance.

VOIGT:
The update is called "The Allen-Zodiac Connection."
Mageau's initial description of Zodiac was not a connection to Allen. However, his 1992 identification of Allen as the shooter WAS a connection. Get it?

BRUCE:
Yeah, the more you talk the more I "get" that your

So Mageau's ORIGINAL statements were not good enough for a "connection" in 1969 (or 71), but 23 years later we suddenly DO HAVE A "connection" when Mageau (maybe on an "acid trip"??? Boy, isn't that easy, Tom?) ID's someone who doesn't remotely match even his original description:

==>Was Allen around 5'8" to 5'9" tall?
==>Allen didn't just have short hair, he was already bald--obviously so! Did Mageau mention anything about baldness?
==>Was Allen 20-30 years old?

There are other problems, but you won't see the point anyway.

Get it?


VOIGT:
Heavy set, round face, short hair...that's Allen.

BRUCE:
You're kidding, right?

First, this describes no one and yet describes thousands of possible suspects. That's the best you can get from Mageau's ORIGINAL ID, and yet you can accept that he COULD somehow make a positive ID over two decades later while looking at 2-dimensional photographs in who knows what manner of line-up, and who knows with what information about Allen? You really are living in a fantasy world, Tom.

Second, while we know Mageau mentioned some things that DO NOT conform to Allen, did he describe ANY discerning characteristics that would clearly apply to Allen over say fifty-thousand other people? Scars?, tattoos?, a limp?, a mustache/beard?, a ring with a big "Z" on it?, a sports watch on either wrist?, a hunch back like Igor? Come on, Tom, think about this with some semblance of restraint.

Third, there are two very different looking composites of the Zodiac (which look nothing alike, btw), and the one given the most support for accuracy (the revised composite) does not look anything like Allen, and the face is much thinner, not round, and ALL OF THEM HAVE HAIR!

Fourth, did Mageau, in that 23 year interim, ever look at the compisite drawings of the Zodiac and proclaim, "That's him! That's the man who shot me!"?

Apart from Sandy(who's already given her opinion)and despite the fact that Mageau's ID of ALA probably would not stand up in court,what exactly are those people with a problem with this stating.
Mageau was mistaken?
Mageau was lying?
ANY TAKERS????

Hi Lapumo, I think Mageau was lying. I base this soley on my opinion (I emphasize the word "opinion") that he knows more than he's willing to tell. I don't know why the various police agencies aren't questioning this guy. There's alot about the Blue Rock Springs attack that is not explained easily. Alot of my info is from Graysmith's book so it is possible that I may be misinformed. What were they doing at BRS when Darlene was supposed to buying fireworks for Dean's party and driving the baby sitter home? I've been to BRS in the 70's and it is out of the way from the Vallejo city proper. In my opinion it's more than a little inconvenient of a place to go to talk. Where they for a quickie or a drug deal? If Mageau was wearing three pairs of pants and three sweaters at a time of year when the daytime temperature averages in the low 90's I doubt if a quickie was part of the scenario. Where they chased there or not? Did Mageau get a look at the attacker or not? Since Darlene supposedly spent alot of time with Mageau one would think that he knew her closest friends and if there was a mysterious man harassing her he might know the identification of this man. I'm sure there are alot more unanswered questions. I think the key for solving this is to get Mageau to tell what he knows.

I wonder if there has ever been a monetary award set aside for information on the Zodiac case? I'm sure this would get people talking.

Esau,Thanks for the reply.I had all the same problems until Tom said the rumor was they went out there to buy drugs.It explains a lot.The biggest problem I had was the apparent phone call Darlene got as she was about to drive the babysitters home,it did effectively cost her her life.She changed her plans immediately.I asked the Question about Mageau in an effort to get a kind of general consensus.There are alot arguing
the toss with Tom on this but few are actually calling it.

#1: I still wonder about the "police officers" Darlene had supposedly been dating, and the fact that her driver's license was out. I would like to know WHO the officers were she had been dating, and also how solid their alibi's were on this night.

#2: If Mageau and Darlene had both seen the car pull up next to them the first time, and it wasn't a cop car, then why would they think it WAS a cop when, allegedly, the SAME CAR RETURNED a short time later?

The drug related allegations just make this all the more suspicious; well, that and Mageau's weird behavior at the time.

Bruce M.

Ah, yes....so where do the rumors of Farrin and Mageau buying drugs come from? Is it a credible source? Maybe BRS was was where this transaction was to take place and maybe it did. Were drugs found on them after the shooting? Did Mageau, the only witness then fabricate parts of this story to cover up their plan/ purchase of drugs? In RG's book he says they were chased to BRS then the car quit. After the shooting did the police examine the car? Did they find it unable to run?

Maybe Mageau fabricated the car chasing them there and then returning. Perhaps they were sitting there waiting for their dealer when Z came up, they didn't recognize him, he had a flashlight on them which a cop would do so they assumed he was a policeman (maybe he really was?) and he just started firing away at them?

OK so where is this drug dealer? Was Z a drug dealer and he shot them because of something going wrong with their dealings? Is this what happened at Lake Hermann Road too? They were waiting to purchase drugs too? Is this how Z got victims? By a promise to sell drugs in a secluded area where they couldn't get caught but he only really intended to kill them?

So if Z wasn't the drug dealer who was and did they see Farrin and Mageau shot and didn't help? I can't remember exactly who it was who found them and how.....were they drug dealers? Of course they wouldn't come out and admit they only found them because they were going to sell them drugs.

Hm, even still what is the point of saying they were chased to one location, the driver drove away, returned and shot them unless it was true?

What's wrong with just saying we were chased here by someone who then got out and shot us?

So, I can't really remember, RG's book says Mageau asked Farrin who that man was who chased them to BRS so he must have had a good look at him there. Then this persons leaves, returns and shoots them. Then Mageau catches a glimpse of this person? This was the same person? I remember the book stating something like Mageau only caught a partial glimpse of the shooter? So was it the man who first chased them and how does it relate to the man who shot them?

Was Mageau on drugs that night? Did he have a drug problem? Why wear so many clothes when it was so warm and leave the house so haphazzardly? The whole thing is odd.

There is no evidence of a chase.

The story of drug deal was told to me by Darlene's younger brother, Leo. He claimed to be the "strange man" the babysitters claimed was calling Darlene all night July 4, 1969. I don't know if I believe him. He also claimed he saw Zodiac's car at the phone booth.

Did Leo state if he was in on this plan to buy drugs that night? What reasons did he give for calling his sister's house that night? That sounds kind of strange too.

Leo wanted some weed, and had been calling to see if Darlene had any. Darlene and Mike left to buy some for Leo, and that was when the shooting happened.

Bruce:
"I still wonder about the "police officers" Darlene had supposedly been dating, and the fact that her driver's license was out."

At the time of the BRS attack, many VPD officers were on strike. (The "Blue Flu")
Two of the officers Darlene dated were Buzz Gordon and Steve Baldino. They were both cleared. I've interviewed both, and for what it's worth, believe 'em.

Bruce:
"If Mageau and Darlene had both seen the car pull up next to them the first time, and it wasn't a cop car, then why would
they think it WAS a cop when, allegedly, the SAME CAR RETURNED a short time later?"

I believe they thought the second car was a police vehicle not necessarily because of the way it looked, but because of the manner in which it parked behind them, plus the flashlight.

Hi-

I don't have the energy right now to trudge through the mosh pit here for similar comments, but I personally believe that a "crew cut" is typically used to describe the hair on the TOP (i.e., over the brow, not on the sides of the head) of the head of a person with a full head of hair. In the 1967 photo of Allen, it is obvious that the most salient thing about him is that he is bald.

Irrespective of how short the hair on the sides of his dome may be, I believe that 90% of people looking at him would describe him as being bald first and foremost. Short hair on the sides of your head below a bald crown is not a crew cut, by definition, IMHO. If you ask the average person to draw someone with a crew cut, you'd get scant few pictures that look the way Allen did in 1967, let alone two years later. (Of course, someone could argue for the "crew cut wig" notion. There is no counter-argument for that, as that is not provable one way or the other.)

Mageau said that Z had short brown hair worn in a crew cut. He does not mention the word bald as his primary impression. Therefore, IMHO, his identification of Allen in 1991 flies in the face of his own description in 1969. The 22 years between attack and ID could easily have dulled his memory, especially given his own life history after 1969. It is also impossible to prove that he had NEVER seen a photo of Allen or any other suspect prior to 1991.

The drawing from LB, which is chopped of at the top (i.e., at the hairline) on this website for comparison with Allen, also shows someone with hair on his head (and is not necessarily of Z, anyway, since this person was not seen putting on the hood, etc.).

Mike

Mike,

You wouldn't believe the efforts some of us have put forth in exclaiming the points you mention and many other problems with ALA.

BTW, that's not the only discrepancy that Mageau makes between his description from the time of the incident and over two decades later...

Bruce M.

Hi Bruce-

I know that this whole Mageau thing has been simmering for years--even before his ID of Allen became public. I'm not trying to say that I'm the first to talk about it or notice any discrepancies. I most assuredly am not. I'm just adding my voice to the chorus, as it were.

Aside from the ravages of time on the memory of a witness, Mike's alcoholism certainly doesn't help the situation. I do not say that in a "holier than thou" way, as I know that he went through a lot more than I can imagine, not only having been shot but having the added burden of being a surviving "Zodiac victim". I feel nothing but sympathy for the guy, but in coldly and clinically analyzing his ability to identify someone who differs so basically from his original description (i.e., crew cut HAIR vs. bald), all factors have to be discussed, including the effects of alcohol on a person's mind. (Plus in Graysmith there is a description of how he even changed his story not long after the event, to a guy about 160 with a blue jacket and a light tan Chevy. This is of interest, as the "light colored Chevy" was seen by two sets of witnesses at the LHR crime scene just before that attack. So which initial description of Z is accurate from Mageau?)

There is also the issue of whether or not he could have lived in such a perfect vacuum for 22 years that he was never exposed, even if he honestly doesn't now recall, a photo of Allen in the 22 years prior to his ID. This is not an easy issue to resolve, although it is not a hopelessly impossible one to research, if you can investigate the issue as a cop would. Unfortunately, we civilian posters can't interview potential witnesses, etc. We are left with no alternative but to take his word for the fact that he had never seen Allen before in his life--at least for now.

Mike

I believe we can ascribe the discrepancies in Mageau's early accounts to the fact that he simply wasn't certain of the suspect's physical description. There was no point of reference (such as extremely large size, small size, baldness, etc.) that he could fix his attention upon in such a short span of time and given the circumstances of his massive and painful injuries. The same is probably true of Bryan Hartnell, but not true of the teens at Washington and Cherry.

DOUG:
I believe we can ascribe the discrepancies in Mageau's early accounts to the fact that he simply wasn't certain of the suspect's physical description.

BRUCE:
That's my take on it as well. He couldn't give a definitive description at the time of the event--a time when such factors as extreme duress, pain, and poor lighting (with a flashlight shone at him, no less)--but somehow after two decades he can make a *positive* ID of a certain *known suspect* ALA! And this doesn't even consider all the other weird problems with Mageau.