Arthur Leigh Allen - Child Molester
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Arthur Leigh Allen - Child Molester
|By Esau (Esau) (1cust104.tnt1.sacramento2.ca.da.uu.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, December 11, 2000 - 01:30 pm:|
I have read that Allen was a child molester and lost his teaching credentials for inappropriate relations with a student. Was this an isolated incident or is there a history? Since serial killers have thier preferences for victims wouldn't this be a factor in eliminating Allen as the Zodiac?
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac9507e6.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 12:04 am:|
Zodiac didn't seem to care who he killed, as long as the victims were those society cared about, thereby assuring a public reaction to his letters. I feel the Stine killing is proof of this, although in that case it wasn't necessarily the victim that elicited the desired response, but rather the location of the crime.
|By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg083.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 02:22 pm:|
Just to start an argument, I'll ante up my 2 cents here. Z's first six victims were of
a certain class -- young adults out on dates. If Z didn't care who his victims were, he
could have found a rancher, a janitor, a schoolkid, or any of a dozen other types of
victims. He specifically targeted lovers' lanes, though, which are populated almost
exclusively with hormone-addled teenagers. To my mind, this is evidence that his targeted
subset was much narrower than simple youth.
Stine was shot in the aftermath of a series of articles by Paul Avery suggesting that Z was a latent homosexual. The location was shocking, but again, Z could have shot a dogwalker or a prostitute. He chose a cabbie, partly out of pragmatism (just tell him where to go) but mainly because Stine was a man. What great big balls it takes to shoot an unsuspecting MAN in the back of the head, right?
The issue that keeps coming up in these discussions about victims is Z's motivation. I think it's really naive to suggest that publicity was Z's only motivation, especially when the first six-sevenths of his victims were in sensual (if not overtly sexual) situations.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (207.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 06:21 pm:|
Jake, I've always opined that envy was his first motive, but as the crimes progressed he came to delight in the publicity that his crimes engendered. It's only reasonable to assume that someone who is very socially or sexually inadequate is also suffering from severe identity crisis, so it's not illogical to postulate that envy killing and the desire for publicity might go hand-in-hand.
|By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0482.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 10:52 pm:|
I have often wondered if there is some kind of auto-erotic (pun intended0 connection
between Zodiac's killing of victims- excepting LB- inn automobiles. Puts one in mind of
J.G. Ballard's writing on the subject.
|By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tb033.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 11:56 pm:|
Jake, I've always opined that envy was his first motive... (italics mine)
I've noticed that ever since I started using that word (opined) here, it's started cropping up now and again in conversation... hmm, have I started a trend here? Or did someone else actually start using it on this message board before me???
As an aside, Ivan Sanderson didn't particularly like using "opined." He referred to it as "that awful word"...
|By Gomper (Gomper) (slip-32-100-21-30.al.us.prserv.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 12:33 am:|
The word does have a funny, 1950s-short-story-
collection sort of twang to it.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (56.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 08:19 pm:|
I've been "opining" since about April 3, 1996.
|By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tb071.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 09:06 pm:|
Douglas: I believe it; in fact, I think we've all been opining about one thing or another for a very long time now... I don't recall "hearing" (seeing?) anyone use the word "opine" here before me, but I could be wrong (I have been before; remember the "forrest" thingie?)...
|By Juno (Juno) (ip-209-215-165-204.browardlibrary.org - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:36 pm:|
Who cares who used the word first on the message board? Why is it important to you to
belabor something so...egotistical and narcissistic? It's not that uncommon a
You do have the dubious honor being the first to post rubbish such as the following:
"And make sure Christina Ricci wears low cut-everything and does a lot of love scenes...
Lots of nude scenes with Christina Ricci. Hard to believe she was in The Addams Family not too many years ago...
We'd have to put that spin on it in order to justify the inclusion of so many nude scenes. BTW, Jake, you're thinking of Anna
Paquin as Rogue in X-Men. Maybe we should have some nude scenes with her as well...
But only if Christina Ricci does lots of nude scenes.."
Also, if you have ever listened to any of sinead o'connor's recordings, i think you would have to concede that she sings quite well, whether you like the content or not.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (105.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 06:36 pm:|
Ed, I never used to use the word "opine" until I got involved with this case. Unfortunately I've found that unless one qualifies one's assertions with such a word, some bore is certain to give you hell for it, even though we're all perfectly well aware that virtually everything we say about the case is nothing more than educated speculation.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn012.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 02:11 am:|
Hey, hey - Doug! You're just opining that everything we say about this case is nothing more than educated speculation! I mean, you didn't really think you were going to get away with that, did you?
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p4.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 06:59 am:|
Maybe if we "Peek through the Opines "we might find something!(+)
|By Displaced_Punk (Displaced_Punk) (220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 11:17 am:|
This post - like most in this arena - does not fit the topic, however it is relevant
to the thread of speils:
I always figured couples were chosen merely because a) they necked in remote places and b)they offered the killer twice the fun (if you will).
Please refer to the early Zodiac letter in which he warns that if his letter is not published by a certain date he will - and I paraphrase - "...cruise around and pick-off all of the street people [i.e. homeless] and couples that are alone."
It's odd to me that many co-eds from the Santa Rosa area were often loosely tied to Zodiac's spree, yet homeless deaths - as far as I can recall - never were. (I may be quite wrong about this last statement.)
|By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tc013.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, December 25, 2000 - 10:15 pm:|
Juno: the first thing we must do is not take ourselves too seriously. Lighten up. I
had commented that the term "opine" hadn't, as I recall, actually been used here
before I started to use it. But then, so what? It was only an observation I made in order
to relieve us Z investigators of the endless Z speculation that otherwise occurs here.
Don't get me wrong, I am up to my neck in the Z case like most others here, but I do like
a little diversion once in a while too (that's why we have that ridiculous thread about
our dream Z-movie).
Speaking of which, why should my particular desire for admiring naked women and stating so be considered "rubbish???" OK, so I was the first to mention it... so what? While the word "opinion" is quite common, "opine" is not, and suddenly it is being mentioned here on this board with increasing frequency; that's what I was getting at when I noted it.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (88.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 05:58 am:|
I always figured couples were chosen merely because a) they necked in remote places
and b)they offered the killer twice the fun (if you will).
I don't see any evidence to convince me that Zodiac derived any kind of "fun" from killing people. His murders were far too hasty, evincing a desire to accomplish the act and get away from the scene as quickly as possible. The allusion to having fun in the 3-part cipher, along with the rest of the missive, was probably nothing more than a big red herring meant to throw off suspicion that Zodiac was sexually inadequate; something that his own ego would have found discomfiting. Decipher the 340-symbol and you'll probably find more of the same thing, i.e., justifications for the murders that steer suspicion away from their true motivation.