Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Don Cheney

After much searching, I finally located and interviewed Don Cheney, the man Arthur Leigh Allen allegedly confided in back in 1969 that he intended to kill couples, write taunting letters to the police and call himself "Zodiac."

Click here for more info.

Very interesting, Tom, but you should learn not to lead your witnesses. Not that this is a court of law or anything so formal, but we are trying objectively to get to the bottom of things here!

Good interview, Tom. Thanks!

Tom,

Any prospect of a transcript for the entire interview becoming available for independent perusal?

Bruce M.

Hi

"Don Cheney met Arthur Leigh Allen in 1962, and maintained a friendship with him through 1968. Their friendship ended in 1969, after a New Year's Day conversation in which Allen spoke of killing at random, and calling himself "Zodiac." Cheney soon moved to the Los Angeles area, and eventually came forward to the police after reading a quote in a newspaper article that sparked his memory. The quote was of the Zodiac killer's threat to shoot out the tires of a school bus, and to kill the children inside. Just months earlier, Cheney realized, Allen had talked of doing the same thing." --from interview with TV.

If this timeline is correct, Allen confessed to Cheney crimes that had already been committed--those at Lake Herman Road. (They were friends until 1/1/69.) It is surprising to me that after hearing that, Don didn't put two and two together and suspect Allne of committing the LHR attack, since the LHR murders were big news on "New Year's Day 1969" (just under two weeks AFTER Jensen and Faraday were killed)! This is some pretty ballsy stuff by Allen, even though "Zodiac" didn't technically exist yet. He is esentially giving himself up, or at least incriminating himself.

Don didn't come forward until mid 1971. With all the publicity the Z case got nationwide, and certainly in California in general, it is surprising that Don didn't hear about Z's school bus threat earlier than mid-1971. When it is stated that Allen had uttered words about shooting out the tires of a school bus "just months earlier", if Don came forward IMMEDIATELY after reading of Z's methodology in the paper, it was quite a few months after Allen had uttered those words--about 31 of them! (They hadn't spoken since 1/1/69, right?) It's not like Allen had just uttered those words several weeks ago...there was a long gap between the "confession' and the witness statement.

After reading this interview, I am less impressed by Don's story, expecially if the "footnote" about this incident in RG's book is correct. If Allen told him all those things right AFTER LHR, and not in early 1968, then he is tough to swallow as a witness, IMHO. As soon as the first Z letter came out, Don should have remembered Allen's "confession" right after the LHR attack and gone right to the police. It is hard to imagine that he never heard anything about the Z case from 1/1/69 until the summer of 1971.

Mike

Yeah, this unprecedented DELAY (2.5 years) in coming forth with such incriminating information (which just seemed to slip his mind as all of these EXACT events were happening and appearing in the news, including the name "Zodiac") has always been a problem for me too.

Question: What did Don have to say about the molestation accusations?

Question: Did Cheney ever accompany Allen (during their eight year friendship) to Tijuana or Riverside?

Also, since when does Allen "look like" ANY of the composite drawings?

Gawd, there are a million questions here...

Just a [cover the bases] thought: Do we have any hand printing samples from Allen's [EX] "friend," Don Cheney?

Bruce M.

Mike:
"Don didn't come forward until mid 1971. With all the publicity the Z case got nationwide, and certainly in California in general,
it is surprising that Don didn't hear about Z's school bus threat earlier than mid-1971."

Don came forward long before the mid-1971 Manhattan Beach report. His first stop was the Pomona PD, which he gave a statement to. Apparently they did nothing with his info, as Don never heard back. Finally Don's friend, Santo, heard about the apparent lack of action by Pomona and called Manhattan Beach PD. This lead to SFPD's involvement.

"Question: What did Don have to say about the molestation accusations?"

Don remembered the incident. His story is that he, his wife and daughter were camping with Leigh. The daughter was two or three-years old, and said something like "Uncle Leigh touched my bottom." The daughter wasn't hurt or upset, and Cheney had no reason to be suspicious of Leigh's intentions, if in fact he had touched her. To be safe, Don never had his daughter around Leigh after that. This incident happened in 1965 or so, and obviously didn't hurt their friendship.

"Question: Did Cheney ever accompany Allen (during their eight year friendship) to Tijuana or Riverside?"

When Cheney and Leigh met, Cheney was attending college in the Los Angeles area, and Leigh was in the area because of a recent trip he had made to Riverside. Leigh had just been fired from his job at Atascadero State Hospital, and often visited Riverside for auto racing activities.
Cheney went to Mexico with Leigh's brother, Ron, and learned of at least one trip to Mexico Leigh had made for skin diving.

"Also, since when does Allen "look like" ANY of the composite drawings?"

Cheney claims he saw a profile-only composite drawing that accompanied a Zodiac story regarding the Berryessa attack in an L.A. newspaper. Cheney said the drawing was NOT the SFPD composite OR the Napa composite of the full-faced guy with hair.
He also said the drawing was NOT of the Grass Valley suspect, which he remembers well.
I'm attempting to find if Napa prepared a profile drawing of their suspect.

Tom-

The only issue that I believe is important now is the time-line. If Don says that Allen said those suspicious things in January 1969, not "early 1968", it is then AFTER LHR!! This is of enormous importance. Are we to believe that Don didn't remember the Jensen Faraday murders less than two weeks after they had happened (and that they sounded an awful lot like what Allen had just said to him)!?

I thought you had made an error about that date and was kicking myself for writing about it before I verified it with you. But since you did not correct it, I am going to assume that January 1, 1969 is the correct timeframe for that conversation. If so, this is getting interestinger...

Mike

Don didn't live in Vallejo, and at the time the LHR murders were treated as merely a local story.

"Question: What did Don have to say about the molestation accusations?"

VOIGT:
Don remembered the incident. His story is that he, his wife and daughter were camping with Leigh. The daughter was two or three-years old, and said something like "Uncle Leigh touched my bottom." The daughter wasn't hurt or upset, and Cheney had no reason to be suspicious of Leigh's intentions, if in fact he had touched her. To be safe, Don never had his daughter around Leigh after that. This incident happened in 1965 or so, and obviously didn't hurt their friendship.

BRUCE:
If Cheney had "no reason to be suspicious" and the event was not that significant to "hurt their friendship" then how is it that this event brought Cheney's motives into question back in 1971? How did it even come up as a topic of discussion for police if it was not a problem?

Because Ron Allen, Leigh Allen and Cheney were friends. Ron and Cheney obviously discussed the incident.

VOIGT:
Cheney claims he saw a profile-only composite drawing that accompanied a Zodiac story regarding the Berryessa attack in an L.A. newspaper. Cheney said the drawing was NOT the SFPD composite OR the Napa composite of the full-faced guy with hair.

BRUCE:
Oh, great, ANOTHER *different* composite!

Oh, btw, since Cheney specifically says it "was NOT the SFPD composite OR the Napa composite of the full-faced guy with hair." I guess we can conclude that he [Cheney] DID NOT think Allen matched THOSE composites--composites produced from the *eyewitness* descriptions of the Zodiac killer?

There is a Sonoma County composite that I ran across over the weekend on one of the links. I can't remember which link it is on. I was wondering why Sonoma would have a composite. If I remember correctly the Sonoma composite shows a man with a full set of wavy hair. Kinda looks like Cain.

VOIGT:
Because Ron Allen, Leigh Allen and Cheney were friends. Ron and Cheney obviously discussed the incident.

BRUCE:
So this event which Cheney "had no reason to be suspicious of" WAS, evidently, suspicious enough for Cheney to (1) keep his daughter away from Allen (his friend) from that point onward; and (2) discuss this [non]suspicious event with Allen's brother, Ron, rather than just keeping it private between he and Arthur. Do such actions sound like those from someone who doesn't have cause for suspicion?

Question: Did Cheney ever actually discuss the molestation incident with Arthur himself, friend-to-friend, if only to clear the air? If so, what was the mood of this discussion? If not, why not? Being a father myself, I guarantee you that is the FIRST thing I would be doing!

Question: Is it possible that the "friendship" between Cheney and Arthur basically ended at that point (at time of alleged molestation or shortly thereafter), but they remained acquaintences due to Cheney *still* being on friendly terms with Arthur's brother, Ron?

So many questions...

VOIGT:
Don didn't live in Vallejo, and at the time the LHR murders were treated as merely a local story.

BRUCE:
Oh, c'mon! Virtually every major point that Cheney says Allen had said was out and about in the public news before the end of 1969, including the killer's use of the name "Zodiac." So no matter how you look at it, Cheney would have had to be living in a hermetically sealed cave NOT to have heard about the Bay area serial killer calling himself "The Zodiac" and the atrocious and peculiar manner of his murders.

Cheney heard of the Zodiac killer several months before he went to the police, although he didn't make any connection to Allen. What sparked his memory was when he read the quote about shooting out the tires of a school bus and killing the children. Until then, it just didn't click.
Some people don't follow current events. Kathleen Johns is a good example. She claimed she didn't know who Zodiac was in 1970.

Cheney doesn't recall approaching Leigh about his daughter's comments. His daughter was barely old enough to speak, and at that time nobody had suspicions regarding Allen being a pedophile. After all, he was a grade-school teacher. However, Cheney was at least mildly concerned, as anybody would be, and decided he's rather be safe than sorry...so he kept his daughter away from Leigh after that. Leigh and Cheney remained friends for years after that incident.

Cheney agreed with me regrading Allen's general resemblance to the Napa composite.

VOIGT:
Cheney heard of the Zodiac killer several months before he went to the police, although he didn't make any connection to Allen.

BRUCE:
The New Year's day party, where Allen allegedly made the statement that he was going to kill people and "call himself Zodiac" was significant enough for Cheney to end their friendship, and yet Cheney (admitting to having heard about the ZODIAC killer), "didn't make any connection to Allen."

So you don't see a problem with that, Tom?

Bruce, don't start this crap again. I'm not the focus of this thread, and I don't intend to be.

First of all, Allen didn't word his statements to Cheney in such a way that it sounded like he actually intended to do such things. Allen was out of a career, and began talking of what he might do next. He brought up how interesting it would be to be a private detective, and mentioned several from television. Allen then mentioned how he could instead be the criminal, and listed some of the ways he could outsmart the police.
Cheney said he seems to recall it wasn't until after he went to the police that he even remembered the "Zodiac" details of his conversation with Leigh. What sparked his memory was Zodiac's school-bus quote.
Cheney moved to the Los Angeles area soon after the encounter with Allen, which certainly helped their break.

hm, let's see. LHR happened in 12/68. Allen and Cheney were friends at 1/1/69. This is only a few weeks after LHR but Zodiac didn't start communicating until after the BRS incident correct?

So, a couple was mysteriously killed but we didn't know of Zodiac at this time. Your friend maybe a little odd but would you automatically call him a killer at that point?

Hurley, I'd be shocked if anybody can make sense out of your post.

VOIGT:
Bruce, don't start this crap again. I'm not the focus of this thread, and I don't intend to be.

BRUCE:
Oh, give me a friggin break, Tom! Did I call you names? Did I demean you in any way? Did I observe any topic that WAS NOT applicable to the discussion at hand? No, I did not! If asking SERIOUS questions that have EVERYTHING to do with the content of your interview with Cheney is "crap," then WHAT exactly are we doing here? Are we all supposed to just follow the gospel of Tom without comment when he only provides the information he feels is PRO-Allen, and doesn't address the tough problematic questions everyone else is pondering, even if they don't confront you with them directly? [Hey, when you play "good cop, bad cop" somebody has to play "bad cop"!]

I asked you in my first post on this thread "if a transcript of the Cheney interview would be forthcoming" but you never responded to that [so will it be availble?]. Without having all the information available to us we are left with no other choice but to ask the tough questions you don't seem to want to ask, or if you do ask, you don't seem to want to address publicly.

Good Day!

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." --Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle) from A Study in Scarlet

So, I don't want to ask the tough questions, eh?
Wasn't I the one that surprised Dave Toschi at his job on 12-20-98, and grilled him about the truth behind Arthur Leigh Allen's supposed Lake Berryessa speeding ticket? It surely wasn't you asking the questions.

The first time I spoke to Cheney, I read him the excerpt of the Mulanax report detailing Allen's alleged molestation of Cheney's daughter. We later went over it on tape. Or does that not qualify as asking a tough question???

Why would you assume you know what I've asked, and to whom? That's a pretty arrogant attitude for someone that hasn't done anything except post a few criticisms on a message board.

The interview is only for law enforcement, but soon I might make copies available for everyone. It is way too long for me to transcribe.

VOIGT:
Why would you assume you know what I've asked, and to whom?

BRUCE:
Well, that's the point isn't it? We don't know WHAT you ask (critically of the Allen theory, that is) because you rarely post that type of information, except in bits & pieces after repeated questioning. Just so long as it's PRO-Allen, you're all over it, but when it works against that end you are notoriously dismissive, even after you are challenged on it.

VOIGT:
That's a pretty arrogant attitude for someone that hasn't done anything except post a few criticisms on a message board.

BRUCE:
Hmmm, I have done a lot more than that over the last three years, although it was mostly in regard to Penn/O'Hare (which, if nothing else, has at least helped me to better evaluate the abundance of far-fetched wishful thinking from certain other quarters). Also, who was it that had the professional QDE lined-up for you, but you refused the free service without ever even asking for further information? Hmmm? That's what I thought!

I'm also helping Sandy along with her information, since those veins of inquiry tend to fall into the non-Allen column, and thus don't hold much interest for you.

As far as "arrogance" goes, Tom, your track record speaks for itself. Whenever anyone dares challenge you on your biased presentation of the evidence you have a hissy-fit and start calling people names, demeaning their character, and speak to them in a belittling tone of condescension.

VOIGT:
So, I don't want to ask the tough questions, eh?

BRUCE:
If the shoe fits... From what I have seen thus far (at least in what you present on your website), I would say you have proven that to be the case time and time again.

You are obviously good at tracking down people and gaining their confidence to talk with you, but based on the material and manner in which you report that information, it appears that you are married to your pro-Allen biases. But you can prove me wrong right now by addressing all the negative evidence against Allen with the same fervor you present the positive evidence. I don't think you can do it.

VOIGT:
Wasn't I the one that surprised Dave Toschi at his job on 12-20-98, and grilled him about the truth behind Arthur Leigh Allen's supposed Lake Berryessa speeding ticket? It surely wasn't you asking the questions.

BRUCE:
You mean the same Toschi who holds the same general conclusions you do? The same Toschi who was so full of himself that he was [reportedly] forging "Z" letters to bring focus on himself? And isn't it you who defended (and continue to defend) the Mageau ID of Allen as a primary point of legitimate evidence (a "connection"), against Jake Wark's points to the contrary:

Tom's point #11 to Jake Wark:
Were ID'd by one surviving Z victim as being Zodiac, and described by another victim in terms of, "there's nothing about the way he looks or sounds to rule him out."

And in response to Jake's rebuttal, Tom, you accused Jake of being "biased" for discounting the Mageau ID; although I should point out that Jake also pointed out your double-standards on this issue. But the real evidence of your biases come to a head when we see what you do when other problematic topics come to fore, like fingerprints, physical descriptions, lack of any physical evidence ... Kathleen Johns:

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

In other words, you have different sets of rules that you apply according to your own biases and preformed conclusions. If something is PRO-Allen (and it doesn't seem to matter what...), then anything goes, no matter how far-fetched, but if it's CON-Allen, or something that focuses on other suspects/witness et al., then, well, you know the drill...

VOIGT:
The first time I spoke to Cheney, I read him the excerpt of the Mulanax report detailing Allen's alleged molestation of Cheney's daughter. We later went over it on tape. Or does that not qualify as asking a tough question???

BRUCE:
Well, golly, I wouldn't know because I haven't seen the transcript yet. What I do know is that your response to my question of this incident left me the impression that you aptly accepted what ever he said at face value and didn't pursue it any further than that (as opposed to your making sure he was pinned down on the IHOP restaurant point). Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got.

VOIGT:
The interview is only for law enforcement,

BRUCE:
Only for law enforcement?!! Were there police detectives with you on this interview? Did you follow proper interview methods for law enforcemtent in taking witness statements? I'm just curious, Tom.

VOIGT:
but soon I might make copies available for everyone. It is way too long for me to transcribe.

BRUCE:
Easy solution here. Divide the tape into three (or four) parts and ask three (or four) different people here to transcribe a section. That way you can get the work done and *still* keep the complete document under your control and summarily offer it to everyone at a specified price (assuming that is the avenue you intend to pursue). No doubt your dislike of me would not inspire you to transcribe one of those sections, but I would be more than happy to help you out in this regard (I have done it before).

Regards,

Bruce Monson

Hey Tom, what's up with that ALA Lake B speeding ticket? I've never heard that one before.

Bruce, you hurt my feelings once. (just kidding)

Sorry Esau, the, er, the devil made me do it!

Bruce:
"Just so long as it's PRO-Allen, you're all over it, but when it works against that end you are notoriously dismissive, even after you are challenged on it."

That's absurd.
Before I interviewed Cheney, we were to believe his incriminating conversation with Allen happened BEFORE any Zodiac activity. The fact is, Cheney is adamant their conversation occured on 1-1-69...which was AFTER the murders already started. That opens the door to the possibility that Allen was merely bragging about another's crimes.
There goes your theory about my supposed biased behavior...

Bruce:
"Were there police detectives with you on this interview? Did you follow proper interview methods
for law enforcemtent in taking witness statements?"

Oh, sure. I put the poor old guy in a room by himself for hours with a bright light shining in his eyes, and then I roughed him up.
Bruce, we are talking about an almost seventy-year-old man recalling events from thirty-plus years ago. He's ALREADY done the cop thing several times.
The only person I invited along was Ken Narlow, but he couldn't make it up in time.

Esau, I was told that one of the reasons Allen was such a strong suspect was because he was issued a speeding ticket in the Lake Berryessa area the evening of the Shepard murder.
Since then, I've done everything I could think of to verify the story, without success. I even surprised Toschi at the Pan-Pacific Hotel and grilled him, but he wouldn't comment. (He talked about other things, but not the ticket.)

No way did Allen get issued a ticket that day, however I believed my source and got burned.

TOM:
Oh, sure. I put the poor old guy in a room by himself for hours with a bright light shining in his eyes, and then I roughed him up.

BRUCE:
Hence my use of "interview" and NOT "interrogation." There is a big difference there! Police "interview" people all the time to elicit information. In 1971 Cheney was "interviewed" by police, but Allen was "interrogated." The operative component separating them is pressure. See the difference? I'm certainly not suggesting that you harrass anyone, Tom, least of all the elderly! One does not have to be an insensitive jackass in order to carry on a critical dialogue.

Perhaps I have misjudged you on this, but I would still like to see the unedited material for myself. My offer to help out in the transcription still stands.

Regards,

Bruce Monson

Bruce,
I agree with some of what you say, and it is the undeniable truth that tom likes to play his cards close to his vest. Hey, here's a concept...deal with it. Tom is not going to change his ways- that is a given. You can rant and rave all you want, but it will not change a darn thing.
Tom, you certainly did lead your 'witness' in the interview.
Oscar.

Considering the taped interview was about the 50th time I had talked to him in only a couple of weeks (and I already knew his answers by that point), I think I was pretty objective.

Hi Oscar,

I hear you! Indeed, I would prefer not to have to ask him any questions! Unfortunately, his own method leaves myself and others with no other choice but to ask him questions.

I think we can all agree that Tom has some very admirable abilities for finding new information helpful to this case (I mean, without his efforts there wouldn't be any interview(s) to see at all). However, it would be so wonderful (and helpful) if he would just present the data in complete unbiased form rather than in filtered presentations, and worse, with creative interpretations. But maybe that's too much to ask...

Regards,

Bruce M.

There is nothing "filtered" about the Cheney-interview segment I posted, if that is what you are implying.

Tom,

I read in Graysmith's about a man that Allen had hinted to that he was Zodiac while they were out drinking. Apparently, both Allen's friend and his wife were afraid of Allen and had hesitated about going to the police with this information. This "friend" is not named in the book, but Allen wrote to him when he was a patient at Atascadero.

This "friend" cannot be Cheney?! Do you know who it is? Do you know when Allen told him he was Z? Do you know when he and his wife contacted the police?

Marbar

It was a guy Allen was incarcerated with at Atascadero. He's now dead, and I don't have details. Allen claimed all of the weapons found in his house during the 1991 search belonged to this man.

Scott wrote:
"For now, let's stick with the transcribed version of Tom's interview."

Any particular reason you'd like to exclude Cheney's conversation with, um, actual police officers? Is the theory that his memory is going to be better thirty years after the conversation with Allen than it was three (or four, or two, whichever)?

--Jake

Cheney has never been professionally questioned in a court of law.In the meantime I will withhold judgement and not attack him.Whether it was simple memory substitution or partial falsehood or even false rememberance- it should be left up to the legal system to judge his testimony.None of us even know the man and his background and character, so we are poor judges to be sure.Of course,those that agree or disagree can post their opinions,that's what the site is about that Tom has kindly set up-expressing opinions on the Z case.

Re Mr. Cheney and his 'testimony': I have had skeptical views on this every since reading the first Zodiac book, and the interview with Tom did nothing to reduce that skepticism. I concede I have never met the man and given him the look in the eyes test as Tom has. If I did, my view might change, as those types of evaluation are valuable indeed. But not having met the man I have to go with the information availible and I have always had doubts about some parts of the story. Since i doubt parts of the story, I have to, finally, doubt the whole story without outside confirmation. I am not trying to call Mr. Cheney a liar, as I do not know that to be the case. Memory plays many tricks and time does not help. That's why I doubt ALA's guilt as Zodiac. So much of the 'case' comes back to the Cheney statements as a starting point (not all but much) that without this key piece most of the other 'circumstantial evidence loses it's punch.
To waffle a bit again, I do not think it impossible that ALA was Zodiac, and certainly cannot be ruled out. I just doubt this keystone bit of evidence around which so much else depends.
But I'm not standing in concrete. I'm willing to change my mind as soon as the evidence warrants.

Mike: I have a similar take. One simple exercise gives significant insight into Cheney's statements. First, take the transcript, boil it down to what he said about the directly relevant elements connecting Allen's statement to the Z crimes. That reduces it to several lines, maybe a page or two, at the most. Then look at these few things things (1) how much of that was a direct quote or a complete statement of what ALA said; (2) how much of it was simply an acceptance or agreement with what Tom suggested in his questions; and (3) how much of it was clear and unambiguous? What have you got now?

Jake, I'm back with you now. You asked, "Any particular reason you'd like to exclude Cheney's conversation with, um, actual police officers?"

Absolutely not, in fact, I'd prefer it. Btw, I'm not in any way trying to be pretentious when I say, "enlighten me." I'm seriously admitting that I am probably more likely to take people at their word than a lot of other people are. I'm a simple country boy at heart, I guess. Therefore, I'm willing to discuss any and all of Cheney's testimony regardless of date, to whom it was given, etc., if you're willing to do the same.

Personally, I don't see a motive for Cheney to try to falsely implicate Allen other than the motives that have been presented thus far, all of which, IMO, seem rather contrived. I mean, why commit a crime to avenge a crime, know what I mean? But hey, I'm willing to stand corrected. So let's have at it.

Scott

"I'm a simple country boy at heart, I guess"

I would amend that statement slightly, Scott:

A heavily-armed, gigantic, simple country boy at heart . . .

Spencer

Who also has a problem with his temper; who's always losing said temper, then apologizing after the fact, and who refers to women as something starting with a "b" that rhymes with "rich." :-)

Spencer, Doug,

Yes, you both are right. I'm guilty as charged. Seriously though, I've never once even thought of drawing a gun on someone just because I was angered, so let's not even go there. I've been a law-abiding gun owner for many years and I've never allowed them to get me into trouble. I have a tremendous amount of respect for firearms and have never used them in an illegal manner and DO NOT handle them unless I'm completely sober.

Also, after getting to know me, you would know without a doubt that I am not a person who is easily provoked to violence. In fact, the opposite is true. Verbal arguments, maybe, but not actual violence. Just FYI for those who may have wondered.

Scott

"I've been a law-abiding gun owner for many years"

I, too, have been a law-abiding gun owner for a couple of years. The problem with the news is that you don't hear about the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners out there, just the few bad aigs (see, there is some Cheney interview content in this message).

So you're a gentle giant?

Spencer

"So you're a gentle giant?"

My wife, family, friends, and associates certainly think so.

I'm not at all "obsessed with guns" as some on this board have suggested. Instead, they've been around me all my life. For me, it's just as natural to own guns as it is to own a vacuum cleaner; I've never known anything different. And in all the time that I've been around them my family, my friends, and I have never had an accident. Not even so much as an accidental discharge.

It baffles me when I hear or read of kids who inflict damage with guns that are owned by their parents. The responsibility must always be placed on the parents. When I was a kid, my dad probably had, at any given time, 30 or more guns in the house but you know what, if he wasn't around there was no way in hell that my brother or me could lay our hands on a single one of them. That's the burden of a responsible gun owner. One burden, at any rate.

Sorry Tom, I simply feel that the time has come to explain to the board the situation, as it really exists.

Now, where are those statements Cheney made to "actual police officers"?

Scott

Okay, I'm back, too. Scott, there's a lengthy examination of Cheney's statements to MBPD, Bill Armstrong, Robert Graysmith, and our own Tom Voigt over at http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/allen. I could transcribe it here, but I feel it's been done to death. The main issues for me are:

1. Timing (years went by between Allen's alleged statements and Cheney's first contact with the police);

2. Impetus (ie, his memory being jogged by a totally unrelated set of murders, but not by statewide and omnipresent reports of the Zodiac murders, by Cheney's own account);

3. Contradiction (a lot of them, both in the description of that conversation and when it took place);

4. Detail (specifically the lug-nuts story, which automatically makes the Kathleen Johns incident a Zodiac incident, unless we're expected to swallow a whole lot of coincidence).

Does everyone have the relevant reports? If not, maybe I should post them, so we're all on even footing.

--Jake

Jake,

It might be a good idea to post them so that we can see specific quotes within their context. At least, that is my opinion. Also, this will be my last post until next week. Just wanted everyone to know so that nobody thinks I'm blowing them off.

Scott

Okay, it's posted and backed with a portion of the Armstrong report for comparison. That URL again is http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/allen.html, and you can find the link there.

By the way, Scott, when you say "so that we can see specific quotes," you don't really mean that in the first-person sense, do you? Someone who had the temerity to denigrate my "dedication" a few weeks back for not travelling cross-country at my own expense would certainly have bothered to read four little pages on his favorite suspect, right?

--Jake
http://www.ZodiacSpeaking.com

Quite a few contradictions here. Was the conversation in 1968 or 1969? In the suspect's basement or on a hunting trip? Alone or with a third party?

Jake, I love your site and have read every single word on it. I appreciate your input and your views and consider you to be within the top 5% of Z investigators even after the fat has been trimmed. I just want to make sure that all message board readers can follow without a ton of hassle. Thanks to you, that is no longer a problem. Thank you.

Scott

Okay, in all honesty, the Top 2 percent. Geez. Btw, IMO, there are several people on this board who fall within that percentage. More than likely, you all know who you are. And Sylvie, no, you are not among them. But then, quite frankly, neither am I.

Scott

Flattery will get you everywhere. Have a good trip. Now let's all play nice, okay?

--Jake

Okay Jake, I'm back (Having witnessed some of the most ‘wicked’ natural phenomena of my life!). Pardon my simple ways, but I'd rather take things in context. Though you have, obviously, valid points, I'm still wishing that you would be more specific because, honestly, having read the material myself, I have a radically different interpretation.

Seriously, let’s take this thing point X point. It certainly won’t do any harm at this point, right? I’m willing to explore this case until my last breath (No, even though it could have been, I’m not making light of your tobacco habit. Been there, done that. Give it up, dude!).

D*mn it, this case IS solvable!

However, we all need to work together. If we all incorporate the "KISS"* philosophy into our attention to detail, I'm positive that the outcome will be faithful to the facts. Am I wrong or somehow delusional? I doubt it . . . how can one brain outsmart hundreds, thousands, or millions of brains? IMO, it can't be done. Granted, that's just my opinion.

Scott

*"KISS" is an anachronism of, "Keep It Simple Stupid." (Origin, at least to me, is unknown.)

Scott, I think you mean "acronym." Anachronism means "out of time and place," such as watching a movie about Julius Caesar and noticing he is wearing a Timex wrist watch...obviously the watch being an anachronism since it is being worn in error and out of time and place."

I pour my thoughts out in what was intended to be a meaningful post and all I get in return is a response concerning the unintentional misuse of a word?

That's pretty pathetic.

Sounds like someone needs a snack? Did the vending machine not accept your dollar bill? Since you seem to be requesting input on your post I will say this regarding your "Damit, this case is solvable". It becomes alot more solvable when the killer blabs his murder plans to anyone willing to listen.

Scott, all of my points are clearly laid out, uniformly footnoted, and freshly documented with the supporting MBPD and SFPD reports. I don't know how much more specific I could possibly be. If there's something you'd care to challenge or correct, I'd love the opportunity to double-check it, but I don't know what else you want me to do.

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

I think I gotta side with Jake on this. For all of the previously stated/posted reasons (all of which would be to numerous to repeat), Cheneys statements seem a wee bit less than sincere.

Hey Scott,
Is the KISS philosophy anything like the KISS army?
I'm just kidding.
Really though, I think all of US working togeather is the last thing this case needs. Bouncing ideas off eachother like this is cool and all, and certainly dialogue like this can't hurt; but there are so many differing viewpoints (all of which are valid in their own right) baised on so much less than objective reporting I feel that it would unfortunately obfuscate the matter on the whole. But that is just my opinion.
KEEP ON SHARING!!!!
Best Wishes,
John Prisk

Jake,

I'll be offering up some observations very soon. I'm too busy right now for a lengthy rebuttal or post. Soon though, very soon . . .

Scott

How soon, Scott?

Soon, very soon . . .

Concerning Don Cheneys account of Allen naming himself "Zodiac" by Jan. 1969. One might be led to believe that the code killer didn't name himself until August 1969. The first three letters from 7-31,69 begin twice:"I am the killer" and once: "This is the murderer". No use of "speaking" either. The Zodiac symbol is included from the beginning though. So that leaves two possibilities: 1. Zodiac did not name himself until after 7-31. 2. Zodiac named himself prior to 7-31 but for some reason refrained from using or otherwise hesitated, balked, at using the name "Zodiac". For example, under #2, you might say well, Zodiac revealed his name in his "second" letter for dramatic effect, to ride the limelight. But, I can't help but think that Zodiac stepped up his "This is the murderer" into "This is the Zodiac speaking" in evolutionary fashion or otherwise by subtle-suggestion, in a manner of speaking, suggesting a post-July 31 name selection ?

Note how he begins the October 13 letter with both "This is the Zodiac Speaking," and "I am the murderer."