Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Allen: "Titwillow, Titwillow, Titwillow"

Since Allen's alleged comments (Calaveras article) were from 1966 or so, the excuse can't be made that Allen was merely attempting to copy Zodiac, who didn't use the titwillow line until 1974.
Unless one believes the "titwillow" anecdote to be a lie, this makes Allen an awfully strong candidate as Z.

Too many coincidences connecting ALA to Zodiac. The SFPD report that you posted is also very interesting. It looks as though they have enough info to determine if it was ALA or not. I wish they'd get the ball rolling. What the heck are they waiting for?

Scott

Ps. The Calaveras article sent shivers down my spine. If it is not ALA I'll eat my shorts!

A lot more info is on the way. This is just the beginning.

Well Tom, I'm starting to see Allen as the suspect likely to be Zodiac. In the past I've always dismissed him as a nut that was investigated and he sort of took on the personna because he craved attention and loved to play games with the police. Is there anyone else that can remember Allen using the phrase "Titwillow, Titwillow, Titwillow"?

Since he said it in class, I'm sure many other students remember it. I'm in the process of collecting such info.

My thought too Tom. At first I would question if 1 or 2 people heard it, was it something that they talked about and came up with themselves. But if you find a number of classmates here it, that would be huge. I would have to say, in my 47 years, I have never heard anyone use that saying in conversation.

The "titwillow" thing is frightening, as is Gwen's apparent sighting of Allen in Wisconsin. I wonder whatever became of her?

Gwen's letters came back from Iowa with no forwarding address. I hope that doesn't mean that she (and her family?) were murdered by a vengeful ex-schoolteacher... there was no specific date, but "Cindy Michaels" indicated they wrote to each other for years, so it may have been sometime in the 1970's.

According to "Cindy," Gwen saw Allen sometime after moving, but once again, there is no specific date. According to the timeline in The Arthur Leigh Allen File, we don't appear to have any information as to what he was up to between his termination at Valley Springs Elementary School in March 1968 and when he began working at the gas station in Vallejo ca. October 1968. I have to wonder if Allen stalked Gwen during those seven months.

It's also interesting to note that in February 1969 (if Graysmith's investigative prowess can be trusted here), Darlene remarked to Dena's babysitter Karen that she had heard that the man who was stalking her had returned from out of state (Zodiac, p. 15).

If this idea turns out to be correct, it is quite compelling...

The fact that "Cindy Michaels" also recalls being, in essence, ABDUCTED by ALA and ushered into a "white car" is also very interesting. I've asked this before, but at what point does coincidence become high probability? I feel Tom's most recent post is a HUGE piece of the mysterious Zodiac puzzle.

Scott

"Ps. The Calaveras article sent shivers down my spine. If it is not ALA I'll eat my shorts!"

Jake and I offered to eat crow if it turns out to be Allen. Now the "shorts thing" is something I'd like to see!

Is the phrase "Titwillow, Titwillow, Titwillow", a unique phrase of the Zodiac or can it be found in Gilbert & Sullivan lyrics, or elsewhere in written form? (pardon my ignorance here)

Bucko-the phrase is from "The Mikado" by Gilbert and Sullivan.

Tom-I just read the story and this news about the phrase sent shivers down my spine also! This is HUGE! Circumstancial but I've never heard it used in any conversation or social situation. Really really bizarre as are some of the stories this girl told-I knew Allen was twisted but this...And the sighting of Allen in the midwest makes it look like he was stalking the other girl. It would make anyone wonder if he killed her if she can't be located. Superb work as usual Tom and there's more info coming?! I'm still stunned-unbelieveable! Mark

Bucko: Do you prefer your crow barbecued or tossed in with salad? Besides, IF ALA wasn't Z, I'm sure I have a pair of edibles somewhere that were given to me at my bachelor party. LOL. Do you and Jake want to borrow my grill?

Scott

I agree that the titwillow line (if true, and I think it is) is highly incriminating-at least, as incriminating as circumstantial evidence can get.

The apparent stalking of Gwen scares me, too. How demented does one have to be to do such a thing?

I wonder what the odds of being able to find Gwen and her family are? Not only would I like to know if she is alive and well, but perhaps she could corroborate the things said by "Cindy" in the article, or provide other valuable information regarding ALA.

Scott

Good question, I was wondering about where she and her family can be myself (as well as if she's still alive!) What if she disappeared or was killed (in an "accident" perhaps?!- that Allen
was demented and diligent enough to track her out there speaks volumes! Yes we can use the word circumstantial about the "titwillo" phrase but it's so incriminating of Allen I think you've found a big piece of the puzzle Tom! It appears that ALA did slip up after all and wasn't too smart to include a known figure of speech that he used in a Zodiac letter! I wonder if his brother and others every heard him use this? Mark

I wouldn't get too excited until this statement is corroborated by others. After all, this is more than thirty years after the fact and many people involved in this case have memory problems, and others have decided for whatever reason to insert themselves into the case for the publicity. All of the excitement may be for nothing. However, if the statement can be backed up it is certainly a damning indictment of ALA, and with everything else, makes him look very good as at least the author of the letter.

"Do you and Jake want to borrow my grill?"

Yes! One grill would never be enough to barbecue as much crow as we would have to eat....

I do hope some conclusive proof one way or the other regarding Allen turns up...otherwise he could become the "Kosminski" of the 20th century.

What we have here is a fairly typical case of a so-called "prime" suspect in a fairly old murder investigation. Check out discussion on Jack the Ripper and you'll find a major portion of the theorists insisting that "their guy" confessed to the crimes in one way or the other on numerous occasions under circumstances that, if true, would have qualified to commit the suspect into permanent custody as too feeble-minded to care for himself.

Douglas:

Are you saying that this discussion is treating the "titwillow" remark -- either in the letter or in Allen's classroom -- as a confession? Are you saying that Allen would have to be feeble-minded to use the quote in the letter, having used the expression in his classroom? Sort of like TK giving himself away in the Unabomb Manifesto?

The testimony of Michaels, is agreed, highly damaging to Allen, esp. if corroborated. I am almost a true believer. However, did anyone else notice a discrepancy in her story?? She says that Allen was her brother's teacher, then she recounts how she was called to the front of the class after not visiting Allen's place. Was this because Allen was also teaching another subject in the school, as kind of a floating teacher, as well as being a homeroom teacher?? Unusual in an elementary school but not impossible.

Sylvie, can't get one past you!
I have my suspicions "Cindy Michaels" might just be the Zodiac...

Seriously, have you ever considered getting an easy question answered before throwing it out for discussion??? I mean, I do have an e-mail address.

Allen was there for almost two complete school years. Very small school. Figure out the rest.

What makes this "titwillo" reference so interesting also is that it is misquoted from the original.Making it a stronger connection to Allen.
The actual quote from the Mikado is O WILLO,TITWILLO,TITWILLO.It would be great to see it corroborated by a classmate.

Scott wrote:
"Do you and Jake want to borrow my grill?"

Thanks for the offer, but if I had a nickel for every middle-aged woman who wrote to me with a kooky story linking her suspect with the Zodiac, I'd be eating prime rib off of my George Foreman. I'm sure that if this story named Kane as the Zodiac, for example, it wouldn't even have made it into the Newscenter, never mind the teasers provided by Ed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a single law enforcement agent quoted in the entire article. In fact, it looks like the only sources for the story were Tom and "Cindy." I can say for sure that "those closest to the investigation" are far from "morally if not absolutely certain" that Allen was the Zodiac, and I can say for double-plus sure that badmouthing them in the press won't help the amateur effort to research the case.

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

You're right, Jake. I should have ignored the whole thing.

You ignore everyone who writes to you about anyone but Allen -- my inbox is full of your rejects.

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

Usually because when I ask for the reasons why they suspect the individual they are e-mailing me about, they get all coy, secretive and mysterious. I don't have time for that crap.

Why Jake would want to eat prime rib off of George Foreman is beyond me but this new developement has piqued my interest. I'm still not committed to any one suspect but I'm now leaning toward Allen. Keep it coming Tom.

George is a very handsome man despite his age, and his patented grill really lowers the cholestorol level of my favorite red proteins.

In any case, I, too, am curious as to what else is up Tom's sleeve.

--Jake

Peter inquires: "Are you saying that this discussion is treating the "titwillow" remark -- either in the letter or in Allen's classroom -- as a confession? Are you saying that Allen would have to be feeble-minded to use the quote in the letter, having used the expression in his classroom?"

Peter, what I'm saying is that homo sapiens can be distinguished from the lower species because homo sapiens is the only animal other than a male bovine capable of producing bullshit.

Allen has always been one piece of hearsay away from conviction. He was in the library at Riverside on the night of the Bates murder. He was caught speeding away from the crime scene at Berryessa. He told someone he was going to San Francisco to kill a taxi driver. Und so weider, ad infinitum, etc., etc., etc.

"Bucko-the phrase is from "The Mikado" by Gilbert and Sullivan"...thanks Mark..

"Cindy Michaels" relates that Gwen told her in a letter that she "saw" Mr. Allen in Wisconsin. Since obviously Gwen only "saw" Allen, I view this "sighting" as just that...an unconfirmed one. (the unreliability of eyewitnesses has been discussed on this board before) I wonder if Gwen reported this sighting to her parents. If so, and I were one of them, I would have reported it immediately to the authorities. I'll bet there is no record of any such report.

Since the Gibert & Sullivan "titwillow" line was found in the popular Mikado, (NBC even did a special circa 1960 with Groucho Marx as the executioner) the only thing Allen's alledged use of the phrase proves is that both he and Zodiac were familiar with it.

The Zodiac brand wristwatch has been popular for decades. I have owned one myself. I put little significance in the fact that Allen was one of millions who owned one.

I'm going to have to see more...before I light the charcoal.

I put it this way. None of us really know who Z really was. BUT IF SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD AND SAID I GET ONE CHANCE TO NAME THE TRUE IDENTITY OF Z AND THEY REALLY KNEW WHO HE WAS AND IF I WAS WRONG I WOULD BE KILLED,I WOULD NAME ARTHUR LEE ALLEN AS THE PERP IN THE Z SAGA. IF I'M WRONG,I WOULD DIE.
BRUCE D.

The full lyrics for "The Mikado" song "Tit-Willow" are as follow:

On a tree by a river a little tom-tit
Sang "Willow, titwillow, titwillow!"
And I said to him, "Dicky-bird, why do you sit
Singing 'Willow, titwillow, titwillow'?"
"Is it weakness of intellect, birdie?" I cried,
"Or a rather tough worm in your little inside?"
With a shake of his poor little head, he replied,
"Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!"

He slapped at his chest, as he sat on that bough,
Singing "Willow, titwillow, titwillow!"
And a cold perspiration bespangled his brow,
Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!
He sobbed and he sighed, and a gurgle he gave,
Then he plunged himself into the billowy wave,
And an echo arose from the suicide's grave--
"Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!"

Now I feel just as sure as I'm sure that my name
Isn't Willow, titwillow, titwillow,
That 'twas blighted affection that made him exclaim
"Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!"
And if you remain callous and obdurate, I
Shall perish as he did, and you will know why,
Though I probably shall not exclaim as I die,
"Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!"

[Source:
http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/mikado/html/tit_willow.html]

Bucko wrote-"Since the Gilbert and Sullivan titwillo line was found in the popular Mikado the only thing Allen's alleged use of the phrase proves is that he and Zodiac were familiar with it".
Again what makes it stronger than that is both Allen and Zodiac technically misquote from the Mikado.
Allen was alleged to say titwillo,titwillo,titwillo and in the Exorcist letter Zodiac writes the same and as you can see from the above this is technically incorrect.

I'm not trying to a wet blanket about the feeling of a "strong" similarity between the way the Zodiac slightly misquoted "titwillow;" however, one has to be realistic in noting that the individual who remembered the quote was a "child" at the time of the occurrence (and I believe a very young one...1st or 2nd grade?) and the recollection was not brought back to mind until many, many years later when reading about the Zodiac. If, in fact, this is a true recollection, it is not unrealistic to believe that seeing, in writing, the words "titwillow, titwillow, titwillow" as actually written by Zodiac probably brought back a recognition of "hearing" something similar but not necessarily an "exact" duplicate of what Allen was alleged to have actually said. To remember something from your childhood that specific so many, many years later (especially after seeing it written a certain way), to me, seems unlikely.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Allen did not utter these words as indicated from this individual's early childhood memory; however, to be able to confirm from another source, especially one who happened to be an adult at the time of the occurrence (maybe another teacher, friend, etc.) would be much more incriminating.

Tom: Do you have any knowledge of the type of humor Allen liked? We know he was a weird, perverted and sick individual and liked strange things that I'm sure as a grandmother I don't even want to think about; however, do you have any knowledge of his likes/dislikes relating to the type of arts and/or music (more specifically, comedy, ironic humor) enjoyed by him?

Spencer-thanks for posting the lyrics, interesting how the theme is death. I agree with the misquote of Allen and Zodiac making it much more than coincidental.

Linda: you are correct. You obviously have alot of experience with kids, I do as well.
Memory is a very suggestive thing, esp. going back to childhood 30 plus years later.
I am just saying that I don't think that this could ever hold up in court.

Gwen could be put under hypnosis to check out the veracity of her memory concerning Allen's use of the word titwillow. Hpnosis has even been used in court cases to jog the memory of crimes that occurred decades ago. In Calif. under hpnosis girl(WOMAN) recalled her father raping and killing her playmate about 30 years before. He was convicted almost soley on the hpnosis evidence.
Bruce D

Sorry I kept leaving out the y in HYPNOSIS in my above post.
Bruce D

Very true.

None of that will be necessary; there are already several more former pupils who remember Allen using the titwillow phrase. Stay tuned...

By the way, "Cindy Michaels" was a fifth or sixth grader.

Regarding Allen's likes and dislikes, his favorite magazines were Mad and Hustler, and his favorite album in 1964 was the soundtrack to the musical Porgy and Bess. (sp?)

Jake,
Your site is great balance to Tom's and I usually love your posts but in your 6-8 post at 2:37 you make "middle-aged women" sound like a disease or something. I am not sure what that is -- my grandma is 100 so I guesss middle-aged is 50. Yikes, in 11 years I'll be there, oh well it's not so bad when you consider the alternative. Question: Don't any Middle- aged men ever send to your in box, or are they just fortunate enough not to get a classification.

Sylvie, remember when I asked you to quit posting questions for specific board members? That is what e-mail is for.

Sylvie wrote:
"Question: Don't any Middle- aged men ever send to your in box, or are they just fortunate enough not to get a classification."

For whatever reason, most of the people who write to me are women who were teens during the Zodiac years; I've heard that this demographic buys 80% of all true crime books, so maybe there's a correlation. My mom's a middle-aged woman, and I love her to death, so no, it wasn't a slight. Anyway, yes, I do get a lot of email from men as well, but it seems like they are either high school kids writing papers or ex-cops.

Tom wrote:
"Do as I say, not as I do."

Roger that, Tom. Over and out.

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

Jake:
"Tom wrote:
"Do as I say, not as I do." "

The guy that owns the 7-11 can drink Slurpees for free.
By the way, when can we expect a message board at Kelleher's site, www.zodiacspeaking.com?

>The guy that owns the 7-11 can drink Slurpees for free.

That's just one of many enticements that the 7-11 franchise salespeople mention when trying to sell someone on owning a store.

This just in: The new Slurpee flavor you've all been waiting for is (drumroll, please) . . .
MOUNTAIN DEW.

Spencer

Today I spoke with Jim Silver, who was mentioned in the Calaveras County Ledger-Dispatch story. He corroborated everything "Cindy Michaels" said.

Tom-good work and great news-I was wondering if Silver was still alive and could corroborate her story. Did you ask him if he contacted SFPD about the titwillo phrase? I'm assuming he did and perhaps they missed the significance of this?! I find that hard to believe, do you think that they just chalked it up to yet another coincidence but because they didn't have the DNA technology or hard evidence didn't do anything with it? Seems quite strange... Mark

Tom wrote:
"He corroborated everything "Cindy Michaels" said."

Well, it's reassuring to know that Ms. "Michaels" is, in fact, "afraid of copycats or what if it isn't him."

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

Silver hadn't heard the titwillow anecdote. He cooberated everything Michaels said regarding their relationship and his visit to Calaveras County in 1974.

The titwillow part is what this whole anecdote is about, but he hadn't heard about that part? So what if he can back up everything else, we all know Allen was a sick puppy. Where is the smoking gun?

Sandy, if "Cindy Michaels" didn't realize that Zodiac had used the "Titwillow" line until recently visiting my site, how could she have mentioned it to Silver in 1974?

Hi Everyone! Hi Tom! ... miss me? ;-)

I haven't posted in a while but looking at the latest developments I just had to make a few observations.

First, let me say that the "titwillo..." phrase is a compelling piece of evidence to say the least and, if true, and I mean verifiably true from more than one confirmed student of Allen's (and preferably a confirmation from a fellow teacher or administrator that worked with Allen), then I would find that to (at long last) be a solid "link" pointing to Allen as being Z; although that would still not necessitate that he alone was Z.

Having said that, it is at these points where critical review is most important! While I am certainly not claiming the story is a clever hoax, there are a few troubling issues that I think need to be cleared up before we get too excited:

(1) Tom, have you met or talked with this "anonymous" source? If so, have you also been in contact with her "brother"? Can he be identified in the 1967-68 class photo?

(2) What do you know about the "staff writer," Matthew Hedger? Have you met with him? Is this an actual professional news organization that he is employed by? A quick search on the Internet for the "Calaveras County Ledger-Dispatch" came up with a page that provides web page services, but nothing to indicate it was a newspaper or other news reporting service.

I am not suggesting either the reporter or the source are not for real, but the problem is that all the incriminating evidence we see presented, insofar as "Z" is concerned, is information that is readily available on your website and elsewhere.

(3) Why has no police agency reported any awareness of this alleged phrase being used by Allen? More, I should think that people like Chaney, Ron Allen, Allen's former employers, and any number of other people who would have recognized this curious phrase from Allen (since it is so unusual) if he really did say it as frequently as this anonymous lady claims he did.

(4) While the general information given in the story has the feel of genuine events, there are some things within it that don't quite jive:

(4a) When the girl went to meet Allen (her "brother's teacher," not hers), she claims Allen lifted her skirt and patted her behind which she "thought was weird." She then tells us that she "told her parents." Unfortunately, that's all she says about it; when she says Allen is "weird" did she explain /i{why} he was such? Don't you think parents would be interested in such information, and would follow up on it?

(4b) She claims that "it was not uncommon for Allen to single out girls ... call them up to the front of the classroom ... put them across his knee and paddle their behinds in full view of the class." It seems odd that such an activity would go unmentioned for very long, especially if he was "hiking up [girls'] dresses." It's also odd that, after being "humiliated," she says "...but what was I going to do [about it]?"

Here's a thought: how about telling her parents and/or the principal? She had informed her parents about Allen after the incident when she first met him, so why not tell them now, especially after such humiliation?

Is there any documentation from either the school or police that these "spankings" were something Allen did in his classes?

(4c) She claims that Allen was her brother's teacher, not her own! So how is it that she was being called up to the front of the class?

The Class Photo
According to the "1968 class photo" Tom has posted on his The Arthur Leigh Allen File (http://www.zodiackiller.com/1968Class.html), for the 1967-68 school year, Allen taught 6th & 7th grade (generally these are in the 12-13 range)! Now, unless it can be shown that Allen also taught grades below this level, then our anonymous student would not have been in Allen's class! Why? Because she was too!

Determining Her Age
A little later on in the article she states that "Special Agent James Silver" visited her in regard to Allen. And the time this happens, we are told, was the "summer of 1974 when she was a JUNIOR in high school." That means that in 1974 she was most likely 17 years old or less, which means that in 1967 she would have been around 10 years old. That means that she would most likely have been in 4th, possibly 5th grade. She was too young to be in Allen's 6th-7th grade class!

And remember, it does not help to say that she could have been in Allen's class the following year since Allen was already gone before the 1967-68 school year had ended (March, 68).

So the question stands: how could she have been called up to the front of the class to have her skirt hiked up and be spanked in front of the class if she was never a student in Allen's classes?

(5) The Zodiac Watch:

(5a) Allen's Zodiac Seawolf watch was not that remarkable in feature or look even for that time (you can see photos of them at http://www.vintagezodiacs.com/ZodInfo.htm), so I would like to know what it was about the watch that was "so neat" as to incite her brother to go on raving about it even at the dinner table at home, as she states? Now, maybe if it were a Batman watch, or something like that, but the Zodiac Seawolf was just another watch.

(5b) She also states that she "knows he had the thing [watch] back in 1967." Well, this may be nitpicking a bit, but even if we take Ron Allen's version of events, that means that Allen received his watch as a Christmas present (and Ron received one as well as I recall, which is why he remembers it). Well, the last time I checked, Christmas comes on December 24 and school is not only out during that time, but it remains out until after New Years! Therefore, how could she have "known" he had the watch in 1967? It would have been 1968 before school was even back in session!

I'm sorry, but this Zodiac watch story is difficult to chew.

(6) As for Allen "stalking" Gwen in Iowa, well, until such time as "Gwen" can be found to verify this story (or at the very least her letter to our anonymous informant be presented into evidence), then it is nothing more than hearsay.

As a matter of fact, until such time as any of the events or people can be corroborated, ALL OF THIS must remain a matter of conjecture.

I look forward to further developments, especially in regard to DNA, which is the most important evidence by far in this case.

Bruce Monson

VOIGT:
Sandy, if "Cindy Michaels" didn't realize that Zodiac had used the "Titwillow" line until recently visiting my site, how could she have mentioned it to Silver in 1974?

BRUCE:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you talked with Silver, didn't you say that he did not mention this "titwillo..." information as having been told to him in 74?

Also, is there any record of this conversation in any investigation reports authored by Silver at that time?

Just wondering.

You could have saved yourself an awful lot of typing by merely sending me an e-mail:
Allen taught 5th and 6th grade during the 1966-67 school year.

Matthew Hedger is a renowned Sasquatchologist, with a degree from the Hollywood Upstairs Journalism Place.
"Cindy Michaels" invented Internet porn, and was voted Miss Thumbnail 2001 by the alumni of the Hollywood Upstairs Journalism Place.

The rest of your thoughts are so silly I have no comment.

I see Tom's joyful tact and poor reasoning skills have not improved...classic!

In any event, what can I say but ... well, golly, a real "renowned Sasquatchologist"? "Miss Thumbnail" herself!? Who could question those credentials?! Tom, if you had a sense of humor I would think this was a joke, but... Still, I hope for your sake that it was, because if it wasn't then whatever credibility you had left has now gone bye-bye. I suppose you believe in Bigfoot, UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and the Devil too, right?

back from la-la-land

So what grade was our anonymous informant (that is, "Miss Thumbnail") in at this time, Tom? Age suggests she was in the 4th grade. Can you tell us? Was she or was she not a student in Allen's class? It's a simple question which has a very serious implication, in case you haven't figured that out. If you feel it is not an important question then I would like to know your reasons for making that determination.

According to the "class picture" you posted, Allen taught 6th & (7th) grade! Now you say he taught 5th & 6th. Well, which is it? Do you have another photo of him with his 5th grade class? Can our miss anonymous' photo be found in it?

Why are you always so defensive about critical review, Tom?

I will bet anyone that when we finally do get some DNA results back, and they do not match Allen (and they won't), you will all see Tom just play it off as though that really doesn't mean anything (pretty much like he does now for all the evidence that points away from Allen). He lives by the pick-and-choose method of investigation, meaning that he "picks out" what he likes, to support his preformed conclusions, and simply disregards that which doesn't fit or is inconvenient.

Cheers,

Bruce Monson

Tom-I took the word "everything" too literally in your post obviously-sorry. It's certainly unfortunate that she didn't mention the titwillo phrase in the 1974 interview, maybe it would've added some juice to the investigation at that time. Mark

Matthew Hedger is not only a great Sasquatchologist, but he happens to own the world's largest collection of Carol Doda memorabilia. Guys like that don't make mistakes or lie. Fact.

Miss Thumbnail has seen some hard times, sure, but she's been sober for a while now.

Hedger and Miss Thumbnail live in a little house by the bubble gum tree. They have 2.3 children (a boy, a girl, and an extra leg), and are hoping to celebrate their anniversary at WrestleMania 2002.

You know what, Bruce, I've been joking around with you these last few posts, but that's going to stop. You're a complete tool, and I'm getting really sick of your act.

You want to question Matthew Hedger's credibility?
Why don't you get off your ass and do a little research of your own, instead of sitting at your keyboard and criticizing everything I do.

Yes, nitwit, the Ledger-Dispatch is a real newspaper. And yes, Hedger is a real reporter.
Maybe if it had been you who spent a few days in Calaveras County attempting to get the facts you wouldn't ask such stupid, paranoid questions...but of course you are incapable of doing anything constructive.

Ditto,Tom. I'm anxious to see the updated news from Calaveras, corroboration on the 'titwillow' phrase, Allens links to Riverside via Calaveras,etc..must be hard to publish the fruits of your homework while at the same time answer messages from posters who just can't seem to comprehend details in simple police reports & newspaper articles. I respect & appreciate the 'Devils Advocate' viewpoint, but if the Sandys',Bruce Ms',Sylvias' & Peter Hs' out there would just do a little homework of their own, and actually read the articles here, it would save us all alot of time. Maybe you all should be happy that we're getting closer to nailing the 'Zodiac Killer', no matter whohe is, at least thank Tom for this site & his hard work, and quit whining because the #1 suspect isn't 'your guy'.

I do thank Tom for his hard work, and in fact have been the first to do so on a number of his posts. I hvae read all the articles here, and at Jake's site. As for doing my homework, that's exactly what analytical criticism is. Gaps in analysis, acceptance of unconfirmed facts or unexamined assumptions are all types of errors that are invariably compounded over time, because entire theories are built on them. Call it hair-splitting or what you will, but apparently minor distinctions, if not accuratle made, lead to major errors. Until this case is solved, no one can say what detail will or will not be key. Such things as whether "Cindy" was in 4th or 5th grade may not seem important now, but they sure as heck will be if anyone is ever brought to trial as Z. I have been accused of (or credited with) nitpicking this case to death. Isn't that exactly what we should be doing? God, and convictions, are in the details.

Tony,

I don't have a "favorite" suspect. It's perfectly fine with me if Allen turns out to be Z, but unlike Tom I don't pick and choose what I am going to accept while ignoring the problems as though they don't exist. Assuredly, there is a lot of compelling circumstantial evidence in favor of Allen, but then there is a lot of compelling circumstantial evidence favoring many "suspects"! The problem is there is also a lot of compelling evidence against Allen being Z, and it's only with a big pair of rose-colored glasses that an objective person can fail to recognize that.

I have credited Tom many times in the past for his extensive legwork. His talent, and greatest strength, is in his ability to locate people and get them to talk with him (but then he only looks for pro-Allen people and then asks them leading questions). His weakness is that he is married to his preformed conclusions, and he dismisses problems with the wave of a hand and a character attack for good measure. He berates anyone who dares question him critically or disrupts his happy little world. And it has only gotten worse as his popularity with the media has increased. Unfortunately, that means he is prone to mistakes, and worse, to being used as a media platform by would-be hoaxters (a very real possibility, btw).

In the end maybe he will be right in his convictions, but for the record, Tony, you'd be well advised to take what Tom says with at least a healthy grain of salt until you see hard evidence to back it up.

Cheers,

Bruce Monson

Tom,

Thanks for the trademark (TM) ad hominem attacks we've all come to expect from you; if nothing else you're consistent.

Love,

Bruce

Tony,
Tom knows we are all fond of him and amazed by his dedication, acidic though he may be. He 's a big boy and I don't think, like you, that he needs daily accolades of gratitude, or brown-nosing. Yes, it would be cool if we could all do non-stop research, but the world does not work that way. Some of us have like--jobs--for example. Ever heard of that?? I teach college, have a social life, kids, love life, world travel, etc. One gets the impression that Tom lives, breathes, dreams Zodiac. Some may say that is fantastic, others may say that is pretty sad. Thank God someone is able to do it.
Back to the article, it has nothing to do with not reading it thoroughly, what Tom has asked us to do is "figure it out", well that means CONJECTURE. If it is all about credibility, then it has to be better than "fill in the blanks".

Bruce, what is stopping you from making a few phone calls? And whatever happened to building your own Zodiac Web site (since mine is so horrible), and helping Sandy construct an understandable theory regarding her stalkers? Well?

It's Tool Time.

Tom wrote:
"Matthew Hedger is a renowned Sasquatchologist, with a degree from the Hollywood Upstairs Journalism Place.
"Cindy Michaels" invented Internet porn, and was voted Miss Thumbnail 2001 by the alumni of the Hollywood Upstairs Journalism Place."

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahaaha

Can someone pass me a paper towel? I have to clean the iced coffee off of my monitor.

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

The funniest part was how good ol' Bruce didn't know I was kidding.

Bruce D. wrote:

Gwen could be put under hypnosis to check out the veracity of her memory concerning Allen's use of the word titwillow. Hpnosis has even been used in court cases to jog the memory of crimes that occurred decades ago. In Calif. under hpnosis girl(WOMAN) recalled her father raping and killing her playmate about 30 years before. He was convicted almost soley on the hpnosis evidence.

I recently read (I don't recall the source, unfortunately) that the "evidence" used to put that man away probably wouldn't hold up in court today.

Memories can be colored by just about anything, and people can be made to remember things that never happened. It's easier than you think, and just about anyone can do it. Tampering with human thought and memory doesn't take an "expert," just someone who knows what they're doing. Sometimes, we don't even need someone else, just ourselves.

In the case you're referring to, the testimony regarding hypnosis was extremely flawed, as it can be very subjective, and the verdict was overturned by an appeals court. The man was released from custody and was not re-tried. An interested sidelight is that the daughter thought that he might also be the zodiac, as the crime took place during his reign of terror and the family lived in the Bay Area.

I didn't know it was overturned, but I'm not surprised.

There are certain professionals in the psychiatric field who make a fine living helping women with inferiority complexes "find" their memories.

That won't be necessary in this case since other former pupils of Allen's have come forward with additional information to cooberate Cindy's story.

Sylvie:
I, too, have a very full life.
Even though I spend a considerable amount of time per day tracking the Zodiac, I usually manage to squeeze in at least ten hours of sitting.

Sorry I snapped a little last night guys & gals.Must be getting grumpy in my old age.

Sylvie:The only person I give daily accolades to are my children, and I only brown-nose Tom twice a year.
In any event, it sure is nice to see some good ole' heated bantering on the board again.

Well, I'm just dying to see someone undergoing the interesting process of being "cooberated"!

Douglas:

I've posted the same observation, in different but even more explicit terms, including exact spelling. Some people are simply incoigible about some things.

PeterH: Don't you mean, "incorrigible"? Kind of like your persistent misspelling of words? Is that what you meant?

Scott

VOIGT:
The funniest part was how good ol' Bruce didn't know I was kidding.

BRUCE:
Nonsense, as usual, Tom. What's wrong, you can dish-it-out but you can't take it in return? Had anyone but you made such a statement I would have concluded that it was just a joke, as I had mentioned in my post, or did you forget to read that part? The problem is, you make so many unsubstantiated assertions that one must assume the worst in each case. Unfortunately, the reason you are unable to see this is because you suffer from analcranialinversionitis.

All My Love,

Bruce

Doug, you must lead a very boring life to get such a thrill when I make a spelling error.

Yes kids, instead of typing corroborate, I typed cooberate. I'm a loser.

Scott;

Oh, "incorrigible?" Is that how its spelled? With a double "r"? I left out the double "r"? Now how could I have done a silly thing like that, when there I was, trying to make an incisive, subtle comment on Douglas's observation of, well, I'll be . . . a misspeling that was the very same error! The omission of a double "r"! How ironic! Boy, if you didn't know better, you would almost think it was intentional! Thanks for the correction!

I think it's time to get back on topic.

VOIGT:
Yes kids, instead of typing corroborate, I typed cooberate. I'm a loser.

BRUCE:
Well, only because you blast other people when they make spelling errors. You have been misspelling "corroborate" and other words since you first started these boards, and you continued to do so even after it had been brought to your attention. You're just such a nice guy...

Seriously though, I still stand by my "I'll eat my shorts" statement despite all that has happened since I last posted. Why? Because all of the cards are not in folks.

Peter wrote: "Gaps in analysis, acceptance of unconfirmed facts or unexamined assumptions are all types of errors that are invariably compounded over time, because entire theories are built on them . . . apparently minor distinctions, if not accuratle(sic) made, lead to major errors."

Gee Peter, ya think so? A 10 year old into "The Hardy Boys" or "Nancy Drew" could tell you that. It seems to me that you're the one doing a lot of "assuming" here, based upon "facts" that you do not know, and "gaps in analysis" that are still unaccounted for. Any second rate investigator or armchair sleuth can see that there are many things within the article which need to be investigated further. I, personally, can make absurd statements like, "If it is not ALA I'll eat my shorts!" because I'm not putting my professional career on the line. I get the feeling that you're a lot like me, an armchair sleuth with above average intelligence who has no alternative but to, hopefully, bring some objective analysis to the material that is being spoon fed to us by, not only Tom, but every other person who is actively pursuing this case. Am I right? For me, the test of time will ultimately prove the article's worth.

Bruce Mason wrote: "The problem is there is also a lot of compelling evidence against Allen being Z, and it's only with a big pair of rose-colored glasses that an objective person can fail to recognize that."

Based upon the reading that I have done, including all of the other Zodiac related websites, the same can be said of every other suspect as well. I believe there exists a very fine line between objective and subjective investigation. An investigator needs to remain objective until enough evidence leads him/her onto a particular path. Then they will invariably become subjective in their investigation until that particular path either falls apart, or culminates in enough evidence to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." I have no problems with either side of the investigative coin, so to speak, as long as each continues to acknowledge the other. At some point an investigator HAS TO BECOME subjective in their approach, otherwise there would never be any resolutions/convictions to any mysteries/crimes.

Scott

Peter: You misspell words so often it's practically impossible to tell whether you intended it or not. Sue me.

Scott

It wasn't my intention to open a can of worms by gently pointing out Tom's misspelling of "corroborate." I simply found it to be interesting from a Freudian perspective. I'm sure that Tom knows perfectly well how to spell and pronounce the word, but at the time he put it down his mind was focused on "cooperate." Hence the error.

Scott wrote:
"I believe there exists a very fine line between objective and subjective investigation."

I'd like to disagree here, as is my wont, and opine that there's a thick black line separating the two. Subjective investigations have provided us with non-victims like Pam Tan, absurd rationalizations like the photoenlarger setup, sham IDs using 5 photos of the same "suspect," deliberate misrepresentation of firearm calibers, and disregard for objective expert analysis.

"An investigator needs to remain objective until enough evidence leads him/her onto a particular path."

I couldn't agree more, though our definitions of "enough" -- not to mention "evidence" -- probably differ.

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

Jake: I'll bet they don't differ to the degree that you probably think they do. That's precisely why I think the line between objective and subjective investigation is thin. It begins as a "thick black line" but, as more evidence dictates a particular path for the investigation to follow, the line becomes thinner, and the investigator is inclined to follow a more subjective line of reasoning. What I'm trying to say is, an investigator either has a suspect/s or he doesn't. If he/she does have a suspect, it seems natural that one would want to try to implicate their suspect as much as they could. If the case falls apart, fine, you go back to square one. If it holds together, fantastic. That is the nature of subjective investigation. If I were a homicide investigator, I'd rather have one key suspect that I could follow subjectively than no suspects at all.

Scott

Scott;
"Gee Peter, ya think so? "

Yes. I'm glad to see that it is so obvious to you. The comment was directed not to you, but to others who obviously do not see it the way you do. Also see Douglas's comment. I think he at least recognizes the difference between a typo and discretionary illiteracy. Try a keyword search for "cooborate" and see what you come up with. Sort of like the difference between mistake and discretionary disregard, a criticism leveled (justifiably) most of the proponents of particular suspects on this board.

And Tom, if you think this is off topic, think again. Until we see the corroboration, the Titwillow quote may mean anything: including everything or nothing. BTW: good work on the inside info on the Riverside DNA. Now, that was off topic.

I just read the Cheri Jo Bates section of this web site again. Gee, after reading it you would swear the boyfriend did it. I mean, all this "circumstantial evidence", and testimony from friends of his, and polygraph results, etc. all point directly at him. And now the DNA results are in, and no match.

Here we have "titwillow, titwillow, titwillow", being pronounced by many as "hugh circumstantial evidence" against Allen. Good grief. Even if its true that Allen and Zodiac both altered the original line from the Mikado by adding t-i-t to the first word, so it was the same as the other two, I don't see the big deal. If both were recalling the line from memory (it is a kind of catchy line), I can easily see how both could have recalled the more memorable "titwillo", and used it three times.

Scott wrote: "Seriously though, I still stand by my "I'll eat my shorts" statement despite all that has happened since I last posted. Why? Because all of the cards are not in folks.

Don't blame you. I guess one of us will be eating "something" someday.

Doug, what's Freudian about "cooberate"? (Just curious)

If my 8th grade English teacher saw all of the misspellings and grammatical errors on the board she would have a stroke.
I promise not tell her if everyone just chills out. I've just spent five minutes reading almost nothing but childish bickering.

Tom, when are we going to get to read about some of the corroboration you're talking about?

Oh no! I meant "huge" not "hugh". Just a "Zodiac like" slip......

Esau, I'm not going to steal any of Matthew Hedger's thunder. He's doing a follow-up story soon.

That wasn't thunder, it was a giant sucking sound.

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

Are we supposed to guess what you mean, Jake?

The point was that subconsciously Tom is hoping, not for the witnesses to "corroborate," but rather, to "cooperate."

Doug:
"The point was that subconsciously Tom is hoping, not for the witnesses to "corroborate," but rather, to "cooperate.""

Posts like this make me think Doug is auditioning for Tool Time.

SCOTT:
I'll bet they don't differ to the degree that you probably think they do. That's precisely why I think the line between objective and subjective investigation is thin. It begins as a "thick black line" but, as more evidence dictates a particular path for the investigation to follow, the line becomes thinner, and the investigator is inclined to follow a more subjective line of reasoning.

BRUCE:
But supposing after 30+ years of intensive research into your "suspect," and with tons of physical forensic evidence at your disposal, you are never able to link even one single piece of that physical evidence to your suspect; now, should that "line" between subjective and objective be getting thinner or thicker?

Look at your history, Scott. The hardest thing for the investigator is to actually identify a suspect, but once they have him/her in their sights the forensic confirmations will tend to follow rather quickly--especially if they have a lot to work with, as we do in the Z-crimes.

It is actually possible to look too deep; to over analyze. It is dangerous because at some point it becomes less an objective search for the truth and more of a witch hunt where selective bits of information get focused on while counter information gets dismissed. And when police investigators (and possibly others) take it upon themselves to fabricate evidence, THAT is a major sign that all is not right in OZ. Look hard enough and long enough at the clouds and you will find what you desire to see--but does that make it real?

Worst of all, with so much attention given to one suspect, other viable "suspects" may never receive the level of attention they should have had! And after 30 years how cold is the trail then?

All it would have taken is for one or two key people to have come forward at a different time or talked to a different investigator and this whole scenario could be reversed; we could have seen Kane (or someone else) as the "prime suspect" based solely on lots of tidbits of circumstantial evidence and conjecture built-up over the years; and we would be arguing today about why it is that nothing substantial has been found on him after 30+ years of focus, and we would be complaining about how "other suspects" like Arthur Leigh Allen should be given more attention.

So, where do you draw the line? At what point do you have to step back and ask yourself some hard questions?

Something to chew on...

Cheers,

Bruce Monson

Bruce:
"Worst of all, with so much attention given to one suspect, other viable "suspects" may never receive the level of attention they should have had!"

Here we go again.
Bruce, you've been playing the same old tune for months now. In fact, last we heard you were going to join heads with Sandy because I was so negligent in my suspect-scrutinization duties. (How is Project Sandy coming along, by the way?)

Here's a challenge. In another thread (in another topic), I want you to come up with another suspect that deserves attention, including all of the reasons why they should be considered possible Zodiacs.

It's Tool Time.

What the devil is "Tool Time?" Sounds like some kind of group activity on a gay cruise line.

Whenever Bruce Monson posts, it's Tool Time.

By the way, I found a good candidate as Gwen Cordes (see the Calaveras County article), and she died in 1988.

Tom,

As usual, you try to divert the topic away from the issue at hand; that being that in 30+ years there has never been one shred of direct physical evidence linking Allen to any of the Z-crimes, not one! That is remarkably remarkable for a primary suspect for whom so much evidence is available for analysis.

I've asked you this before without an answer so I will ask you again (not that I expect an answer this time either):

===> Please provide me with an evidence-based situation that, if true, would warrant your concluding that Allen was NOT Zodiac.

For example, if All DNA tests done in comparison with allen, be it from Riverside (now that the boyfried seems to be out of the loop) or the envelopes from Zodiac's letters, would THAT be sufficient for you to rule-out Allen as Z? If not, why not?

The issue of "other suspects" is secondary until such time that any of the other suspects (named and unnamed--there are a couple thousand as I recall, right?) are given the attention that has been given to Allen for three decades.

And let's get another thing straight; the "real" Zodiac may not even be among any of the current list of "suspects"! If it's not Allen then that doesn't mean, by default, that one of the other suspects frequently discussed here must be Z! Conversely, if none of the named suspects is Z, that does not in any way validate Allen as being the winning contestant behind door number 3! That is something that must be proven upon its own merits, or lack thereof, and THAT is what I keep reminding you about.

As for my producing a Zodiac web page and helping Sandy with all her information, that is something I would still like to do, but simply don't have the time to devote to such a project right now (which is why I wasn't posting here for months as it was). I gave her some guidelines for compiling the information in a sequential timeline based chart from earliest to present, but I don't know how far along she has progressed with that. Incidentally, I also wasn't the only one helping Sandy out with her information--there were two others as I understand it-- although neither of these was named Tom Voigt.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to be a professional Zodiac hunter (nor even a Sasquatchologist). I have a profession, a family, and a stack of other obligations going on in my life right now that really do require my attention. I really hadn't intended to participate even as much as I have over the last few days, but after checking-in to see what developments had occurred I noticed the "Titwillo" update and noticed some discrepancies I thought pertinent enough to comment on (and still do). Maybe if you had stepped down from your high-horse for a moment and actually condescended to answer the questions instead of being a royal jackass we wouldn't be having this continued dialogue you claim you despise so much.

Cheerio!

Bruce Monson

It's Tool Time.

Douglas-Funny stuff, maybe a comedy oriented book next time out?!

Back to the topic-
Bucko wrote: Here we have "titwillow, titwillow, titwillow", being pronounced by many as "huge circumstantial evidence" against Allen. Good Grief. Even if it's true that Allen and Zodiac both altered the original line from the Mikado by adding t-i-t to the first word, so it was the same as the other two, I don't see the big deal. If both were recalling the line from memory(it is kind of a catchy line), I can easily see how both could hav recalled the more memorable "titwillo" and used it three times".
So you don't see the big deal? I think the chances of this being coincidental are just about nil-two people using the same exact line and one that's also never used by 99.9% of the public? And the mistake in the first word is really key-the chances of that happening are even less! If the phrase was something like out of a commercial I could buy your "recalling from memory" scenario. And actually it makes perfect sense-if Allen is the Zodiac! Mark

VOIGT:
It's Tool Time.

BRUCE:
Translation: "Since I can't actually answer Bruce's arguments, I'll just ignore them and try to insult him with inuendo."

That's ok, Tom, I'll be "The Tool" (whatever that is supposed to mean...coming from you it is no doube derogatory) if you'll be "The Fool" -- you've already got a big head start!

Love and Kisses,

Bruce M.

Mark,

I wholly agree that the "titwillo..." utterings would be powerful evidence if co[rr]oborated, but isn't it a valid question to ask why we are only hearing about this now, and that none of the other family, friends and colleagues of Allen's seem to have mentioned it? It's not like it's new information that no one knew about.

Something to consider.

Regards,

Bruce Monson

First of all thanks Spencer for posting the Mikado song. I believe there is another suspect who used the term "Titwillow as well as an echo arose from the suicides grave" I have one question for the board,why doesn't ALA's face match the wanted poster from SF.I can't recall if this was addressed in the past.

Tom wrote:
"Are we supposed to guess what you mean, Jake?"

Generally, in newspapers more sophisticated than the ones printed by teenagers on the high school photocopier, journalists maintain objectivity, check sources, provide balance, and compensate for the bias of their sources. Only Bruce, notorious for taking a good point and burying it in a mountain of unnecessary verbiage, seems to have noticed that Hedger shirked all of these duties in his article of 2 June.

That might pass for thunder out in frog-jumping country, but back east we call it "yellow."

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

Bruce wrote: "But supposing after 30+ years of intensive research into your 'suspect,' and with tons of physical forensic evidence at your disposal, you are never able to link even one single piece of physical evidence to your suspect; now, should that 'line' between subjective and objective be getting thinner or thicker?"

Bruce, I have "look(ed) at (my) history," and you know what I see? I see that no letters have ever been compared to the Royal typewriter that was seized from ALA's home, I see that the bomb diagrams and bomb making materials that were seized from ALA's home being virtually ignored, and I see that the thin bladed knife with a riveted sheath that was seized from ALA's home has never been shown to Bryan Hartnell or matched to the wounds that he received. In fact, the knife has apparently been lost by VPD. These are just a few of the things that are keeping the "line" so thick. Hell, I'm able to see that even without my "rose colored glasses." Amateur detectives shouldn't be held accountable for the lack of competence demonstrated by the various police agencies.

Scott

Hiho:"Why dosen't ALA's face match the wanted poster from SF".

Tony: A confirmed Zodiac letter was sent to the SF Cronicle on Nov. 9 '69 in which he states," I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of the time I look entirle(entirely) different".
I believe Z on this one.

Scott,

When Allen's prints didn't match the prints taken from the Stine scene, or those from latents on Z-letters, then the Allenites proclaimed, "er, well ... of course they don't match, Allen was 'too smart' to leave 'his own' prints anywhere! ... Yah, that sounds good, he was too smart! Problem solved ... next!" Allen was so smart, in fact, that he was evidently using projectors and severed hands to disguise his deeds! And yet these same people seem to think that Allen, if he was Z, would have been stupid enough to actually keep THE typewriter he is alleged to have used to write the Riverside letters, and THE knife he is alleged to have used at Berryessa, even after he knows that these would be items police would be looking for! Yeah, uh huh!

Allen played a lot of games with the police. He liked for people to think he was the Zodiac (note: Jake Wark has written in detail on this so if you haven't read those posts it would be worth your time to do so). And as Jake so eloquently put it once, [paraphrasing] "For a pedophile loser like Allen, being seen as a feared serial killer would be almost like a promotion!"

The fact that no physical evidence has ever been produced linking him to any of the Z-crimes or literature (again, a fact that is remarkably remarkable considering all the effort that has gone into producing such a link) could very well be because he simply was not Z!

Here's a thick vs. thin question for you: Remember those latent prints mentioned earlier? Well, contrary to popular belief, they do belong to someone! We already know they categorically do not belong to a certain Arthur Leigh Allen, so the question remains, who do they belong to?

Cheers,

Bruce M.

Nonody knows if they are Zodiac's prints.
They don't belong to any of the known suspects...including Kaczynski, Kane, and the Chronicle's elderly Presidio Heights man.

As most people can figure out, my comments in the newspapers are an attempt to prompt VPD to be more forthcoming about the knife and typewriter, among other things.

Sorry you are having so much trouble following things.

Bruce M: To my knowledge, none of the latent prints that you are referring to can be categorized as DEFINITELY belonging to Z. Therefore, if the prints did not belong to Z and you were to compare them to a suspect's prints who was Z, they would not match. Additionally, because I have no way of knowing how the chain of evidence was handled, or how well preserved the Stine crime scene was, I can easily conclude that the prints may have come from any number of sources. So, if we don't even know if there actually exists a set of Zodiac's fingerprints, is it really so surprising to find that the prints never matched with those of a suspect's? If we don't have a set of Z's prints, and if ALA was Z, of course there wouldn't be a match!

Yes, it was I who theorized about the possibility of a severed hand being used at the PH incident. It was something that I'd simply thrown out there as a possibility; not something that I actually believe. Big flippin' deal!

Now, a question for you. Were is the evidence that proves the existence of a set of Z's prints?
You're going to point out the bloody prints found in Stine's cab, aren't you? LOL!

Bring it on, tough guy.
Scott

Jako: In your post you mention my 'non victim' and 'subjective analysis', etc. I have read many reports on serial killers and "suspects"-which you do not care for,as well as "victims"that always appear during the investigation. This is historical and universal, so do not fight or struggle with this concrete fact and allow your oppositional New England skeptism go to an extreme.

In all fields of endeavor there is both the subjective and the objective. A smart New Englander by the name of Emerson said 'everything has its opposite and we are here to reconcile the opposites in life.'

The detective -a hero-that solved the mystery of Elaine Davis' fate began with a very subjective feeling or as he called it "a gut feeling"(how many detectives have gone by their "gut" or SUBJECTIVE feelings and by using OBJECTIVE analysis techniques solved a murder?)and then he followed through with hard core investigation.

Jake ,you do not favor one over the other, but you should seek a balanced approach.This is common experience for all of us in life.

One example for you to consider. There are a series of murders and the police are turning up bodies and as is common they analyze, objectively,each find.

They find a body that could possibly be a victim, so they speculate, based on the crime evidence ,as to whether or not the individual is a victim of their sequential killer.Taking in all of the evidence they think that s/he is possibly a victim.

This means that if they are right then the killer was in that particular area and that alone provides them with good evidence, especially if their suspect left behind credit card receipts of gas purchases or was seen in that area.

This happened in a case and when questioned the suspect denied being in the area-it was really the victim placement that linked it up. They had to engage in 'speculation', but it paid off. Sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it does, but both the subjective and objective come into play in detective work.

I know Chiefs of Police that would fire a detective that did not develop a serial suspect/s and possible victims during the course of an investigation. I am not talking about some cases where there are no real clues.

Jake -if you took your attitude to say, Culver City PD, Ted Cook-COP,would have you out PDQ!

I learned of hanging victim Pam Tan(4/18/19/70 and Z's letter of the 20th)from Zodiac expert Dave Peterson as he felt she COULD be a Z victim. I went further and found some nice line ups.I will post more than has been given later.

No one can deny that Dave neglected all of the hard core objective Z evidence just because he subjectively pinned PT as a possible.Maybe a link will be established some day.She had an address book that is in custody. You don't know unless you try."By rope"Z said.

Bruce M: What's wrong? Having a difficult time with those alleged Z prints? I answered your question in less than 3 hours, so what seems to be the problem? I have practically every document that relates to the Zodiac case, so where do you want to start? Show me "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that we have a set of Z's prints, and that those prints were compared to ALA's and didn't match. Don't back down on me now. You're not just making claims without backing them up are you?

Scott

Scott: Your post 6/12/01 on 'subjective and objective' was excellent and a factual and historically correct expression of how the mind works-subconscious and conscious -in detective work.

Your posts show thoughtful analysis of the topic at hand.All of we Zodiac kiddies as Tom calls us may squable, but overall the posts,like yours, are thought provoking and are sincere!

The only "k-word" I've ever used in describing some of the posters is "kook"!

Howard: Coming from you, that is a tremendous compliment; I thank you. The "subjective and objective" line of reasoning becomes further obscured by the compromise that exists between first-hand and second-hand accumulation of evidence. A broad gap of interpolation and speculation undoubtedly dwells between the cracks of interpretation. I am also aware of the sincerity of your posts, and am quickly hardening to the provocations of others. I'm convinced, as I presume you are, that this case IS solvable. Hard work, determination, and the test of time will ultimately prevail.

Thanks again,
Scott

Tom: I'm not a "kook" or a "kiddie." What if you just referred to us as "Kindly Advocates Negotiating Evidence"? Then again, perhaps not. I wouldn't want to appear as though I were jumping onto the Kane bandwagon, if indeed such a bandwagon exists.

Scott

Tom,
will you lick the bottom of my boots if it turns out to be Kane?

I'm still waiting for someone like Sylvie to come up with any reason for suspecting Kane of anything as serious as the Zodiac crimes...although do it in another thread, please. This isn't about Kane.

SCOTT:
Bruce M: What's wrong? Having a difficult time with those alleged Z prints? I answered your question in less than 3 hours, so what seems to be the problem?

BRUCE:
Why no, no difficulty at all, thank you.

In case you have not been paying attention, some of us work for a living. I also have a wife and a 4-year old daughter who's needs I occasionally consider more important than the rantings of arm-chair super sleuths who think they have a lock-on the truth.

Now, to your remarks.

SCOTT:
I have practically every document that relates to the Zodiac case, so where do you want to start?

BRUCE:
Where ever you like. How about the FBI?

SCOTT:
Show me "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that we have a set of Z's prints, and that those prints were compared to ALA's and didn't match. Don't back down on me now. You're not just making claims without backing them up are you?

BRUCE:
First, it wasn't the "Stine" prints I was referring to, but since you mentioned it, the fact that there is blood on them (even a little), and the fact that everyone at the scene was supposedly accounted for, seems to have at least given SFPD some confidence that the prints belong to the killer. They certainly have used them to compare against a lot of suspects!

I agree that this does not guarantee, with 100 percent certainty, that the prints are the killer's, but the indications are very strong that they are; much stronger than some are willing to admit, I think.

The prints I'm most interested in, however, are the many latents that were lifted from the Z-writings. In stead of detailing these here, please see Jake Wark's article at his site (http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/prints.html). Even if it can be shown (and I'm not saying it can) that some or even all of these are incomplete prints that could not present enough matching points against any particular suspect to prove 100 percent identity in a court of law (9-12 points is pretty standard, with special circumstances allowed for especially original patterns, such as scars and the like) does not exclude them as potent evidence to investigators, who can and do use such partials in helping to make ID's in their investigations. For this reason, the presence of even some matching points would be good evidence in favor of a suspect who matched them; and conversely, a suspect for whom no matches could be made at all would be strong evidence for exclusion.

We all had a huge discussion on this issue a few months ago. Do you remember that?

If Allen's prints had matched any prints that they have found (even to a lesser degree) then we would not be having this discussion. Do you agree or disagree?

Moreover, are you really suggesting that Allen's prints have not been rigorously examined against both the Stine prints and latents taken from Z-letters? Because if that's what you are suggesting then I would like for you to say it for the record. From my understanding, Allen had once been "dismissed as a suspect" precisely because there was no match!

Furthermore, in case you aren't aware of the laws in this land, people are considered innocent until proven otherwise. The DEFENSE is under no obligation to prove anything! Nor am I under any obligation to "demonstrate a better suspect" as Tom so enjoys spouting whenever he's pressed with those nagging questions about little things like physical evidence! A suspect's viability does not rest on whether or not one, five, ten or zero other "good suspects" can be presented; it lives and dies on it's own evidence and THAT is what people need to be reminded about in this case! Every new person who surfs in to Tom's site after watch his mug on the History channel will see Allen plastered all over the place and immediately conclude that it's an open-and-shut case which is anything but the truth!

We have yet to see even one speck of physical evidence linking Allen to any Z-crimes or writings, so there is plenty of "reasonable doubt" as to his being Z, and the onus is on YOU, not me, to prove otherwise. But after 30+ years with so many personal witch hunts going on to find that one elusive piece of physical evidence coming to naught, at some point one must stand back and reevaluate their motives. If you disagree with this then I would like to know at what point you would see it to be unreasonable to continue down that same path? Ten more years? Twenty? Never?

Cheers,

Bruce Monson

Bruce: Okay, WHERE in the FBI files does it show that ALA's prints were compared to the bloody prints found on Stine's cab and that ALA was summarily dismissed because of a "no match"? In fact, where in the files does it show that the bloody prints were compared to ANY suspect? I've read all of Jake's info, so quit using him as an "authority" on the case! I'll admit that he has his s$#@ wired pretty tight, but I'd prefer documentation from SFPD, the FBI, or the CA DOJ, with regard to the bloody prints. All I've been able to locate is that the SFPD "believes" the prints to be that of the perp's in the Stine case. Nowhere do I see any indication that the prints DEFINITELY belong to the perp.

You wrote: "We have yet to see one speck of physical evidence linking Allen to any Z-crimes or writings." Yes, but the same can be said of ALL of the major suspects in the case.

I'll "reevaluate (my) motives" when the case against ALA falls apart completely. I want to know who Z was as much as anyone, and I won't adhere to theories which simply don't hold their weight, but this hasn't proven to be the case with ALA; not in my mind, at least not yet. I haven't claimed that ALA was Z beyond reasonable doubt. But, at the same time, I've yet to see anything that proves he wasn't Z beyond a reasonable doubt. My position is not one of a prosecutor's, but rather one of an investigator's. I freely admit, there isn't enough info to present to a DA for prosecution, but such is the case with all of the suspects. I'll jump off of the ALA bandwagon when enough evidence surfaces to justify doing so. In other words, when the CA DOJ, for instance, proclaims that "the fingerprints which show traces of blood DEFINITELY belonged to the perpetrator of the Stine murder, and these prints have been compared to ALL known suspects without a match," then I'll pursue a different avenue of investigation. Until then, I'll pursue any suspect I choose.

BTW, I've read and reread all of the posts with regards to the fingerprints, and yet, I've still found nothing that implies, with reason, that ALA should be dismissed as a suspect. Additionally, it wasn't "Tom's mug" on the History Channel that led me to suspect ALA as possibly being Z; nor was it Graysmith's book. Instead, it was deduced on my own behalf for reasons that apparently have flown right over your head. I have no problem in throwing everything out of the window in favor of a new course of investigation. However, I feel that such an action would be a bit premature at this point.

BTW #2: How many times was Ted Bundy summarily "dismissed" by the Seattle PD? Two? Three? But when it came time to call in the cards who was left holding the highest hand? Hmmm. Ted Bundy. Pretty interesting, isn't it?

Now, which page of the FBI files would you like to start at? CA DOJ report? SFPD report? Show me where it says something other than "believed" when referring to ANY of the latents. I have a family also, so don't think that I'm not having to steal every available moment to post on this site. I am just trying to help solve this case; I could care less if ALA proves not to be the guy. Closure is what I'm seeking; not heroism or an "I told you so" opportunity. How about you?

Scott

Scott wrote:
"I haven't claimed that ALA was Z beyond reasonable doubt. But, at the same time, I've yet to see anything that proves he wasn't Z beyond a reasonable doubt."

What evidence would prove to you that ALA "wasn't Z beyond a reasonable doubt?" Proving a negative is very difficult, if not impossible. It is not the responsibility of someone attacking a theory to provide an alternative explanation (although that is one strategy that can be employed). Simply chipping away at the evidence (or emphasizing the lack of evidence) offered in support of a theory is often sufficient to cast serious doubt on a theory (if not cause its outright rejection). Again, those who offer and advocate a theory for its truth value (not those who offer theories to spur discussion, etc.) have the burden of proving the truth of the theory using evidence.

More from Scott:
"Additionally, it wasn't "Tom's mug" on the History Channel that led me to suspect ALA as possibly being Z; nor was it Graysmith's book. Instead, it was deduced on my own behalf for reasons that apparently have flown right over your head."

They've flown over my head, as well. Graysmith and Tom have explained their reasons for naming ALA, would you explain your reasons which you "deduced on [your] own behalf"?

Yet more Scott:
"[Monson] wrote: 'We have yet to see one speck of physical evidence linking Allen to any Z-crimes or writings.' Yes, but the same can be said of ALL of the major suspects in the case."

Arguing that nobody else has done any better than those advocating ALA doesn't inevitably lead to the conclusion that ALA must be Z. If anything, such reasoning leads one to conclude that none of the current "major suspects" is Z.

Monson wrote:
"I would like to know at what point you would see it to be unreasonable to continue down that same path? Ten more years? Twenty? Never?"

Scott replied:
"I have no problem in throwing everything out of the window in favor of a new course of investigation. However, I feel that such an action would be a bit premature at this point."

"A bit premature"? As Bruce (and Jake and others) have pointed out, ALA has been THE SUSPECT of several local law enforcement agencies (specifically SFPD and VPD) for four decades, including one after his death. Z could still be out there (probably not "doing [his] thing"), alive, and we're focusing the majority of our attention on a guy who has been dead for ten years.

Now, I am not categorically dismissing ALA as Z, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to question the evidence against him (or any other suspect). If anything, the successful refutation of these questions will make the case in favor of ALA as Z stronger and stronger. For those who believe that ALA was Z, such questions should be welcomed as opportunities to "convert" the "infidels" and "agnostics" (like Monson and Jake, respectively).


Spencer

In fairness ,we had all this S%$T before.We are now getting back to the old days where ALA,s viability as a suspect was being discussed up and down every thread on this board.If you feel the need to re-visit all this at least do it in the appropriate section PLEASE.And let's be honest about it,it's not even about ALA with some

I thought this was the appropriate section.

Spencer: You have raised some very valid points but have apparently missed the issue. BruceM has continued to attack every post that singles out ALA as a viable suspect. All I'm asking for is his reasons for doing so. I'm not a criminal prosecutor and this is not a court room. If I were a prosecutor, as mentioned before, I wouldn't feel that enough evidence exists to successfully prosecute ALA. However, this has nothing to do with ALA's viability as a "suspect." The job of an investigator is to locate enough evidence connected to a viable suspect until a DA feels that the case can be successfully taken into a court of law. Of course the burden of proof resides in my arena. However, in all fairness, I would like either you, BruceM, Jake, or any other person who disagrees with me to demonstrate why ALA is not a viable suspect. Isn't this exactly what a DA would have to demonstrate to an investigator if he/she found that the investigator's suspect was deemed not triable? Just because the majority of the evidence against ALA is circumstantial doesn't mean that incriminating evidence does not exist. However, I do believe that it is possible that a good majority of the incriminating stuff is probably gone forever now. You can probably thank SFPD for choosing not to get a search warrant in '71 to search ALA's home at 32 Fresno St. for that. In any case, I'VE yet to find a single piece of evidence or documentation that suggests that ALA is no longer worth pursuing. Until such "proof" surfaces, I'll continue to try and make links between ALA and Z.

Also, you said, "would you explain your reasons which you 'deduced on [your] own behalf'? Allow me to answer your question with another question. Do you honestly believe that Tom and Graysmith are the only ones to have perpetuated the theory that ALA might possibly have been Z? I first heard of ALA in the early 90's, although I refuse to name the source because a) his (ALA's) name was given to me in confidence and b) it's none of your business. Let's just say that it was given to me by, as Jake so frequently says, "someone close to the case." I will say, however, that my suspicions about ALA came from someone within law enforcement who was sharing certain information with my father (who was also in law enforcement at the time). I'd first read Graysmith's book when it was first published; although at the time I had no idea as to who "Bob Starr" was. I was able to make the connection between ALA and "Bob Starr" when I overheard my father and another police officer discussing ALA in the early 90's. Okay, that's really more than I wanted to reveal, but there it is, just the same.

Lapumo: I realize that "we had all this S%$T before," but apparently there hasn't been enough of it, as this current thread indicates. I agree with Doug when he said, "I thought this was the appropriate section." However, I'll leave that for Tom to decide, and will respect his wishes whatever they may be.

Sincerely,
Scott

Scott-very good points! You brought up the SFPD not searching the 32 Fresno address and if I'm not mistaken an additional trailer besides the one that WAS searched! I mentioned this to Tom how this was such a crucial mistake and he said that it was difficult enough to get just one search warrant. I'm inclined to believe what he said was true but is this an "across the board" kind of thing with all counties? I imagine the fact that SFPD was going out of it's jurisdiction
had alot to do with it but in your fathers exper-
ince did he ever encounter a situation where they needed multiple search warrants? And of course I believe as you do that vital incriminating evidence was thrown out or lost and the end result would be that the titwillo phrase wouldn't be as big an issue as it is. (Of course I'm not even talking about the evidence they DO have and aren't moving on-the waiting game continues!)
-Mark

Mark: Well, seeing how it's Father's Day and I needed to give good ol' pops a call anyway, I went ahead and asked him about multiple search warrants. He said that it would have been very difficult for Armstrong and Toschi to have obtained multiple search warrants, especially considering the fact that ALA's sometime places of residence were in three different jurisdictions. I'm not sure if Toschi and Armstrong even requested a search warrant for ALA's mother's home. I'll bet anything that they wish they could do it all over again. Unfortunately, we'll never know what his mother's house contained in '71. I honestly feel that it is this fact that has contributed to the largest gaps in finding physical evidence linking ALA to Z. Oh well, wish in one hand and s%$# in the other . . .

Scott

Ps. Mark: In short, my father said that there is no such thing as a "blanket" search warrant. In order to search all three residences, the police would have to have obtained three separate warrants.

Maybe this shows how different departments don't work together. If all three jurisdictions obtained search warrants for the same date they may have had different results other than a just dildo and Zodiac watch. Politics prevailed.

Is it any wonder that fully emerged serial killers remain so elusive for so long? Kill one person in this county with a gun, kill another victim in a different county with a knife . . .

And then you have guys like Lucas and Bundy who confuse things even further by murdering in different states.

It makes me think that an author like Joel Norris, despite his overt sensationalism and misrepresentation of certain facts, actually makes a pretty convincing argument when he theorizes that serial killers are not only a national epidemic, but a public health issue as well. Perhaps we could discuss that in a different or new thread.

Scott

Scott-Thanks for questioning your Dad, I completely forgot that we were talking about three seperate counties here! And of course I think it's more than just a coincidence, I think ALA knew just what kind of problems these multiple residences in different jurisdictions would present. Just like the Z crimes. If my memory serves me right when Tom answered my question he mentioned that Toschi and Armstrong didn't attempt to get a warrant for his mothers house-they had a hard enough time getting one for the trailer. I'm not sure that there isn't still evidence on the property at 32 Fresno that was hidden.
Esau-I think this is one of the prime examples of how the lack of cooperation between law enforcement botched a potential break in the case!
-Mark

Scott-you snuck a post in while I was writing-yes start a new thread!
-Mark

Mark, When Allen died, VPD went in and did a sonar test looking for any hidden rooms. I wish they could purchase the house and tear it down to see if anything would turn up.
Bruce D.

Bruce-Thanks for the information, it's refreshing to hear that VPD went to such lengths-did they do any scanning of the grounds for buried items? I think it's likely that if ALA was Z he hid some of the victims possessions somewhere. -Mark

Actually, because both Z and ALA, if not one in the same, were both cowards to the nth degree, I'm under the assumption that in all likelihood 99.9% of the physical evidence against him/them was probably destroyed. I suppose, however, that it is possible that Z, always the one for media attention (another possible commonality between Z and ALA, BTW), just might have left a time capsule of sorts that was intended to be discovered posthumously. Wishful thinking again, sorry folks.

Scott

Apparently, the current owners of 32 Fresno have had the house treated for termites (as I recall) on at least three occasions, and no one ever found any secret rooms or anything. That does not preclude, however, a "time capsule" buried in the backyard or hidden elsewhere...

Ed-Exactly what I've been thinking-I've got a strong suspicion that something is buried in the backyard of that house, or at the very least elsewhere. -Mark

Tom,
The article in question mentions Allen's car being full of beer bottles it also mentions a particular brand.At LB I believe one of the items taken into evidence was a beer bottle!.I just wondered if it was the same type?If you know.

Ed:
"Apparently, the current owners of 32 Fresno have had the house treated for termites (as I recall) on at least three occasions, and no one ever found any secret rooms or anything. That does not preclude, however, a 'time capsule' buried in the backyard or hidden elsewhere..."

How about we all show up at 32 Fresno with shovels and start digging?* Imagine the reaction of the current residents.

Spencer

*Disclaimer: Spencer assumes no responsibility for the actions of those who choose to take my "suggestion" too seriously.

Spencer-The disclaimer was a good idea (ha ha!), I've got my folding GI shovel already packed! We'll just tell them we're putting in a pool-see you there bright and early tomorrow! -Mark

Lapumo, I recall reading an fbi document that mentions the bottle as being green. The brand of beer mentioned in the article comes in brown bottles. I have posted before about this bottle and its significance, if any. Never could confirm if it was really z's though. Classic

Thanks Classic,It was a long shot anyway.

It's been almost three months since this big "titwillow" development. I thought there was more to come. Does this Ledger-Dispatch reporter have more to tell?

They have great digital metal detectors.Someone, to satisfy curiousty alone, should ask the'32 Fresno owners if they would let someone in the yard with a detector.They can be rented by the day/week.Ed?Z Vallejoites?

Mt first day out with my detector, I found a brass Teddy Roosevelt election badge and a silver sugar spoon from the famous hotel Coronada in S.D.and it was in a back yard with owner permission!

Stay out of my backyard Howard:-). I'm also eager to see what's become of the "Titwillow" earwitnesses.This is some of the strongest evidence toward ALA. Any updates?

Tom, does that reporter from Calaveras County really have more "titwillo" info or is he full of it? I mean, sitting on a story this important for 3 months? Oh, Titwillo, Titwillo, Titwillo...........

He has more. However, essentially duplicating what he wrote several months ago isn't what his editor is looking for.

When there is a development in the case, I'm sure you will see a follow-up story.