Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Why Allen looks like the best suspect

Why does Allen looks like a better suspect than the others?
I think it's because there are more files on Allen in the open than of the others.
Love him or hate him, but Tom Voight has a way of getting info from several sources.
Does Allen only look better as a suspect than the others because we know more about him?
Is it in the quantity (something else than quality)of his files?

That makes me wonder...What would happen if Tom seriously tried to get his hands on more files about for example Kane (police-questioning report etc.)?

Eduard

Eduard, good point. I've been reading here for about 6 months and have read some interesting facts and ideas. Allen looks like a key candidate, but I don't think Z is Allen. Alot points to him, but some things don't match. I don't have a suspect, although knowing 1 suspect in the early 70's. Would be nice to know as much about Kane as Allen. I think Tom has done a great job and amazes me with his knowledge and info.

Socal:Tom has been able to obtain more info ,etc. on Allen than all the police Agencies(lets throw in the FBI!)combined-and that is to his credit big time!But, this also includes straight Zodiac evidence and general information too.No none has come close!

None of the other suspects wave warranted as much investigation as Allen.

Lawrence Kane?
1) Pam Huckaby's claims aside, Kane can't be placed in Riverside, Vallejo or Napa. Period.

2) Kane suffered extensive brain damage in an early 1960s accident that rendered him virtually incapable of driving a car, let alone pulling off a string of capers like the Zodiac crimes.

If this makes Kane seem like Allen's equal (or even Ted Kaczynski's) as a Zodiac suspect, I can't help you.

I think one of the best reasons that Allen is NOT Zodiac is for the very reasons mentioned above. All that wealth of information and still not a single shred of evidence that Allen is a killer. We know he was a pedophile, we know he was weird, so what? You know that old adage about the DUCK, well Allen doesn't look like the duck, he doesn't walk like the duck, etc. -- Perhaps he is not the duck.
I think Allen started looking suspicious and what with low self-esteem and all, he played it up, showing off his Zodiac watch, telling friends. Then when he realized he was in too deep and it may prevent him from employment, etc. he attempted to turn it around (hence the letter), but the damage was done. It is very difficult to try to prove a negative.

Tom, if Kane's brain damage was so very extensive, how did he manage to obtain his real estate license, and it is not easy covering all those documents. Plus wasn't that a driver's license shown on the recent Z program, reflecting a tanned, graying Kane (looking just like a Palm Springs realtor to me)?
Furthermore, wouldn't Det. Hines have mentioned it if Kane was the brain-damaged incompetent village idiot that you make him out to be?

Howard, agree that Tom has researched more than police, fbi, etc. Like I said, he has done a tremendous job. I don't know who Z is or have a suspect in mind that I think is Z. I just don't think it is Allen.

Kane didn't legally obtain any license until decades after his accident.

Brain cells do not regenerate.

Good thing Sylvie is around to learn us good teachins.

Tell you what, Sylvie; since Kane is such a great suspect, but I'm too blind to see it, how about you getting off your (probably) fat ass and doing something, ok?

Until then, find another topic to beat into the ground.

I don't even think Kane is a strong suspect. Just try real hard to use rational thinking, it will make your own case for or against whomever more plausible. I would never want to "win" on lousy reasoning.

P.S. Tom,
I really do not think one's pulchritude or lack thereof has the slightest thing to do with this case, can we keep it on a cerebral level?

Tom, I don't think telling someone to get off their fat ass is the way to solve the Zodiac case.
Zodiac told the police to do the same thing and well... 30+ years later...

I just read this long thread after driving around all day,and I am very tired-BUT ONE OF YOU POSTERS SAID SOMETHING that maybe qualifies me as a GENIUS. I'm too tired to go back and check who said what about whom -BUT EITHER ANYBODY CAN OBTAIN A CALIF REAL ESTATE LICENSE or MAYBE I AM JUST SUPER INTELLIGENT. About 30 years ago I studied, not too hard either, for the CALIF. REAL ESTATE EXAM( I CONSIDER MYSELF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE). Well, I took the exam in a room in San Francisco with about,it seemed so long ago about 250-300 people, maybe more. It was my first try. I passed and was the F-O-U-R-T-H one finished!!!!! It was a snap. I never even used the license.
My point is . Either anybody can pass the CA Real Estate exam or maybe I am (BUT I DON'T THUNK SO A REAL GENIUS!!!!!)
P.S. Anything through life ,that I had a KEEN interest in I did pick up easy though.
Bruce D.

And actually Tom Dear,
once again you made an assumption without knowing all the facts. Some posters on this board already are aware that I am very much off my bottom and doing some investigative work, with relation to this case. So sorry, I did not know I needed to report all my findings to you.

Speaking of things cerebral, Sylvie, you might like to know that brain cells do, in fact, regenerate.

Allen is unquestionably the best suspect, but I'd sure like to know just what in the hell was/is going on with Penn and O'Hare. O'Hare is without a doubt the smartest suspect, and he was in the areas in question at the time, unless Penn was lying about that, too.

Zodiac as a hyper-intelligent commuter makes a lot of sense.

Boojum, I might take exception to your remark that O'Hare is the "smartest suspect."

People,

I started this thread just for discussion not to go one on one on a personal level.

Tom, I mensioned Kane as an example, any other name could have been used also.

The question I had:
Does a suspect from which we know more about, is a better suspect than suspects we know less about.

Sometimes I see evidence shown for a suspect to be Z. because he was once questioned by the police about Z).
A suspect questioned by the police doesn't mean he was Zodiac.

See yeah,

Eduard

Douglas, I appreciate the work you've done on Ted, but I'm still unconvinced that he did any more than write the FC Manifesto.

O'Hare is not only the most intelligent suspect, he also has demonstrated an extremely arch sense of humor, way beyond any of the others.

Allen remains the best suspect owing to the extraordinary array of "zynchronicities" linking him to the case, but I'm uncertain that he had the wit to pull off the Z actions.

And I'd still like to know the REAL story about what got Penn going on O'Hare as a suspect in the first place. Penn's account of it is the first in a series of obvious lies.

I would say that ALA is the best suspect for the following reasons:

1. Boojum wrote, "owing to the extraordinary array of "zynchronicities" linking him to the case. I agree.

2. If you really think about it, there isn't that much info with regard to ALA. And of the information that is available, much of it is either incriminating or self-incriminating. This sort of information simply does not exist with the other suspects.

3. With regard to other suspects, which one besides ALA fits the physical descriptions of Z? This question should be interpreted rhetorically but, in case not: TK, correct me if I'm wrong, never even approximated 230 - 250lbs.* In fact, my guess is that he has never even weighed 200 pounds in his entire life. The same can be said for Bruce Davis, although he has yet another problem: He had long, hippie-like hair at the time of the Zodiac crimes.

4. There is information to be found on all of the other suspects (Marshall, O'Hare, Kane, etc.). However, when examined, there simply aren't as many indicators pointing to them. Like Sylvie was saying, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a friggin' duck.

5. For those of you waiting to lambaste me about the "incriminating" and "self-incriminating" stuff, allow me to point this out: The conversation that ALA had with his friends while hunting is just one example of testimony that demonstrates both types of incrimination. Right?

*I know what the SFPD composite says with regard to Zodiac's weight. However, I'm inclined to believe the testimony and evidence provided at Lake Berryessa. IMHO, the shoe imprint analysis when compared to Hartnell's testimony is more evidentiary than the eyewitness testimony provided at Presidio Heights.

A few thoughts,

Scott

Scott,
I refer you to my present posts regarding your statements about Davis and his hair length and my past posts about the weight issue.

He is not to be rejected so easily because of the two pronouncements.Do we reject Allen because he was bald?No!Our witnesses saw hair on Zodiac.See Hatnells' statement(and the others) I quote from just recently -and tonight.We see the use of a wig then?If for ALA then for BMD too.

Nor do we reject ALA because he passed a lengthy lie detector test; did not match as to prints and there was no go on his writing by world authority on Zodiacs writing Sherwood Morrill.

We all know there is great depth to this most comlicated ,but solvable case.So we are careful to know all the ins and outs of each subject and suspect ,including Davis.I have seen a great deal of ignorance regarding Davis and his background,etc., but I realize that poster has not done a thourough background.

We all have focused on different suspects so let's all learn from each other and not jump to erroneous conclusions -and that goes for me too!You have done an excellent job of research,but I am referring to posters in the past.I am mainly addressing your recent Davis post -two points-in particular.

No one weighed Zodiac so it is an estimate.Ed in my view exploded the myth that the perp had to be 225lbs at LB as his own shoe impressions went deep into that soil.He was not wearing military boot either.I have done the same thing and I am about 187 lbs!There is no evidentiary weight(no pun intended!)to the boot compaction "test".

I have read anti detection books and they tell one how to walk to throw witnesses off as one(the suspect) may, in reality ,have a different style of walking.

These books also speak of making 'deep impressions' (if one wants to leave a good impression I guess!)in soil if one has to be on earth while committing a crime ,as it can leave a false impression as to weight.

Witnesses told me Davis looked "heavy."He would go on'eatng binges'and gain a lot of weight and when on speed he would lose weight rapdly but they told me he still looked "muscular."Paul Watkins said Davis was "stocky with a large angular face... and a tight lipped expression."

We really need to know the suspects before we make staements of fact.I have been very judicious regarding other suspects.

The L.A. Times said "Davis looked "husky"(12/2/70.

I meant did NOT pass the lie detector test.

Howard wrote:

"Nor do we reject ALA because he passed a lengthy lie detector test; did not match as to prints and there was no go on his writing by world authority on Zodiacs writing Sherwood Morrill."

Howard,

You know that I respect your work as a researcher. However, and please pardon my ignorance if I'm overlooking something, ALA never took a lie detector test like the one you described ("lengthy"). Secondly, I'm of the opinion that the prints from the Stine cab are irrelevant: It is not known if any of the prints belonged to Zodiac or not. Therefore, the prints, as you know, are still a source of debate. Finally, ALA could write with both hands, and we both know that, when writing samples are being used for comparison purposes, a suspect can consciously alter his/her style of writing.

My point is relatively simple: There are more "indicators" pointing to ALA than to any other suspect. Does this make ALA the Zodiac? Well, no. However, it would be naive to exclude him from the list. Until he can be excluded from the list with 100% accuracy, we've no choice but to keep him on the "most probable" list, do we?

Also, it's easier to disguise a bald head with a crew-cut than to do the same with a head of long hair, don't you think? And, as far as the weight estimate at LB goes, I would imagine that the conditions of the soil would vary wildly depending on the time of year and the lapse of time between subsequent comparisons. IMHO, the impression tests done within a day or two of the actual crime would be far more accurate than similar tests done elsewhere along the timeline between then and now.

Respectfully,

Scott

Scott,

I was referring to Allens interview where he stated he took a lie detector test that was "ten hours"long and that he said he "passed." Regardless, of how many hours it was-he was correct, he passed at that time.It has been my understanding that it was a 'thorough'(lengthy?) test and might well it should have been as this was their golden opportunity to test Allen.If there is proof that the test was a quickly and done in a shoddy manner then I will immediately revise my eval.I own a polygraph(a portable Stolting) and respect them.


He also says that when he did pass they said he was a "sociopath" and that's why he could successfully deceive the operator!

Again, this is not a refutation of Allen being a viable suspect-he is-but a simple declaration that he did pass that test.Preimer Zodiac Expert Dave Peterson told me, based on info he had ,Allen passed.I value and deeply respect Daves opinion."Indicators" pointing to a suspect are fine if they are not subject to serious challenge and refutation.If they are then he still retains suspect status, but as you pointed out it does not prove he is Zodiac .DNA will speak soon on that matter.

I knew the late Document Expert Henry Silver and he had many long years of experience and he told -and showed me-that it doesn't matter if a suspect writes with both hands(bi handed!)-or feet for that matter;he was trained to determine deceptive writing,just as Morrill was.One of their responsibilities is to determine if there was a forgery perpetrated and if the writing was DISGUISED.I have studied handwriting since the 70's and I can certainly agree with these Experts on this issue.

In reference to your it's "easier to disguise a bald head"is something I don't place credence in. Zodiac taking 'short cuts' or always doing everything the 'easy' way is hard to fathom after knowing at LB he sewed a hood, costume and doing that "ingeniously devised" ,as Hartnell called it-cross/circle;then donning all the garb along with holster/gun,rope,boots,'clenches'(blousing rubbers?) at ankles,etc.,was 'easy'!Whoever was under that hood didn't do 'easy' that day(and during the Stine attack!) for sure!I don't think it was a crew-cut as H used the word 'combed' in reference to his observation of the perps hair.No, it is just as 'easy 'to put a wig over long hair (which my suspect didn't have to do or dye his hair to become dark brown!)if you want to compare Z's elaborate preparations that day!It pales in comparison.

The soil thing has been discussed by other posters-including myself, so I leave it there.I'll dig my heels in on this.

Howard,

I don't doubt the validity of polygraph tests in most cases, but if anybody could pass one while lying, I believe it would be Zodiac. Another example: British SAS soldiers, and other elite military units, are often trained to defeat such tests in case of capture.

As for the handwriting, Tom has examples posted right here on his website that even a layman can detect. Granted, it's those tiny nuances that an expert can detect, which laymen can't, that separates the degree of certainty, so I'll defer on this . . . for now.

I was never implying that Zodiac took "the easy way out" at any time. Rather, I was stating a fact: It would be easier to disguise a bald head than a head full of hair. Is that not true? Regardless of the other preparations taken by Zodiac for LB, my statement is true. No matter who was the perp at LB, the preparations were the same, so I guess I'm missing your point. It has nothing to do with "Zodiac taking 'short cuts' or always doing everything the 'easy' way." I never said that whatsoever.

Furthermore, why is Hartnell's testimony being compared to testimony taken from BRS and PH with regard to hair? If ALA was Zodiac, he wouldn't have needed a crew-cut disguise at Lake Berryessa. Therefore, his big ol' sloppy, beer drinkin', sweatin' while he eats, melon, would have been sporting longer, combed hair. He wasn't entirely bald, he did have hair, and his hair was long enough to comb. Personally, I think way too much emphasis is being placed on Hartnell's testimony with regard to Zodiac's hair; Zodiac was wearing a hood, for Pete's sake.

As for the soil issue, I too stand by my earlier posts with regard to this matter.

Believe me, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I simply feel that I'm offering genuine reasoning with regard to the subject matter and train of thought within this thread.

Scott

I've been following this thread and it has occurred to me that no one has mentioned the fact that Allen's therapist identified him as a sociopath by their second or third session (at least according to the Graysmith book.) Would this not be a relevant point?

Regardless of whether that "author" was correct in that instance, the fact that Allen could live with himself while molesting and threatening to kill children makes him a sociopath in my book.

I can relate to your sentiment, but there are several psychological conditions that could account for someone being a guilt free, child molesting scumbag, such as antisocial personality disorder and different kinds of psychosis; I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that serial killers like Zodiac always fall into the sociopath category in particular, which is why I thought it might be relevant.

Scott,

I was just relating the fact Allen passed the LDT-everyone else,including me,can only render personal opinions period!I prefer to stay in the researcher realm of fact.

Handwriting is very tricky to be sure.You don't just look for similarities that is only a small part of the examination.There are plenty of Zodiac- like handwriting exemplars-that is, it looks like Zodiacs writing,but these people are not Zodiac!I accept the work of the only world authority on Zodiacs writing -though he be dead-Sherwood Morrill.

If someone can show me a heavier caliber Expert with the same qualifications, background,experience and time worked on Zodiacs writing then I will reconsider.If he were alive it would be Dr.Henry Silver, but even he did not have the "hours" in!

I to am offering "genuine reasoning" within this thread too! I say it was not a matter of 'ease' as to whether Zodiac utilized a wig at anytime.

If Z felt it was necessary("I shall not tell you what my disguise consists of...") then he would, no doubt, have used one whether at LHR,BRS,LB or at S.F.(or if it be accepted at Maze RD.)or if there is a so called difficulty in applying a wig.It is not 'ease' as we know Zodiac didn't do 'easy' on anything when one thinks about it.I could offer many such examples.I guess I am still perplexed why you brought the "easier" thing up.In hard core assessments it doesn't fit in here for sure.But,it is your opinion and I respect it.

As to the 'bald' reference I refer you to my post today.We don't know Zodiacs 'real' hair color,texture,length or style it still is a matter of debate.All we can do is go by what library observers at Riverside(if it be accepted that Z was in the library that night),Nikki Benedicts friend(5/1/67 in Poway if it be Z), Mageau,Hartnell.,the three S.F.teens,the two Officers and possibly (I believe she did see Z)Kathleen Johns said they saw.

The soil issue is as before stuck in the mud-not something to wig out over!!Good post-they usually are!You should be a detective.I am too right brained to do be one -I want to do things my way so it would be the highway!And I don't like poice steak or donuts-well,sometimes.

Scott;I just noted in going over posts that you state that "too much emphasis" is being placed on Hartnells description of the perps hair and that he was wearing a hood so how could such testimony be efficacious.

Yes,the perp was wearing a hood, but one that had eye apertures in it and H could see inside that hood and therefore,see his hair.
I have already quoted(please read them!) from PD Reports(pl.!) where Hartnell told the Officer/s when asked the same thing;he could SEE -IN the openings for the eyes- in the hood ,and he could see,in the daylight at CLOSE RANGE,"DARK BROWN HAIR...that was...GREASY."(EMP mine)

Hartnell, from reading the Reports,is seen as a witness that was 'determined' to note all he could as he thought he would be giving the police a full report as to the perps identity and mannerisms ,including hair color,voice and what he was wearing,etc.Like it or not H 'strived',according to his statements,to get a good view of the perps hair and he could see it was dark brown ,greasy and capable of being 'combed.'

I think the obvious point is that the perp must have had a good deal of "greasy hair" for it to have been seen at all thru the eye slits.

Why is this turning into a LB debate? There are already 100 threads for that.

Howard,

Read my most recent post on the "Here it is...again...Allen and the wig" thread. I believe Lynch's dismissal of ALA as a suspect in '71 was a major blunder.

Please keep in mind that I'm arguing in favor of ALA as a viable suspect, but at the same time, am not ruling-out any of the other suspects. Well, not all of them anyway. I still consider Davis a viable suspect.

Scott

Howard wrote: "I am still perplexed why you brought the "easier" thing up."

Here is what I wrote about the "easier thing": "(I)t's easier to disguise a bald head with a crew-cut than to do the same with a head of long hair, don't you think?"

I don't understand where the confusion is. Isn't my statement a simple fact?

Scott

Mistake correction:

I wrote: "Lynch's dismissal of ALA as a suspect in '71 . . ."

I meant, "1969."

O'Hare is still viable.

Sure he is, if we discount the fact he can't be placed west of the Mississippi during the murders.

Scott,

Yes,you're statement is a "simple fact", but I don't know what it REALLY has to do with Zodiac within our CONTEXTUAL setting.A lot of things could and are "easy", but what does this have to do with Zodiac?It just -in my view-is not germane to our discussion.We were NOT at LB so all we can do is examine the only living witness' statements he has left us.It's easy!Tom is right I'm done.

Was Penn lying about O'Hare's travels in the west on behalf of the Arthur D. Little firm?

MOH "acknowledges once being assigned to Arthur D. Little's San Francisco Office," but denies taking part in the Forest Pines project ("Author targets Harvard lecturer in Zodiac case," Boston Herald, 29 October 1987).

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

MOH is now apparently in Berkeley. Is Penn making anything of this?

There are already other O'Hare threads.

Tom,

Good-talk about straying off course.