Serial Crossovers


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Serial Crossovers

By Invinc (ip124.white-plains10.ny.pub-ip.psi.net - 38.32.89.124) on Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 10:53 pm:

Dear Chrissy, Tom,etc.

"I have yet to see a serial-pedophile switch targets so radically as would be needed if what Mr. Graysmith said about the late Mr. Allen is at all true. (If anyone knows of some closed criminal cases contrary to this—please let me hear of them.)"

Arthur Shawcross was caught and convicted for the rape murders of two children in Watertown, NY. 1972. He was released in 1987 and after bouncing around a few upstate towns that wouldn’t have a known pedophile living among them, he managed to settle in Rochester, where he began murdering prostitutes, eleven at least. Also, Ted Bundy, after his famous escape from court and flight to Florida, abducted and murdered a 12-year old girl. This was after his psyche broke down from organized to disorganized killings.
Exceptions to the rule can proliferate for any number of reasons. Zodiac changed MO several times, from knife to gun, from stalker to ‘random’ shooter. He did a lot of hunting and taunting and if Graysmith is to be believed, then he also made a number of opportunistic kills in and around Santa Rosa. In other words, he let his whole MO drop – hitch hikers are a high-risk victim pool and he would have known it.
Zodiac seems to demonstrate a number of exceptions to the rules of criminal behavior but none of this says for certain that he was a pedophile.
I started this new conversation to hopefully give a constructive view for the folks of "Other reasons..." The angle everyone agrees on is that a pedophile doesn't suddenly switch his victim pool.
But what stops a serial killer from altering his? While I don't mean to necessarily further any case against Allen, serial killers have always been difficult to group.

By Tom Voigt (acaa8306.ipt.aol.com - 172.170.131.6) on Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 11:25 pm:

Quite simply, Zodiac's motives were quite different than most other serial killers.
With that in mind, I think it's ridiculous to exclude a suspect because of his sexual nature.

By Bruce D. (pm3-02-02.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.16.130) on Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 11:50 pm:

Again like I've said before not everyone has to fit a criminal profile. According the Gestalt theory of psychology a person's past may sometimes indicate nothing about his present behavior. He or she may act and feel completely independent of their life experiences. Or they may act completely in sync with their lifetime experiences and anything in between. Maybe if Z was ever identified, new ground may be broken in criminal psychology. I always thought that the study of the human psyche was a constantly developing thing and then if we throw anthropology in we have endless variables to consider because then the conditions that serve as the backdrop for the person we are studying can result in an infinitesimal number of results and we would be profiling from now to kingdom come.

In essence some people may fit a profile that has never been assembled as yet, but that does not excuse their guilt.
Bruce D.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-51.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.51) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 05:22 am:

Shawcross was on escalation, Bundy totally fell apart as though he was ready to face the judicial system head on. From Dr. Keppel's reasoning, Bundy assumed he would get by with all the Florida trouble. Shawcross is good though Invinc, that was two on the way up to target.

Zodiac--other than in the cover of darkness or behind his hood--never faced a victim. That says something of the confidence of the man who did these crimes. Allen, from any account I have heard thus far, did not seem reluctant to face off with anyone given the need to do so. Zodiac was a blend of traits, but none of them are particularly amazing.

Even with the Shawcross history, there is at least two other series that fit these patterns better than Bundy or Shawcross. These include letters, bragging, naming of oneself and in one case a series ending for no reason with later proof the perp was still alive. I don't understand why people seem reluctant to place Zodiac in the "just another low-esteemed male seeking glory from the deaths of worthwhile human lives." That fact smacks of more visible motivation than do all the writings on Allen as Zodiac.

CS

By geometer (192.149.1.86) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 09:59 am:

hmmm... 2 different series...

son of sam:
used knife and gun.
wrote letters to the press.
gave himself a name.
immersed himself in adolescent symbology.
often shot at couples in cars.
let's see...

he killed for sexual gratification (even though there was no overt sexual nature to the crimes), but gave various spurious motives. started his "career" as an arsonist. had a short and unsatisfying career in the military. adopted. no head injuries that i know of. dunno about bedwetting or cruelty to animals either.

frankly, i've often imagined someone a lot like berkowitz being the zodiac. i wouldn't be very surprised if z looked a lot like berkowitz. big and lumpy and ineffectual.

who's the other? jack the ripper? i doubt "his" letters were real, though.

By Tom Voigt (acaa378f.ipt.aol.com - 172.170.55.143) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 10:29 am:

Zodiac did what was necessary to kill and get away. You do that by not being seen. Killing in broad daylight without covering your face would be a tad stupid, and Allen was not stupid.

By geometer (192.149.1.86) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 11:16 am:

tom, are you saying that z was not a sexually motivated serial killer?

are you also saying that the purpose of the hood was to avoid detection?

By Tom Voigt (acaaae49.ipt.aol.com - 172.170.174.73) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 11:52 am:

I think evidence indicates Zodiac was most motivated by generating publicity through taunting the police. He changed weapons, victims, locations...everything about his crimes changed except the need to taunt the police through the news media. If Zodiac was sexually motivated, it took a backseat to his other, stronger motivations.

The hood doesn't really make sense no matter how you analyze it. Therefore, I prefer to keep it simple and logical:
Since Zodiac did not wear a hood during the Ferrin and Stine killings, the hood was apparently not terribly important (or necessary) to him. He probably created the hood to protect his identity in case he found a daytime victim. After all, one of his previous targets, Mike Mageau, survived and gave the police a description of him. (Although a poor description due to the conditions.) A surviving victim of a daytime attack would certainly have spelled trouble for a maskless Zodiac. And since Zodiac was quite fond of the theatrics of being a super villain, a dramatic, scary costume probably seemed to make most sense to him. (I believe Zodiac designed the hood/costume for the potential benefit of a surviving victim or witness. Certainly, he knew the media would gobble up a story of the madman in the executioner's mask.)

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tc064.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.179) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 02:19 pm:

Geometer wrote:
"he killed for sexual gratification (even though there was no overt sexual nature to the crimes), but gave various spurious motives. started his "career" as an arsonist. had a short and unsatisfying career in the military. adopted. no head injuries that i know of. dunno about bedwetting or cruelty to animals either."

He was a postal worker, too.

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

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tc064.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.179) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 02:28 pm:

Tom wrote:
"(I believe Zodiac designed the hood/costume for the potential benefit of a surviving victim or witness....)"

Given the amount and location of Hartnell's stab wounds, as well as the fact that Z took the time to write on the car door, I think it's a pretty good bet that the Berryessa attack was intended to be just what he called it: a double-murder. No survivors were planned, and Z sought out an area where he would not be faced with witnesses.

So why the hood? Even if it were to protect his identity, this could be done with any common item that wouldn't spell "Gas Chamber" if it were found in one's closet. I think the Berryessa attack had some private significance for Z, and the hood had some part in it.

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

By Anonymous (spider-wn032.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.162) on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 11:11 pm:

Let's not forget:

Berryessa- attack involved the use of a knife ...
It's alot harder by knife to attack two victims and be certain that you've left them for dead...
Theres the potential possibility for a struggle , the hood i'm sure had a strong impact on the victims but for certain for the "Z" it served it's purpose... hiding his identity . I'm not ruling out the other possibilities that might go along with the obvious ... Thanks , J

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-115.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.115) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 05:39 am:

The hood and costume is above and beyond what would be needed to conceal identity. It is a heavy use of prop and since it would not have meant a thing to these two young victims, it meant something to the unsub. A nylon stocking would have concealed ID enough for purpose, yet the unsub went over and beyond. I agree that it is not beyond the realm of imagination to see a sweating A.L. Allen behind that hood, but who ever was the masked man in this case was playing out a scene that was vital to that individual. There is no reason to suspect that the unsub thought anyone would survive, therefore there would be no promise that the costume would ever come to notice.

Please also note, that the actual acts were done with the victims depersonalized and that they were not laid on their backs initially. The unsub was not personally interested in these people other than their roles in his drama. This is consistent with an elevation from a blitz style attack.

Jack the Ripper's supposed letter has never been positively tied to the unsub in that case and there are experts who argue that another individual wrote it. Yet whoever the unsub was in the Z series would not know that the Ripper did not write it, because it was the theory of the day that he did. Did he use the Ripper as a model as well as other sources? We probably will never know.

CS

By Tom Voigt (ac8fc350.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.195.80) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 11:22 am:

Can we please call him Zodiac? He's not really an "unsub" since he has a name already.

Zodiac engaged in a conversation with the couple that lasted for 15-20 minutes, a considerable length of time especially considering the circumstances. Nothing blitzing about that.

They weren't laid on their backs initially.

Maybe Zodiac DID write a letter after the Napa murder, but it was lost in the mail or thrown away by someone that didn't understand the significance. Regardless, Zodiac did write a message on the car door AND call the police after the murder.

By geometer (192.149.1.86) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 11:57 am:

tom, i know it sounds picky, but i'm REALLY curious about this. did he say,

"i'm going to have to stab you"

or,

"i'm going to have to stab you people"?

i'm almost positive graysmith's report had the second sentence (although it's been 10 years since i read it).

i've always believed that the phrase, "you people" says something about the person who uses it. and since we're talking about depersonalizing his victims....

By Anonymous (spider-tq051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.66) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 02:45 pm:

Chrissy Shaw,
I will be adding my reply to your thoughts as soon as I can. Thanks , J

By Jake (Jake) (spider-tn023.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.53) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 02:47 pm:

Geometer wrote:
"i'm almost positive graysmith's report had the second sentence (although it's been 10 years since i read it).

i've always believed that the phrase, "you people" says something about the person who uses it. and since we're talking about depersonalizing his victims...."

You're right: RG's account contains the words "you people." While I agree with your assessment of the phrase and the people who use it (remember Ross Perot addressing the NAACP?), it's not in the $50 interview, so this may be one for the Apocrypha section.

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

By Tom Voigt (ac8bd8c1.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.216.193) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 05:28 pm:

In his 1966 letter to Valley Springs Elementary accepting a teaching job, Allen wrote:
"Hope to see you people soon."

By invinc (ip158.white-plains10.ny.pub-ip.psi.net - 38.32.89.158) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 05:49 pm:

According to Z's Kathleen Johns letter, she saw him up close and personal, while he insists that he wears a disguise when he goes out. No reason to think he wasn't wearing such a thing (sans hood), if Johns couldn't tell. Significance of the hood? My guess is that, like the radians 'gag,' and all the letters, it's personal. The cover of dark is a flimsy disguise all by itself, but I see where Chrissy is going with that point.
2 side notes - One, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest Berkowitz was not alone in the Son of Sam shootings (he did write one letter but it never got mailed - it was found in his car, upon capture. The handwritings between it and the other two more famous letters don't match). And Two, the Jack the Ripper letters only started when London's press sought to sensationalize the story. Central News got 2 letters (both from a hoaxter within the company) that inspired a flood of them. Among them, the best bet for a genuine missive is the letter to George Lusk, which included a kidney. Debate rages on even today, as to whether or not the kidney belonged to victim #3, Liz Stride or to a sheep.
On the whole though, Attention is something serial killers shun. The object of the game is to remain uncaught. Tom makes an interesting point about the change in Z's possible motivation. Again, if Graysmith is to be believed, if the public crimes and the ones along the highways are the same guy, then the duality of his motivation is at work simultaneously. Sexual and asexual. Or, like Shawcross, as Chrissy pointed out, Z escalated from sheer violence to sexual predatory behavior. Shaw. escalated the victim pool while Z escalated his motivation.
-James

By Kevin M (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 06:35 pm:

Regarding Z's use of a knife instead of a gun, the reason he used the knife probably has something to do with the fact that a gun would have went "bang" real loud and attracted attention in the middle of the day, and a knife wouldn't.

By Ed N. (spider-tq021.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.51) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 07:37 pm:

That's what Narlow thought, but since Z jammed the barrel of his 9mm against Stine's head so that there was little, if any, report, why not do that at Lake B. two weeks before? I think that the gun was used only to gain power over his victims, and to be used as a last resort. Z's intention all along was to stab them. Since he couldn't hope to overpower two people at once with little risk to himself, what better way to get one to tie up the other than with the threat of a gun? Then there was only one to deal with.

Since I think Z intended to stab them in the first place, the use of the hood gains a much more ritualistic purpose. Since he expected both to die, as evidenced by his call to Napa PD, the hood was not meant to conceal his identity, but perhaps to make him seem more like an executioner. After all (correct me if I'm wrong), wasn't Ko-Ko the "Lord High Executioner" in The Mikado?

But then again, maybe he kept the hood in his car in case he needed to hide his face if he attacked someone in broad daylight.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-65.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.65) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 08:55 pm:

Sorry Tom, for your tastes I will use Zodiac, however it is a name that he chose and it feels like giving power to the bad-guy to me. I use unsub because I am not compelled to buy any suspect at this point or I would use the birth name of the subject. I really shun from giving any glory or power to anyone who kills. I know that is a personal ethic, but...

I personally feel the Ripper cases are too old to use as a source of comparative data in regard to the Zodiac series per-say. I have never gone back and checked what might have been availed to a young man growing up in the supposed time frame of Z, that would be an interesting but not conclusive survey. There is only the bare-bones similarity that has always struck me, enough to have wondered if such writings and film might not have been the full inspiration for Z's motivation.

I am no expert in use of speech, I can not offer any opinion on the communication that Z used at Berryessa or in the letters. It is out of my league completely. I do know that the verbal conversations thus reported do not seem like social interaction as it is defined.

Regarding the gun, I side with Jake, it was ornamental and not what was planned by Z. The knife was the show piece, the costume too beyond what was needed to be a mere attempt to cover identity. Had the victims been initially laid on their backs and had Z used that particular type of thrill as part of his MO in this case, I would then say he was a sexual sadist rather than a blitz type individual. It borders on the terror element because he prolonged the scene prior, but if this person at Berryessa is indeed the person in J/F and F/M assaults, I would expect that the victims would be face down--regardless of how they might twist in a mortal struggle to survive.

That can not be counted in body manipulation, but rather in defense actions, leaving defensive wounds. Had he positioned the bodies after the attack that would indicate yet more information, but as far as I know, he did as he'd done prior, he abandoned the victims to their own fates and walked back to write on a car door.

By Ed N. (spider-wc011.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.21) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 10:22 pm:

Geometer wrote:

i'm almost positive graysmith's report had the second sentence (although it's been 10 years since i read it).

i've always believed that the phrase, "you people" says something about the person who uses it. and since we're talking about depersonalizing his victims...."


Jake wrote:

You're right: RG's account contains the words "you people." While I agree with your assessment of the phrase and the people who use it (remember Ross Perot addressing the NAACP?), it's not in the $50 interview, so this may be one for the Apocrypha section.

According to Astrid Edington in "Ranger Tells Of Going To Aid Of Pair," The Napa Register, 9-29-1969, p. 2A:

The sequence of events, as told to White in gasps, was summarized by the ranger: "They told me they were on the shoreline... The hooded man said he was an 'ex-con' from Colorado and wanted a car and money... The man said, 'I have to tie you up first'... Then the man said, I'm going to have to stab you people'"... (italics mine).

So, it's not an original Graysmith (qv. Zodiac, p. 71). Edington was quoting William White who quoted Hartnell and Shepard, so he's the source of the "you people" remark.

By Ezzy (proxy2-external.santab1.ca.home.com - 24.4.254.49) on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 02:50 am:

Chrissy wrote: "he did as he'd done prior, he abandoned the victims to their own fates and walked back to write on a car door."

Chrissy, when you stated that (and it's true), it just made me sit there stunned. What was he saying by that method of working and leaving as though nothing much had happened to "those people"?

I understand where you're coming from by balking at paying him his "dues" by calling him by that name. The best I've ever been able to come up with for something to call him is "z". No caps.

Well I must run- have a trip to take.

Oh, and I'm so very glad you stuck with the board. Now everyone has a chance to enjoy your input even though it IS a discussion board and not every one is going to agree with your "take" on things. I enjoy hearing from you via your posts.

I enjoy the posts of most people.

Ezzy

P.S. I'm still recovering from your "cabbagefoot" thing.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-45.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.45) on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 06:37 am:

Thank you Ezzy

I feel that when there is no conclusive physical evidence, there is no amount of re-hashing that is unproductive. I was in the Puget Sound when the Green River Task force ate itself for lunch basically. Nice, serious guys the ones I met, yet they flew off, each to his own path, and despite the "sure thing" suspects, no one was positively tied to the ungodly string of homicides. To this day some involved switch to Bundy as a subject matter by the mere mention of the Sea-Tac strip and Pacific Highway South. Though the prostitution activity has switched to Aurora Ave. N. there are still similar homicides being committed(at least until 1993).

If Arthur Lee Allen is the man who called himself Zodiac, I have no qualms about saying I was in error. To this date I have not seen presented any conclusive evidence that he was indeed "z". I am certain he is a great candidate or we would not be still discussing him at such length.

I lean towards looking at the presentation the killer left and how he went about what he did. In this case, I see a man in a costume, directly facing people in daylight for a murder for the very first time that we know of. Those two items vary from the known previous murders.

My question is: What in those circumstances is different from the previous that would cause a man to put on, not just a face concealment item, but an elaborate outfit. Disguise alone would indicate that z was not too swift in the thought department. In tailoring alone he could have saved time and effort, perhaps cash, by picking up a Halloween mask, theater mask, or as most do, a pair of pantyhose. A bed sheet would have worked grandly for the job, but instead he has this outfit and it means something to him.

He missed his opportunity to really work the terror angle as well. Since he did not place his victims face up initially, so as he could relish in their agony and fear, I feel he did not really care about their responses, only their deaths, or perhaps his actions in that alone was his goal. Here is where I am stepping on a limb: I conclude that since he did not care about their feelings regarding his actions, that he did not really care(other than in gaining control) about how they perceived the costume.

In conclusion: be it the late A.L. Allen or some unknown person, z went to that spit of land with himself and his actions being his primary motive alone. The costume, the knife, his actions, his mark on the car were his only genuine involvement, his question and answer with Bryan simply a needed action towards his goal for the day.

He must have assume both of these victims were going to be dead, so instead of opening up, disclosing his own equality with them, he spoke to them no more than one might in preparing to end a animals life, ie: enough to keep total control of the situation and no more. That is hardly social interaction.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc081.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.56) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 07:05 pm:

I firmly believe that Arthur Leigh Allen was a "serial crossover" criminal. There is absolutely no reason why Allen couldn't have been a pedophile and a serial killer.

What was the name of the serial killer who was arrested and convicted during the early 90s in Toronto? It was "Bernardo" something or another . . . Anyway, here was a guy who was a peeping tom, a serial rapist, a kidnapper, and a serial killer.

It's simply unreasonable to think that a pedophile and a serial killer have to be mutually exclusive. After all, it's not as if criminals are governed by some strict set of rules. I would imagine that criminal types could be as multifarious as personality types, perhaps more so.

Scott

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 09:53 pm:

Scott, I live in St.Catharines, which is where the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka thing happened. Paul's deviance was a gradual climb from peeping Tom to rapist to kidnap/sex killer.

But one of the big things against Allen being Z is if he did kill people, why wouldn't he kill his molested victim? It's a witness which resulted in his conviction. Plus the nature of the crimes, random killings/taunting letters then later molesting but not killing? It would seem more likely that Zallen would incorporate his child sex crimes with his earlier killings and brag about them in his letters. Why did he give in to his killing urge, but not the molesting urge until years later?

I feel ALA is a strong suspect and will always be until the Z is truly unmasked, but its hard to accept that the ruthless Zodiac would then molest a kid and let him go.

BTW, how well do you know the Bernardo case? If you look at that case, the Scarborough rapist composite strongly resembled Paul to the point where friends and co-workers even joked with him about it. Yet he was still able to go on and rape and then eventually kidnap and kill. Even if the composite's of Zodiac match him, we can see from the Bernardo case that it doesn't necessarily mean very much.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td043.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.168) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 12:31 am:

Ryan, I appreciate your comments and you raise some valid points. Allow me to address them as best I can.

You wrote, "But one of the big things against Allen being Z is if he did kill people, why wouldn't he kill his molested victim?"

In my opinion, Allen had never committed murder prior to 1968, which was also the year he was fired from his job at Valley Springs Elementary for allegations of child molestation. The embarrassment that he felt by being confronted by the school principal is what made him gravitate, in my opinion, toward the more "manly" crime of serial murder. In other words, homicide acted as a confidence booster, if you will, following the humiliation he suffered from being fired from Valley Springs Elementary.

Later, on September 27, 1974, -- coincidentally, 5 years to the date following Lake Berryessa -- Allen was, for the first time, arrested for child molestation. Is it unreasonable to accept that Allen resumed his deviant activity with children in light of the fact that he hadn't committed a murder since that of Paul Stine five years prior? Also, note how no accusations of child molestation are directed at Allen during the timeframe of the Zodiac crimes. Coincidence? Sure, maybe.

Finally, why didn't Allen kill the children he molested? It's pretty simple, actually. It seems that the children he molested were all offspring of people he knew who had left their kids under Allen's supervision. In other words, it would be more difficult explaining to the parents that their child had been killed while in his care than to coerce the children into not revealing the activity itself.

"Even if the composite's of Zodiac match him, we can see from the Bernardo case that it doesn't necessarily mean very much."

Ain't that the God's honest truth? If Bernardo's wife, as I recall, hadn't cut a deal with the DA, Bernardo himself may have never been brought to trial.

Scott

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 02:54 am:

Scott: It seems that the children he molested were all offspring of people he knew who had left their kids under Allen's supervision.

What would stop Allen from then kidnapping an unknown child?

I think the problem people have with believing Allen is the Zodiac and a child molester is that he seems to be taking a step back. I previously pointed out Bernardo's escalation, we could also see this with the Samantha Runnion (suspected) killer. He was acquited of molesting some girls. I think its highly likley he did that, almost got jail, then learned from his mistake and decided to go farther and this time he killed his witness/victim.

Zodiac left some witnesses: Mageau, Hartnell, the cops and teenagers at the Stine shootings. Did he not learn from these mistakes about leaving witnesses?

Why didn't Zodiac molest any of his victims? He had Hartnell/Sheppard tied up with both male and female to satisfy either preference.

Allen shouldn't excluded because of this but Z took many precautions like the finger tip guards.
As Tom said in is 7-28-02 update, He would say,'Here is everything you need to catch me, and I'll bet you still can't do it.'. Ok, but then Z blows it all by molesting a kid and letting him go home to tell his parents?

Most cases usually have unanswered questions and/or pieces that don't fit as well as they should. You could maybe make a case that Z was deteriorating mentally which caused the end of his murdering, and later the letters. He slips up and makes a poor judgement call (poor as in allowing himself to be caught, but good for the child) thinking the child won't tell. I'm willing to accept ALA was Z. Zodiac was a bizarre erratic person, and this could just be another example of his bizarre behaviour. I just don't think it would be the strongest part of the case against ALA.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-28.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 159.134.50.28) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 06:05 am:

"Here is everything you need to catch me,and I'll bet you still can't do it".
Is this something Tom said or is it a quote from Allen? Please!

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-tr042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.192) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 07:32 am:

Good questions and points, Ryan, I'll take them, as usual, point by point to the best of my ability. Perhaps Mike Kelleher can speak to some of these issues better than I.

You asked, "What would stop Allen from then kidnapping an unknown child?"

To be honest with you, I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be a behavior that is out of the ordinary for pedophiles. Often times, if not most, pedophiles prey on victims that they are familiar with and often seek jobs where they can be surrounded by or near children.

"I think the problem people have with believing Allen is the Zodiac and a child molester is that he seems to be taking a step back."

True, but if Allen were the Zodiac I seriously doubt that he was a true serial killer, at least not in the strictest definition of the word. I'd opine that Allen as Zodiac merely experimented with murder and never truly blossomed into a fully developed serial killer. It's simple, Allen was a deviant and truly bizarre person; a complete sociopath with no regard for anyone but himself. How can one attempt to truly explain the actions of such an individual?

"Zodiac left some witnesses: Mageau, Hartnell, the cops and teenagers at the Stine shootings. Did he not learn from these mistakes about leaving witnesses?"

What mistakes? If he'd made a mistake he'd probably have been apprehended. Also, remember that Mageau had a flashlight pointed in his face, Hartnell never saw the face of Z, and I doubt that the Z paid too much regard to the teenagers. Granted, that's just how I see it.

"Why didn't Zodiac molest any of his victims?"

If you analyze the situation, you will clearly see that the Zodiac didn't have the time to molest his victims. And I seriously doubt that molestation was ever his intention; at least, his MO doesn't seem to support such an assertion. If you intend to molest your victims, you're not going to approach them with guns blazing away, in my opinion. Nor, generally speaking, are you going to attack them during the daylight while out in the open.

"Z took many precautions like the finger tip guards."

Maybe, maybe not. To my knowledge, there isn't any physical evidence to suggest that the Zodiac was telling the truth about the "glue on the fingertips."

"You could maybe make a case that Z was deteriorating mentally which caused the end of his murdering, and later the letters."

Allen did deteriorate rather rapidly in the latter part of his life. He died at the age of 58, which is not very old, all things being considered. Both of my grandfathers were in their 80s when they passed on. Nevertheless, I understand what you are saying. Arthur Leigh Allen was a social deviant who probably committed more evils than we will ever know.

Scott

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc3612c.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.97.44) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 09:04 am:

As twisted as Manson was, and despite the fact that he had no problem committing murder, he apparently was reluctant to kill children, although he said it might be necessary one day for Helter Skelter. When we look at Allen as Z, as evil as he was, maybe he just couldn't kill children, but even though DF and BLJ were 17 and 16 respectively, and still legally children, they were a dating couple and were certainly young adults.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 11:01 am:

Lapumo, from the article it appears that it was Tom paraphrasing what Zodiac's attitude was. Catch me if you can.

By Tony (Mahalo) (hnllhi1-ar1-4-65-059-039.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net - 4.65.59.39) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 05:07 pm:

In 'ZU', pg.350, RG tells of the '91 Valentines Day search of Allens residence in which the cops find some casette and reel to reel audio tapes.They're taken back when upon playing them, hear the painfull screams of children and possibly adults. Allen tells them," That's me spanking a young boy." He goes on to tell them the kid was feigning pain & he (Allen) was a sexual deviant who enjoyed cruel pleasure from sadistic pornography. Whether or not Allen was Z, he was a weird SOB.

By Nick (Nick) (216.52.215.232) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 11:22 am:

One only needs to look at the likes of another notorious serial killer stalking the Bay Area in the late 60's, Charles Hatcher, to realize that it's quite possible for an individual to be both a pedophile and serial killer, to kill some victims without molesting them, and to molest some victims without killing them. For example, in 1969 Hatcher murdered a young man from Antioch without any thought of molesting him. A few days later he was arrested in Bernal Heights for molesting a child. The mind of a violent psychopath can be quite complex. In many cases there are multiple urges and tendencies. Who's to say that Zodiac didn't harbor the desire to molest children and murder adults, yet they were neatly seperated within his twisted psyche. I'm not saying it's likely, only that it's possible and certainly not unprecedented.