Mageau Identification


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Mageau Identification

By Tschultz (ac999609.ipt.aol.com - 172.153.150.9) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 06:31 pm:

"In 1991, Mike Mageau identified Arthur Leigh Allen as being the shooter. This identification was the result of Mageau being shown a photo lineup by George Bawart of the Vallejo Police Department. When Bawart asked Mageau why he had never identified Allen in the 20 years Allen had been the top suspect, Mageau said that he had never been shown any pictures of suspects, and he had only been asked if he recognized certain names. If Mageau's statement is true, it's probably the biggest law-enforcement blunder of modern times."

This is so hard for me to believe ... Al Gore wanting to eliminate capital gains taxes seems more plausible. Is this true? Does anyone think that Mageau could have gone years without trying to find the killer, to not look at suspect pictures, to not ask questions, to not give aid in finding the shooter.

I have always felt that the Vallejo killings were separate from the other killings. If Mageau's statement is factual in my mind it's proof Allen is responsible at least for the 4 separate northern ca attacks ... 5 murders, 2 assaults.

I'm floored by this, is there any collaborative evidence? If true Tom is right, this is the greatest blunder in the annals of american crime fighting.

By Tom Voigt (ac872ab9.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.42.185) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 07:09 pm:

Mageau was scared and left town soon after the shooting, which is what I probably would have done at his age. He was never uncooperative.

Regarding cooberation, not once in the Ferrin-Mageau report is there any indication Mageau was shown pictures of suspects.
George Bawart told me face to face the story of Mageau's ID, and I believe him.

By Ed N. (ac9d2200.ipt.aol.com - 172.157.34.0) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 07:13 pm:

Maybe not the greatest, but it sure ranks up there. Even if it was a good ID 22 years after the fact, I doubt it would be admissible in a court of law, and if it was, any lawyer worth his salt could pretty well demolish it. In fact, before Tom changed the message board, we discussed the possibility whether Donald Foukes could be a good witness 31+ years after the fact, after having seen Z for only a few seconds and possibly speaking with him, and while some seemed to think so, I doubt it.

While Mageau did ID Allen, 1991 was also the year (in May, I believe) that Harry Martin published Allen's name in connection with Z, and was apparently the first to do so. Thus, depending on when Mageau ID'd Allen, it's entirely possible that he could have heard the name before the photo lineup.

By Ed N. (ac9d2200.ipt.aol.com - 172.157.34.0) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 07:14 pm:

P.S. Just playing devil's advocate here...

By Tom Voigt (ac9e8d86.ipt.aol.com - 172.158.141.134) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 07:50 pm:

Mageau might have heard of Allen, but he wasn't told the names of the suspects in the lineup.
Besides, Martin's rag probably wasn't available in the Riverside area where Mageau lived.

By Kevin M (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 10:04 pm:

If put under hypnosis, it should be possible for witnesses to give accurate details of long past events. I have actually seen this myself in person and was pretty amazed. And no, I'm not talking "past lives". Not THAT far back.

By Tschultz (ac8a31c6.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.49.198) on Monday, August 28, 2000 - 10:22 pm:

I agree that he may have heard the name but putting names to faces is another thing. This is incredible ...eyewitness testimony at the time of an incident has come under attack in recent years ... as in the Gary Graham case ... but this 23 years after the fact I'm not sure how to take it. I believe Mageau is sincere and honest, but can you be reliable after such a period of time. The woman in the Graham case is still adament 19 years later, I guess that answers my question. The judge concluded that her testimony was the strongest eye witness testimony he'd ever seen. Why didn't Mageau try to ID someone sooner? Even fear can be overcome when a friend is murdered. It just seems so hard to accept a major part of the case was right there all these years and overlooked.

By BillB (Billb) (spider-tq063.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.73) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 10:43 am:

Ed,

Psychology dictates that traumatic events are "burned" into our consciousness even more distinctly than any other type of memory. Therefore, a man shooting at Mageau (an obvious traumatic event), would probably be imprinted in his memory until the day he dies. So, as to whether a "good lawyer worth his salt" discrediting any such testimony, I think any good prosecutor worth HIS salt would merely present the above elements of psychology to warrant the legitimacy of Mageau's testimony (provided there ever IS a trial of any sort).

Bill B.

By Ed N. (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 03:49 pm:

Bill:

Mageau himself admitted in an early interview reported by Dave Peterson (to paraphrase) that what he remembered that night was more of an impression that anything, because he was critically injured. Not only that, it was dark AND they had a flashlight shining in their eyes. However, that is my opinion, and an attorney might think differently. But, were I on a jury, I would not accept his testimony based on what he himself admitted, and his ID 22 years after the event. Two years later would be far more acceptable, perhaps, but not 22.

By Ed N. (spider-wc011.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.21) on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 12:04 am:

Bill,

According to Dave Peterson in "More About Mageau: Victim Recalls Shooting Events," Vallejo News-Chronicle, 8-19-1969, p. 7:

Mageau stressed that his description of the onslaught was not positive in his mind but was more impressional than exact. (italics mine) He pointed out he was suffering from the critical wounds most of the time.

Since Mageau himself admitted in 1969 he was not positive, any lawyer would have to question his positive ID of Allen 22 years after the fact. That is why, even if it is a good ID, I don't think it would be wise for him to be on the witness stand, because a lawyer would ask him how he could be so sure in 1991, when he was not in 1969.

Now, I'm trying to be impartial about this even though it is hypothetical, because, of the known suspects, I do rather like Allen more so than the rest. Realistically, if Allen were on trial and I was a juror, his attorney would attempt to destroy Mageau's credibility with the above-mentioned quote, and that would be more than enough to raise reasonable doubt in my mind concerning his ID. Once again, playing devil's advocate here.

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 09:44 am:

George Bawart has not been a police officer (per-say) for a long time.I knew him when I dated his partner Buzz Gordon in 68-74. He was a good cop as far as I remember.Most of the VPD liked A Allen because he was the best they could come up with at the time , however I believe they have blinders on when it comes to any other suspects.When I found Mike M. he was not living in Riverside, he was in Los Angeles.He has a lot to lose if he points to the real killers involved!Did Allen use a car just like Darlenes ex's car to shoot her? Have some one on a dark night put a light in your face, and tell me that you can see anything other than the light!And "if" he saw his face as he turned around for a split second,weren't his head lights on?If that is so he would look like a dark figure between the head lights and Darlenes car.If he saw him as the killer got into his own car, the head lights would still make it impossible for ID.Mike himself knows more than one person is involved, he said so himself on TV!!Mike knows more than he is saying,and is still very scared, with good reason, the killer is still out there!! Yes he is old, the latest victims who have gotten away from this Z suspect said, he uses a stun gun,and a knife.

By Tom Voigt (ac94e879.ipt.aol.com - 172.148.232.121) on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 10:40 am:

Sandy, when did Mageau claim he felt more than one person was involved in the Zodiac crimes? If you're referring to NOW IT CAN BE TOLD with Geraldo, Mageau never said that.

VPD never came up with Allen, SFPD did on a tip from another department. The reason the focus stayed on Allen was because, unlike all the other suspects, Allen couldn't be ruled out.

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 11:49 pm:

Tom, On the HOW IT CAN BE TOLD SHOW, Mike was asked by Pam: Mike I know you know, who killed my sister? He looked around as if to see if anyone else was there. A van with a hidden camera was close by, Pam was wearing a wire. I have the show taped, even Pam didn't hear what he said until I told her to listen to to the tape. I gave Lyndon L. some of my tapes.If that was one of them he can tell you that Mike said: Its been too long, and I don't remember "ALL"their names.I wouldn't make anything up,like some of the other people we both know, lies have hurt this case.If Allen was Z, then I am glad he is dead.If he wasn't, then Z is still out there killing, and keeping his word about not announcing to anyone who he has killed, and changing his way of collecting slaves.Just this past year,someone wrote a note at a school in the town I live ---Hi ,I am a ghost serial killer.(and something like)---I will be back at 12:15 Friday to take the lives of some 3rd grade girls.Why would the writer say a "ghost"serial killer? Could be because most people think this killer is dead? Can anyone say for sure it wasn't Z playing his game? The police denied it, but my next door neighbor works at that school, I have a grandchild who went to that school, they both knew about the note. The police were told about it. Something to think about!

By Tom Voigt (ac87cdc8.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.205.200) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 12:39 am:

I have the video, and I haven't heard what you heard.
Oh well. Maybe Mageau was acting freaky because he sensed an earthquake was coming?

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-98.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.98) on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 12:21 am:

Dear BillB:

The defense will ask: "So...it is late at night. Mr. Mageau, was there much light out there? Did you and Ms. Farrin initially assume it was police in the vehicle behind you? At what point did you realize it was not the police? And at that point then, with the muzzle of a pistol pointed in the car, a bright light shinning in your eyes and eventually the flash from the muzzle while you were being struck with shells, you looked into the shadows behind the weapon and saw the defendants face?"

As far as hypnosis, it is proven to be both reliable and unreliable. At this point in history I would not wish to present testimony obtained from hypnosis. Buried trauma is in question currently in psychological circles. As far as current data goes, it seems the psychologist, interviewer are just as liable to lead a witness into filling in blanks as they are in obtaining a creditable story. The defense could fill a bench with expert testimony against repressed memory and I am sure they would.

At this stage of the game, fingerprints, fiber and blood samples would go much further in establishing ID than any testimony outside of a verifiable confession.

By Timmy Turtle (209.162.20.4) on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 09:10 pm:

when did this show air? if what sandy says is true, then that would definitely make me convinced that the murder was sepearate from z's. i mean there is already some circumstantial evidence that it wasn't a z murder.

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 10:33 pm:

Timmy, I will try to find the date,I am thinking it could have been about 1994. The show was "NOW IT Can Be Told" Geraldo Rivera along with Maury Terry did the show.

By Ed N. (spider-wi031.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.31) on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 10:52 pm:

According to one source I have, Now It Can Be Told aired on November 7th, 1991.

By Tom Voigt (ac903dfa.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.61.250) on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 11:14 pm:

Maybe Mageau was "hepped-up on goofballs," as Chief Wiggum would say. That would explain his behavior...

By TSchultz (aca0e339.ipt.aol.com - 172.160.227.57) on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 09:11 pm:

Ack! Mageau never has to positively ID Allen for me. The composite drawing for the 2nd Vallejo killing, friends, victims, etc and whoever wanted to join in on the fun, looks nothing like Allen. Mageau is the only living eyewitness who saw the killer unmasked. Mageau places someone who looks like Allen at a crime scene. A few months later Allen is placed at the Berryessa crime scene by a group of young women. Combine this with circumstantial evidence ... maybe it wouldn't hold up in court ... Allen is Zodiac. If Mageau is to be believed, I have no doubt Allen is guilty. And (forgive me for beginning a sentence with a conjunctive) Allen wasn't developed as a suspect until well after the Ferrin Murder; and developed outside the Vallejo jurisdiction. I can see why he (Mageau) never was given an opportunity to ID his attacker, though, I still am disturbed that he didn't participate more actively in his abduction.

By Mike in Oklahoma (csdu-27234.communicomm.com - 24.143.27.234) on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 10:06 pm:

Tschultz wrote. . ."Allen is placed at the Berryessa crime scene by a group of young women".
This is not the case. The women never identified Allen, or anyone else, as the man. The women merely described a man watching them sunbathe and an artist's rendering of the man resembles Allen. There are two problems with this: 1-the sketch is very generic and while it resembles Allen as he looked then it looks even more like a friend of mine in Texas today and even more like an old high-school buddy of mine! The sketch would fit lots of people. 2-It is pure speculation that the man watching the girls went on to attack Shepherd and Hartnell. As I pointed out in a previous post, many young women sunning at a public lake on a warm weekend get ogled. This may well have been nothing more than another a weekend voyeur.
This another example of how the assumption of Allen's guilt is built up. No offense, but speculation is no substiture for facts.

By Ed N. (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 10:33 pm:

Not just that, there is now no way to prove whether or not Allen received a speeding ticket at Lake B. on 9-27-1969. All records are destroyed after 5 to 10 years (I checked this one out a year or two back), so if it existed (which it probably didn't), the proof was destroyed 21 years ago. So, this "factoid" must remain in the realm of Z mythology.

By Timmy Turtle (209-162-21-134.thegrid.net - 209.162.21.134) on Saturday, September 09, 2000 - 08:23 pm:

why are mageau and hartnell so reluctant to be more involved in this case? even if they have already attained closure, i'm sure there are others connected to the case who haven't. also, tom have you ever had any contact with hartnell or mageau?

By Howard (dialup-209.245.68.93.losangeles1.level3.net - 209.245.68.93) on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 12:59 am:

I worked with Dave Peterson for several years and he ,and this was in his interview article also, told me that Mageau stated that the attacker was "SHORT";remember Allen was fully six feet tall with shoes(I know its Ca, so maybe Z went that foot-but I don't think so!).Mike Mageau has been a confirmed alcoholic for many years. On that video you can see his land lady who is also his "sponsor" in the "12 steps". If you carefully observe his reactions, speech,etc. one can see all the lights aren't on in the harbor,this after many years of abuse. The lawyers would have a field day with his testimony. All of us may not agree that Mikes ID was correct,but according to det.Balwart he made the ID and we must stay open to it until ALL the facts are in.Its been said that MM was the only person to see Zodiac face to face. If Kathleen Johns was truly abducted by Zodiac then she saw him closer and longer than anyone else. Incidentally ,she told me the man she saw in the car that night was "not big ". He weighed about 160ish,and he was about 5'8".His crew cut hair was brown and he had 'pock marks' on his chin.He wore navy like garb and had horn rimmed glasses "like superman wore"(Clark Kent).There was a full moon that night so she could see his face.It was when she was giving her account of the abduction that she gazed up and saw the Z poster and she said she exclaimed "thats the man"to the lone officer who seemed afraid! She told me she didn't know who the Zodiac was as she was'nt into that sort of thing..In the main her testimony is consistent(I can hear the moans). will be interviewing her soon,just been super busy.She has been attacked by different Z researchers,but not one of them has spoken to her in person-they are depending on PD reports and NEWS accounts as if these 2 sources are ultimate fonts for truth. I'm sorry to say they-like witnesses, are not always accurate.One detective told me it depends on how carefully the interview was done and if there was follow up some time later so the victim will be given a chance to remember extra details,etc.There was no follow up with Kathleen and she was treated poorly. She was left in a darkened restaurant that night with a 7 month old child and she was 7 months pregnant! Maybe they didn't like the idea of the public finding out about her shabby treatment by their PD!More on this and their reports on the abduction later.Of course, if one is an Allenite then one needs to attack her witness as her description doesn't jibe with Allen at all!I realize they question her word because of the reports,etc.,hence, the attacks.Also, she told me her attacker was "young" about 27-30 max.An associate of mine spoke to Hartnell who is a lawyer and H said that he does not want to 'compromise his testimony 'in case he goes to court someday. Whether we agree or not thats his reason for not being interviewed.

By Tschultz (ac86c8aa.ipt.aol.com - 172.134.200.170) on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 08:43 pm:

Mike in Oklahoma - you are accurate in your assessment. I erred, I should have stated that Allen was placed in the vicinity of the Lake Berryessa crime scene or to be more precise a likeness of him was. I am not trying to establish certainty of guilt, that likelihood is past for any suspect. I was merely trying to establish opportunity and proximity to the crime scene. Allen was proximate to the crime scene at Berryessa was my point.

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 11:27 pm:

Kathleen has described the same man I saw ,with the scars along his jaw line. The picture I took of him, shows the same side of his face she would of seen, as she sat in the car next to him.I believe her! If you want to take along his picture , Email me . Do a picture line up with all the suspects, including Darlenes ex . He had a brown crew cut and wore superman glasses. I can't tell by the picture I have of him,if he has scars or not,he is short also,and has a violent temper!!

By DrRabbitfoot (user-2ive6c9.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.247.25.137) on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 08:37 pm:

Take Maury Terry seriously at your peril, the man is a crackpot. The idea of Maury and Geraldo together puts the old Bovine Fecal Matter Detector into overdrive. As soon as I hear the name "Maury Terry", I know I'm in for some outrageous bullshit regarding some Grand Unified Satanic Conspiracy.

The truth is DEFINITELY not out there.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-61.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.61) on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 04:29 pm:

Dear Howard:

If you would be so kind sir, please e-mail me by clicking on my name above. I would like ask a couple of questions if I might. I am not concluded regarding the Johns case, so this is inquirey only.

Chrissy Shaw

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-61.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.61) on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 04:35 pm:

Dr. Rabbitfoot:

I have two questions and I need only the most general of answers, if you would?

1. Who is Maury Terry?

2. Who are you?

By Howard (dialup-63.208.236.197.losangeles.level3.net - 63.208.236.197) on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 12:03 am:

Hypnosis-which I have studied for years can be of value, but I agree with Chrissy on this one. If a plate was spotted by a witness and under hypnosis it is recalled then the plate should be run, but with the understanding it could conjured to appease the conductor of the session or it could be some other number the subject had seen in the past.What if the subject picks the wrong plate as, lets say, there were two cars in the area and one of them was yours-scarey!There have been cases where a witness remembered a vital piece of info that was suppressed and it helped the case ,but great caution must be used in evaluating. The subsconscious mind is inductive-it does not weigh, ponder, or judge, it simply accepts the input and acts on it without regard as to its truth .The conscious mind is deductive or analytical .When BOTH are in correct mode then you can get results-but only after careful eval'.

By Hugo (141.164.73.36) on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 02:30 pm:

Hey, I'm a new guy. Sorry to interupt, but a quick response:

Maury Terry is the tabloid journalist who wrote the best-selling Son of Sam conspiracy book, "The Ultimate Evil." The book is a fun read, meaning, while reading it, I repeatedly exclaimed loudly, "I can't believe I'm reading this shite!"
Terry's theory is, at best, laughable and, at worst, insulting. His conspiracy involves that old mythical boogie man, the Satanic Underground and links SOS to everyone from Manson to (I kid you not) Lammont from "Sanford and Son."
This book is pretty funny, but unfortunately somewhat destroys the credibility of the extremely plausable idea that Berkowitz DID NOT act alone.

To whomever brought it up: what does Maury Terry have to do w/ Zodiac?

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-89.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.89) on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 04:33 pm:

I mentioned it due to a post. I see the reference in context now I guess.

Chrissy

PS: DrRabbitfoot must be too busy to answer?

By Oscar (dialup-63.209.84.130.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.209.84.130) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 01:54 am:

Re: Maury Terry
Hugo hit the nail on the head with this one!Terry's "Ultimate Evil" was so poorly written, so convoluted and far-fetched, that I took it back to the store and had a rather nasty argument with the manager. You see, while I was admittedly embarrassed by having suckered myself into buying this delusional,PCP-inspired muck, I felt that I had been mislead by the store itself: The book should have been filed in the HUMOR section!
Re: Hypnosis
Chrissy is absolutely correct in saying that the validity of testimony collected via hypnosis is still a hotly debated issue in the pschology field. If the conditions are and were right (there is a distinction), it is possible to use hypnosis to salvage memory. However, hypnosis can not ADD to one's poor memory in the first place. Many people have this skewed notion that hypnosis allows us to see everything in great detail etc. while it is true that our mind registers detail that we do not consciously recognize, hypnosis still, to some degree, relies on a particular individuals depth of perception, field of view during the incident, eyesight etc. I'm not talking about whether or not Mageau actually got aglimpse of Zodiac, but rather, I'm pointing out that most people have a limited observational platform on which hypnosis can stand. If hypnosis is so effective, it would be used in almost every criminal case where the prosecution is relying on eyewitness testimony to a great degree.
Re: Geraldo/Sandy
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Gerraldo episode in question? Thanks.

By Oscar (dialup-63.209.84.130.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.209.84.130) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:12 am:

Chrissy,
Maury Terry is the proponent of a nationwide Satanic-conspiracy theory which links Berkowitz, Manson and his followers, the Zodiac killings, and just about every other thing you can think of. I bought the book because I have always been struck by certain similarities between some of the Zodiac crimes and the Son of Sam killings. I was hoping to find out if there was any information on whether or not Berkowitz had detailed knowledge of the Zodiac case. Needless to say, the book was a pile of sh@%#!(sorry). The scant Zodiac references were incorrect and fueled by Terry's acid flashback/apocalyptic psychosis. The sad part of it? On the back cover, Terry is identified as an "expert" on the Zodiac case, and there is reference to his "numerous" appearances on national T.V. to discuss the case. What can I say? It happened to me when i was but a bonny lad and twee, and I obviously knew nothing about this site etc. I hope this was some help.

By Christen (Christen) (proxy-1346.public.svc.webtv.net - 209.240.220.169) on Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 10:30 pm:

Michael Mageau was in fact taken into the Ace Hardware store just down from where Leigh lived on Fresno St. He saw Leigh at the back counter and when he and the Investigators exited the store, identified Leigh as the man whom had shot him and Darlene Ferrin.......Christen Iman
p.s. This is information relayed to me by one of the investigators who was present at this time....

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tl081.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.211) on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:29 pm:

Well, I hate to have my first post here be a confrontational one, but, I think it's important that we present the facts on this message board. I'm not trying to pick a fight or nuthin' ... :)

Tom wrote: "Regarding cooberation, not once in the Ferrin-Mageau report is there any indication Mageau was shown pictures of suspects."

Depending on how you look at it, this statement is either patently false, or partially correct.

You see, Tom is right. Such an instance is not mentioned once -- but THREE times, no less.

By El_Shaddai (El_Shaddai) (pool-63.50.173.66.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.173.66) on Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 08:49 pm:

EDN:
Mageau himself admitted in an early interview reported by Dave Peterson (to paraphrase) that what he remembered that night was more of an impression that anything, because he was critically injured. Not only that, it was dark AND they had a flashlight shining in their eyes.

BRUCE M:
This is EXACTLY why I have such a problem with This so-called ID being given so much credit as positive evidence against Allen in this case! Even under the best of conditions eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but when poor lighting conditions (or even lights shining in your face), and extreme duress (as being shot and *still* being shot at certainly qualify) are added to the equation it makes it even more unreliable. That's what we have with Mageau, and that's not even mentioning the 23 year delay in the ID. And then to add that Mageau was "not sure" back in 1969, well... It's worthless!

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac956168.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.97.104) on Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 09:04 pm:

Bruce,
I hope you aren't hinting that I have ever given Mageau's ID "credit as positive evidence against Allen."
The ID was listed as a connection between Allen and Zodiac because it IS a connection between Allen and Zodiac. Period. As I've stated, I don't believe the ID to be proof of anything.

By El_Shaddai (El_Shaddai) (pool-63.50.222.167.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.222.167) on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 03:10 pm:

VOIGT:
Bruce,
I hope you aren't hinting that I have ever given Mageau's ID "credit as positive evidence against Allen."

The ID was listed as a connection between Allen and Zodiac because it IS a connection between Allen and Zodiac. Period. As I've stated, I don't believe the ID to be proof of anything.

BRUCE:
Yeah, ok. Tom, I have to say that your adamant defenses of this ID in the past have certainly given me the impression that you hold it in high regard (higher than negative evidence for sure). This was especially clear when you admonished me for my previous challenges to it, where you said "it's just [my] opinion..." in my reference to the many problems, some of which I reiterated above.

If I am wrong, all the better, but to this point that's the impression I have gotten. Do I feel your presentation is biased in favor of Allen? Absolutely! I think you are eager to accept questionable evidence as positive for Allen, and conversely I think you are less than thorough in your dismissals of negative or problematic evidence against Allen. I think you ONLY search for Allen material and have little, if any, interest in pursuing other suspects with such dedication--other suspects that warrant such attention, to say the least!

Do I think your website is good? Absolutely! Indeed, on the whole it's design and layout is brilliant, but it could be improved with a more even-handed presentation on the suspects.

I think it's also very frustrating for myself and others that you are so secretive about many things, and that you make assertions without providing the actual evidence in support of those assertions. The recent Riverside discussion (and Allen's whereabouts) on *critical* dates is a case in point.

I'm certainly not against you making a profit (or at least recouping your investments) on the case, but this whole thing of keeping evidence back "for trade" is silly (yeah, I know, "that's just [my] opinion"). What is your goal here? I thought it was to gather and present INFORMATION (old and new) on a case that has stagnated for three decades!

I think that you are far more forgiving of Graysmith than you are of the likes of Penn, Hines and others, and your animosity against these individuals results in your disregarding EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE OVER MANY MANY YEARS as being worthless. That's hardly the correct approach as I have said to others here. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day and anyone who has examined the evidence for DECADES will almost certainly have uncovered or observed IMPORTANT clues and information that are/is valid and worthy of serious attention and examination.

If you and your website were not SO IMPORTANT to this case, Tom, I wouldn't bother, but YOU ARE and IT IS (to your credit)! Your site is the one being advertised in every new article and on every new media update; as such, it is THE place where the world at large will convene to get their FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT IMPRESSIONS, as well as ongoing glimpses at the mystery, and if you fall into the same rut that Graysmith has then you run a serious danger of becoming part of the problem and not the solution.

I think anyone coming to your site for the first time would UNQUESTIONABLY get the impression that you are touting ALA as "THE ZODIAC!"

Regards,

Bruce

P.S.
Tom, could you do me a favor and change my current username "El_Shaddai" to "The_Adversary"? Please keep the same password. Thanks!

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8eb7bd.ipt.aol.com - 172.142.183.189) on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 04:39 pm:

Bruce wrote,
"I think you ONLY search for Allen
material and have little, if any, interest in pursuing other suspects with such dedication--other suspects that warrant such
attention, to say the least!"

OK, give me one example of a suspect that deserves more scrutiny, and explain why. This ought to be good.

"I'm certainly not against you making a profit (or at least recouping your investments) on the case, but this whole thing of keeping
evidence back "for trade" is silly (yeah, I know, "that's just [my] opinion"). What is your goal here? I thought it was to gather
and present INFORMATION (old and new) on a case that has stagnated for three decades!"

What in the hell do you think I've been doing for the last 2+ years? Nobody had seen 99% of this stuff before I came along, and it's because of my "for trade" gimmick. Yes, it works...and no, I'm not going to change. Why should I? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

"I think that you are far more forgiving of Grysmth than you are of the likes of Penn, Hines and others, and your animosity
against these individuals results in your disregarding EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE OVER MANY MANY YEARS
as being worthless."

To the best of my knowledge, O'Hare can't be placed in California during the Zodiac murders. He was in Massachusettes, or some such place. So much for Penn.
As for Kane, I've never, EVER seen even one tidbit of evidence that makes me think he could even qualify as a poor Zodiac suspect.

As far as Allen is concerned, he's the best qualified suspect (IMHO), and hopefully soon he will be proven guilty, or ruled out forever. That's why he is plastered all over my site.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8eb7bd.ipt.aol.com - 172.142.183.189) on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 04:55 pm:

Bruce,
You need to e-mail me so I can give you your new password. I couldn't remember the old one.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.173.28.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.173.28) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 12:14 pm:

VOIGT:
OK, give me one example of a suspect that deserves more scrutiny, and explain why. This ought to be good.

BRUCE:
You just confirmed my point, Tom! You have already concluded that Allen is "Z" so that is all you are *really* interested in as far as searching for *new* evidence! The problem with that is the same as it is for ANYONE ELSE WHO SEARCHES WITH A LASER BEAM IN A PITCH-BLACK ROOM--YOU WILL FIND WHAT YOU WANT TO FIND AND IGNORE THE REST! We have seen numerous leads presented on this forum, some of the most interesting of which have come from Sandy, and yet you just dismiss those as inconsequential. Along the same vein, Geraldo seems to have gotten at least one thing right (along with Huckaby, Sandy, and at least one police detective), that there's something very fishy about Mageau ("he's not telling everything he knows...") and this whole money/drug/forgery issue, among other curious details. Tom, you interviewed Ferrin's Ex, Dean, and just seem to take his word for it about the "money" issue. Sandy's posts regarding Dean also seem to, at the very least, warrant further investigation, but hey, that's not worth your attention, is it? Did you CHECK-OUT DEAN'S STORY? Did you dig for corroboration to see if he wasn't just blowing smoke up your you know what? If previous investigators are correct about his shady connections (and Mageau's) then does it or does it not warrant as much if not more scrutiny than you place in Allen? How about the POLICE OFFICER Darlene had been dating? Have you tracked him down and talked with him? Why was Darlene's driver license out?

You have not done a thing to RULE-OUT Kane, either! Can you show, for ANY ZODIAC CRIME, for example that Kane was anywhere else?! Have you looked for Kane's work history, medical history, arrest history, family history, etc., to see if he was "somewhhere else" on significant Z-days too? All you have done in regard to Kane is to admonish Hines and others with ad hominem attacks, concluding as you do that they are quacks and thus, a priori, their evidence is useless, even though Hines, for example, IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS POINTED A FINGER AT KANE!

Is it really so unreasonable to see the possibility that MORE THAN ONE PERSON may be involved in all of this mess? Are we stuck with another Warren report and a lone gunman here? Are there enough questions unanswered here? But, hey, "water off a frog's back," right?

You have chastised the police efforts (or lack therof) on numerous fronts in the whole Z investigation, so do you have any reason to believe that they were not equally deficient in other areas of the investigation? Or is it the double-standard that, for everyone else, the police did a crackerjack job, but on Allen, damnit, they just screwed-up left and right, thus resulting in a "guilty man" not being caught?

I am simply amazed at the sheer number of excuses that are made in order to dispel contrary evidence against Allen, in order to keep him in the lime light. I mean, after 30 years of investigation there is simply no credible evidence I have seen that ANYONE is any closer to showing Allen as being Z than they were ten, twenty, thirty years ago, but we've got to stay the course, right?; because of the personal crusades of certain individuals who are "just CERTAIN that ALLEN MUST be Zodiac!" To hell with any evidence to the contrary! Furthermore, Allen has been dead for eight years now, and yet the case is STILL OPEN FOR ALL OF THESE POLICE AGENCIES! Why is that, Tom?

Like I said before, Tom, CONGRATULATIONS, you've obviously solved it! Why even bother continuing?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE GOAL HERE?

(Bruce previously)
"I'm certainly not against you making a profit (or at least recouping your investments) on the case, but this whole thing of keeping
evidence back "for trade" is silly (yeah, I know, "that's just [my] opinion"). What is your goal here? I thought it was to gather
and present INFORMATION (old and new) on a case that has stagnated for three decades!"

VOIGT:
What in the hell do you think I've been doing for the last 2+ years? Nobody had seen 99% of this stuff before I came along, and it's because of my "for trade" gimmick. Yes, it works...and no, I'm not going to change. Why should I? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

BRUCE:
FALSE! 100% of it has been seen before! It has been seen by numerous police agencies including the FBI, not to mention a LOT MORE that you have not seen! What you are talking about is public at large viewing, and even here your 99% is an exaggeration, to say the least. However, no one is denying that you have done a lot of good work in clarifying a lot of issues, but since the vast majority of this is regarding Allen, I don't see where you have clarified anything except to bring more light (contrary to your intent) to reasons Allen IS NOT Zodiac--although one has to do a lot of digging around to observe this evidence that you conveniently down-play or completely leave out of your highlighted-affirmations for Allen.

Cheerleading is not the same as objective investigative reporting!

VOIGT:
To the best of my knowledge, O'Hare can't be placed in California during the Zodiac murders. He was in Massachusettes, or some such place. So much for Penn.

BRUCE:
Well, once again you prove my point. Because you consider Penn a crackpot (and maybe he is) and dispell his theories about O'Hare (of which no one is disagreeing!), YOU DISPELL EVERYTHING HE HAS EXAMINED for fifteen years on the single most important PHYSICAL EVIDENCE we have in the Zodiac case, the letters! Good Job! Now, how was Kaczinski caught again? ...

VOIGT:
As for Kane, I've never, EVER seen even one tidbit of evidence that makes me think he could even qualify as a poor Zodiac suspect.

BRUCE:
Yes, of course, Tom! Johns, Huckaby, Foukes, Sandy... Oh, but if Mageau fingers your man 23-years after the fact, well, that's a "connection!" And that's why you are no different than the other "investigators" you regularly admonish on this forum. You publicly criticize police agencies for their failure to properly investigate certain leads related to Allen, but why don't you pump up the volume for these other leads?

VOIGT:
As far as Allen is concerned, he's the best qualified suspect (IMHO), and hopefully soon he will be proven guilty, or ruled out forever. That's why he is plastered all over my site.

BRUCE:
Well, at least you finally admit that ALLEN IS YOUR MAN! As to whether he will be "ruled out forever" I think it will not happen because crusaders such as yourself will always be looking for another excuse to explain away such problems in order to keep Allen as "the best qualified suspect (I[Y]HO)." But since you give this as a possibility, Tom, I would like you to define a scenario from upcoming "analysis" that, if true, would, in your mind, "rule out" Allen "forever." Please define this so that I may refer back to it when the time comes!

I'll tell you what, Tom: if and when anyone can produce even one shred of verifiable physical evidence that UNDENIABLY places Arthur Leigh Allen AT ANY ZODIAC CRIME SCENE, I will publicly acknowledge that Tom Voigt was RIGHT ON THE MONEY the whole time and that I was COMPLETELY wrong in my challenges against him on his endeavers to focus his efforts entirely on Allen, and to promote Allen as THE ZODIAC on his website!

I don't think it's gonna' happen though, and for your sake I hope you don't trip and drop that basket you've placed all your eggs in!

I predict that the hunters knife comes back negative for blood, fiber, hair, or any other evidence linking it to Lake Berryessa. I predict that the Royal typewriter comes back negative for being one-in-the-same as that which was used to write the Riverside "Confession" letter. I predict that no finger prints, saliva, skin samples or any other samples will ever be found to match a certain Arthur Leigh Allen to Zodiac, just as none of those we DO have have been found to match him to this day! I predict that Arthur Leigh Allen's handprinting will CONTINUE to be unmatched to the author of the confirmed Zodiac letters (but who knows what Tom's hired gun will come up with, especially since, considering some of the other methods of deduction Tom has employed, he probably has not investigated the proper method to even submit such a sample...have you studied up on this, Tom? I'd hate to see you waste all your money on a worthless analysis).

I also predict that Tom and others will continue on their crusade, and continue wondering WHY they just can't prove that their man "did it!"; all along oblivious to the reality that maybe their man simply DID NOT DO IT!

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.173.28.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.173.28) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 12:19 pm:

I think this is important enough to post again:

VOIGT SAID:
As far as Allen is concerned, he's the best qualified suspect (IMHO), and hopefully soon he will be proven guilty, or ruled out forever. That's why he is plastered all over my site.

BRUCE:
Well, at least you finally admit that ALLEN IS YOUR MAN! As to whether he will be "ruled out forever" I think it will not happen because crusaders such as yourself will always be looking for another excuse to explain away such problems in order to keep Allen as "the best qualified suspect (I[Y]HO)." But since you give this as a possibility, Tom, I would like you to define a scenario from upcoming forensic "analysis" that, if true, would, in your mind, "rule out" Allen "forever." Please define this so that I may refer back to it when the time comes!

Thanks,

Bruce M.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac954fa8.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.79.168) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 01:00 pm:

Bruce:
"We have seen numerous leads presented on this forum, some of the most interesting of which have
come from Sandy, and yet you just dismiss those as inconsequential."

OK, I'll make you a deal. Take Sandy's info, translate it, and present it here coherently.

Bruce:
"Tom,
you interviewed Ferrin's Ex, Dean, and just seem to take his word for it about the "money" issue."

There is no "money" issue. The Ferrin's home was financed, with help of Dean's father. The down payment was borrowed, and the monthly was under $100.
Darlene worked at several bars in Vallejo, and made lots of tips.
She had a large credit card debt at James Sears, which Dean had to pay after she died.
Bruce, if you had gobs of money, would you work as a waitress???

Bruce:
"If previous investigators are correct about his shady connections (and Mageau's) then does it or does it not warrant as
much if not more scrutiny than you place in Allen?"

What "shady connections" are you referring to? Which investigators? I want you to clarify your claim.
Mageau had been arrested once in his life, that for petty theft at a local store. Nothing indicates Dean had involvement with any type of wrong-doers.
The Geraldo episode was pure garbage. If you are going to believe that sensationalistic crap, what's the point of me attempting to discuss this with you logically?

Bruce:
"How about the POLICE OFFICER Darlene had been dating? Have you
tracked him down and talked with him? Why was Darlene's driver license out?"

Darlene had been dating several police officers. I've talked to several, all were cleared years ago. Half of the force was on strike at the time, so those who were working put in huge hours and were accounted for.
She probably had her license out because she believed an officer was approaching.

I'm not going to get in a Kane debate with you. I have all of Harvey Hines' reports, and there is nothing connecting Kane to Zodiac. The only reason you know of Kane in the first place is because Hines has been very successful at convincing ignorant media people that Kane could be Zodiac. I've seen hundreds of more interesting suspects than Kane, which isn't saying much.
Allen, on the other hand, was a huge suspect before I ever came along. Since the beginning of my site, the most inquiries I have received are about him. It's NOT a matter of me "selling" him to anybody.

Bruce:
"Is it really so unreasonable to see the possibility that MORE THAN ONE PERSON may be involved in all of this mess? Are
we stuck with another Warren report and a lone gunman here? Are there enough questions unanswered here? But, hey, "water
off a frog's back," right?"

Sure, Bruce...anything's possible. Now, let's hear a logical reason why we should assume Zodiac was more than one person. (Aside from the SFPD vs. Napa composite, since we don't know the Napa suspect was Zodiac.)

Bruce:
"You have chastised the police efforts (or lack therof) on numerous fronts in the whole Z investigation, so do you have any
reason to believe that they were not equally deficient in other areas of the investigation?"

To the best of my knowledge, I've never criticized the Napa County SD, or Napa PD.
Vallejo PD definitely screwed up huge on several fronts, including Allen's non-arrest in 1991. Zodiac or not, it was a federal offense for Allen to have weapons...and he had a large cache. He should have been arrested. (Not to mention the danger to public safety from his bombs.) Do you disagree?
Additionally, VPD seized items from Allen's home in 1991 and 1992 that were exactly what they were looking for to prove him to be Zodiac, yet to this day haven't attempted to test them. Do you disagree?
SFPD screwed up,among other ways, by not keeping files of any kind (save a police report or two). They would write down a majority of their info on recipe cards. No other law enforcement agency I'm aware of kept such shoddy records.
Also, when serving the 1972 search warrant on Allen, they neglected to search his car...which contained a ton of papers with his handwriting.
Instead, SFPD settled for forced handwriting samples, which Allen easily could have faked. As a result, SFPD has no handwriting samples from Allen, except what I've given them.

O'Hare can't be placed in California during the Zodiac murders. There are hundreds of thousands of other men that can't be placed in California during that time, either. What about them?

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wd033.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.163) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 02:30 pm:

Bruce, speaking as someone who agreed with many of the points in your first post to this thread, I have to say that you have finally lost any credibility you might have had. I mean, for pete's sake -- GERALDO?!

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

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tc084.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.59) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 03:57 pm:

Good ol' Gerald Rivers... how many times has he had his nose broken?

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.223.53.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.223.53) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 04:19 pm:

JAKE:
Bruce, speaking as someone who agreed with many of the points in your first post to this thread, I have to say that you have finally lost any credibility you might have had. I mean, for pete's sake -- GERALDO?!

BRUCE:
Er, it's not what you think! I'm not defending Geraldo and the who satanic cospiracy nonsense! I was only meant to say that he was on target with the IMPORTANCE of the Ferrin murder and the characters surrounding it. I should have clarified that more clearly, I admit.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wd032.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.162) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 06:01 pm:

Yeah, but Bruce, didn't we go through all this last Summer? All the business about Ferrin as the keystone to the Zodiac puzzle is pure legend that grew out of rumor in the years that followed the BRS attack. Sticking strictly to the facts, there is nothing to suggest that there was any relative importance to Ferrin or Mageau.

Ditto for Larry Kane. Maybe he killed Donna Lass, but, you know, so what? She wasn't a Zodiac victim. What else is there linking Kane to the case? A few picture IDs by one possible witness and one non-witness who each ID'd other people as well?

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

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tb081.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.186) on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:37 pm:

She certainly had an interesting, if not short, life, and apparently had someone stalking her. However, Graysmith assumed her stalker was Z (he may very well have been), but that was not necessarily the case. But you're right, they don't appear to have any major relevance to the case, other than being victims, despite the apparent connections to drugs, counterfeiting or whatever.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 08:53 am:

JAKE:
Yeah, but Bruce, didn't we go through all this last Summer?

BRUCE:
I don't know, I didn't see anything about this and certainly didn't participate in such discussions. The one topic I saw under "Ferrin" had nothing about any of this in it. Where is the thread at, so I can review it?

JAKE:
All the business about Ferrin as the keystone to the Zodiac puzzle is pure legend that grew out of rumor in the years that followed the BRS attack. Sticking strictly to the facts, there is nothing to suggest that there was any relative importance to Ferrin or Mageau.

BRUCE:
Ok, and we know this how? If there is sound investigative evidence that such a conclusion can be definitively drawn, then ok, but in a time when EVERYTHING is/should be REXAMINED with a critical eye, I think it is imperative that we know EXACTLY how and by whom such conclusions are being drawn.

JAKE:
Ditto for Larry Kane. Maybe he killed Donna Lass, but, you know, so what? She wasn't a Zodiac victim.

BRUCE:
And we know that how? Voigt won't give-out his private "stash" of information on this alleged person who sent the "peek through the pines" card, so everyone just has to speculate. This is the kind of nickel-and-dime BS I'm talking about.

Now, the Zodiac DID in fact take credit for the Johns kidnapping incident. Johns DID in fact ID Kane as the culprit. Now, the validity of that ID is something that Voigt flatly disregards as a "connection" and yet he considers the WORTHLESS Mageau ID (he doesn't know in 69 but does know in 91) as a valid "connection." But I GUARANTEE YOU that if Johns had ALSO pointed out Allen as her abductor, then Voigt would be much more forgiving of Johns (even willing to talk to her, which he isn't now) and would list that as a "connection" in favor of Allen.

Why is Pam Huckaby's ID NOT a "connection" as well?

All I'm asking for is objectivity, which is something sorely missing from this site (although we do see it from many people on the message boards).

JAKE:
What else is there linking Kane to the case? A few picture IDs by one possible witness and one non-witness who each ID'd other people as well?

BRUCE:
I'm NOT promoting Kane over anyone else! But let's see the "unrepeatability" of Hines' findings, as Tom suggests. All I hear is bashing but no evidence to the contrary. From what I have seen here, the rife speculation about could-have-been scenarios surrounding Allen is out of control and misleading. Instead of narrowing the focus, after 30 years of nothing they should be expanding the focus.

I'm still waiting for Tom's outlined "scenario" from the upcoming forensic examination of Allen materials, that will, in his mind, "rule-out Allen forever." You're not going to see it because nothing is going to sway a mind already made up!

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wi023.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.28) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 10:12 am:

Bruce wrote:
"I don't know, I didn't see anything about this and certainly didn't participate in such discussions."

I don't know where it is, either; it may have been purged. At any rate, I apologize -- it must have been a different Bruce.

"Ok, and we know this how?"

Well, I don't know about you, but I know this because I have studied over 100 pages of Vallejo Police Department reports and contemporaneous newspaper articles, and about 1,000 pages of FBI documents. Again and again, they describe the same scenario, which is recounted at my web site, linked below. Every variation from the Graysmith story is footnoted and the sources are cited. I have no suspect, no real theory, and I'm interested only in the truth. If I found reliable -- hell, any --evidence that Ferrin was indeed more significant a victim than the others, I would post it.

Hines came up with Kane as a suspect by dint of his possible link to Donna Lass. This is not a link to the Zodiac case. If I showed her a picture of my brother-in-law or my high school principal and she ID'd one of them, would that be a logical link to the case?

"Why is Pam Huckaby's ID NOT a "connection" as well?"

Because Pam was not at Blue Rock Springs. Pam's ID was of a man she said was bothering her sister, and he was identified. He had an alibi. He was not the Zodiac.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ip003.portland.quik.com - 209.213.133.3) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 10:19 am:

Bruce wrote,
"Voigt won't give-out his private "stash" of information on this alleged person who sent the "peek through the pines" card, so everyone just has to speculate."

Actually, I think everyone can figure it out. Let's see: an investigator within the Zodiac case is suspected of forging the letter. Duh, I don't know who that could be...

Bruce wrote,
"Now, the Zodiac DID in fact take credit for the Johns kidnapping incident. Johns DID in fact ID Kane as the culprit. Now, the
validity of that ID is something that Voigt flatly disregards as a "connection" and yet he considers the WORTHLESS Mageau
ID (he doesn't know in 69 but does know in 91) as a valid "connection." But I GUARANTEE YOU that if Johns had ALSO
pointed out Allen as her abductor, then Voigt would be much more forgiving of Johns (even willing to talk to her, which he isn't
now) and would list that as a "connection" in favor of Allen."

First of all, I never called Mageau's ID a "valid" connection. Quit putting words in my mouth. However, when a definite victim of Zodiac ID's a suspect, it's worth mentioning.
Secondly, anything Johns has to say is worthless. Her very questionable status as a Zodiac victim notwithstanding, her story has changed several times. Furthermore, she has identified at least two people, and maybe three, as being her kidnapper.

In 1999, Donna Lass' ex-roommate, Joanne, ID'd Allen from a lineup I presented her. According to Joanne, Allen looked like the guy "from Riverside" she and Donna use to go flying with back in 1969 or so.
Have I ever mentioned this? No, because it means absolutely nothing. There is NOTHING linking Lass to the Zodiac case.

Bruce wrote,
"Why is Pam Huckaby's ID NOT a "connection" as well?"

Are you a newbie or something?

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 01:38 pm:

Tom,
I'm still waiting to see your outlined "scenario" for the upcoming (hopefully) forensic examination of Allen materials, that will, in his mind, "rule-out Allen forever." Please define, in no uncertain terms, what would, if true, result in your concluding that Allen is not "Z".

When:

1) No firearms match bullistics tests

2) Knife fails to match wounds

3) Knife fails to reveal any trace evidence when disassembled.

4) Handprinting CONTINUES not to match (it would be especially interesting if your own hired gun fails to confirm Allen--but would that be enough for you?)

5) That "corroboration" for Allen fails to materialize for:

(a) being in Riverside on 10-30-66 (I can quote YOU as saying you "do not yet have" corroboration for this assertion), on 11-29-66 (date Confession mailed), and on 4-30-67 (date Bates letters mailed).

(b)actually writing the Confession, and Bates notes.

6) Fingerprints CONTINUE not to match any prints (alleged or otherwise) gathered at Zodiac crime scenes or letters. (Hey, those blood tinged prints in Stine's cab came from SOMEONE!)

7) Allen's PASSED polygraph continues to stand in spite of "excuses" being made for WHY he passed, and that Allen, at the time of his death, was agreeing to take ANOTHER polygraph exam that he was not required to do.

8) That no direct physical evidence will ever be found to place Allen at ANY Zodiac crime scene. (too bad about the false information about size 10.5 wingwalkers being found in Allen's house, and that information fallaciously being put-out on national television, isn't it?)

I predict you will stick to Allen no matter what. But, please, identify what it IS going to take for you to "rule-out" Allen "forever."

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac950fdc.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.15.220) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 01:46 pm:

If such testing is performed, then there will be something to discuss.
In the meantime, I have better things to do with my time.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 03:03 pm:

VOIGT:
In 1999, Donna Lass' ex-roommate, Joanne, ID'd Allen from a lineup I presented her. According to Joanne, Allen looked like the guy "from Riverside" she and Donna use to go flying with back in 1969 or so.

BRUCE:
So what you're admitting here, Tom, is that ID's made decades after the fact "mean absolutely nothing." Thanks for clarifying the point I have been trying to get through to you. Mageau's ID of Allen is NOT a "connection" (let alone discussions about validity) and it should not be listed as such. It's an example, IMO, of gross misinformation being presented as evidence to the affirmative. In any place where you list it as evidence (at any level) then you should be footnoting the heck out of it with notations about the fatal problems associated with such an ID, just as you do when you mention Johns' accounts, so that people will not get false impressions.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 03:37 pm:

Yeah, Tom, I know I'm being a real pain to you right now, it's irritating to just see the same dirt being swept from one corner to another with no resolution.

If you can present just one single speck of direct physical, verifiable, evidence that places Arthur Leigh Allen at ANY known Zodiac crime scene, I will admit I am wrong and go along with the circumstantial evidence.

After 30 years, surely, there must be ONE, should't there? Could ALL the law enforcement agencies that investigated Allen be so inept as to not produce even one piece of direct physical evidence linking him to just one crime scene or Zodiac letter?

And, no, I'm not a "newbie." If I make a mistake in comment I have no problems acknowledging it. It may be that I am in the wrong on the Pam Huckaby quote, a point I will look into further, but this comes only because Jake took a moment to address it directly for me.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac90a224.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.162.36) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 06:05 pm:

Bruce:
"So what you're admitting here, Tom, is that ID's made decades after the fact "mean absolutely nothing."

No, that's not correct.
Lass and Johns are NOT definite Zodiac victims.
Mageau WAS a definite Zodiac victim.
If you don't see the difference in significance, then I can't help you.
Hell, Lass might be living it up in Jamaica right now for all we know. There was no crime scene, no body found, no motive, no witnesses. Sure, she was probably the victim of foul play, but so were hundreds of females west of the Rockies back then. Did Zodiac kill all of them? Of course not.

Bruce:
"If you can present just one single speck of direct physical, verifiable, evidence that places Arthur Leigh Allen at ANY known
Zodiac crime scene, I will admit I am wrong and go along with the circumstantial evidence."

What a silly request. If I could do that I'd be rich and famous. Nobody can be placed at such places, besides Zodiac and his victims.
The trouble with Allen is, he was within minutes...and didn't have alibis.

Bruce:
"In any place where you list it as evidence (at any level) then you should be footnoting the heck out of it with
notations about the fatal problems associated with such an ID, just as you do when you mention Johns' accounts, so that people
will not get false impressions."

If I attempted a point-counter point presentation, it would surely be the world's largest Web page.

I still am quite puzzled why you are hung up on "The Allen-Zodiac Connection." I was asked to list the reasons why Allen was Zodiac, what connected him to the case. In other words, why was he a suspect? Get it? Now, one reason he was a suspect is because a DEFINITE Zodiac victim identified him as being the killer. You can harp eternally about the quality of the ID, but it doesn't matter. The ID happened, and it is a reason for Allen's suspect status.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 07:38 pm:

VOIGT:
I still am quite puzzled why you are hung up on "The Allen-Zodiac Connection." I was asked to list the reasons why Allen was Zodiac, what connected him to the case. In other words, why was he a suspect? Get it?

BRUCE:
I never said I had a problem with the "Allen-Zodiac connection." I'm not saying Allen shouldn't be listed as A suspect. I'm also not suggesting that there are not a lot of interesting circumstantial tidbits around him (too bad there just isn't one single bit of physical evidence linking him though...). My "h[a]ngup" is in your presentation of Allen all over your website as though HE IS THE ZODIAC; as if there is no question about the matter, which couldn't be further from the truth! Is it really such a big deal to put Allen in with the "other suspects"? Is it really a problem for you to present the evidence in column format with FACTS in a PRO column, CIRCUMSTANTIAL/SPECULATION evidence in a CIR/SPE column, and finally, CONTRARY EVIDENCE in a CON column? Is it possible for you to allow those "investigators" purporting "evidence" for other suspects to present an overview of said evidence in the IDENTICAL FORMAT on your site rather than just dismissively linking to them? If the bulk of their information is speculative, then that is the column their info will go in. The point is (after 30 years) to SPREAD THE FORMATION for a while, not narrow it. Advertise the possibilities, don't squelch them.

VOIGT:
Now, one reason he was a suspect is because a DEFINITE Zodiac victim identified him as being the killer.

BRUCE:
And the ID happened when? How many times do we have to go through this? You keep shooting yourself in the foot on this, Tom. According to Mageau's statements following the attack, the attacker was about 5'8" and he only saw a silouette (or something to that effect). Is that not correct? Now, how tall was Allen? Did Mageau identify Allen's silouette among a lineup of silouettes? Did Mageau's description of the attacker result in a composite being drawn of the Zodiac? Did he confirm or deny that the attacker looked like either of the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LOOKING composites we currently have of the Zodiac (neither of which look anything like Allen)?

Time and again we have demonstrated that the ID's are worthless (you said so yourself regarding Lass' old roommate's (Joanne) ID of Allen from a photo line-up).

Sorry, but this ID is, at best, SPECULATION COLUMN material in my book.

VOIGT:
You can harp eternally about the quality of the ID, but it doesn't matter. The ID happened, and it is a reason for Allen's suspect status.

BRUCE:
Oh, so you're back to the validity of the Mageau ID, I see. I mean, if it "is a reason for Allen's suspect status" then you must view it with some degree of legitimacy, correct? It may be a fact that Mageau made such an ID, but that in no way makes the ID a fact--not even close.

And, yes, I will "harp eternally" because as evidence it's useless, and if it is truly something that is being applied to keep Allen as the only focus, it is probably detrimental.

Bruce M.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8cec1a.ipt.aol.com - 172.140.236.26) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 11:15 pm:

Bruce:
"Is it really such a big deal to
put Allen in with the "other suspects"?"

Apparently it is to you.
Allen generates the most interest of all the suspects. It's a fact of life, has been long before my site was created, and that will only increase when a certain author's sequel is published.

Bruce:
"Is it possible for you to allow those "investigators" purporting "evidence" for other suspects to
present an overview of said evidence in the IDENTICAL FORMAT on your site rather than just dismissively linking to them?"

Nope.
Rick Marshall is the only good candidate as Zodiac among the suspects I have listed, IMHO, but nobody can place a weapon in his hands or demonstrate that he had a violent nature. That's the problem with all the suspects I've seen: there is something to strongly suggest, or prove, they had absolutely nothing to do with the Zodiac crimes.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 11:51 pm:

VOIGT:
Lass and Johns are NOT definite Zodiac victims.
Mageau WAS a definite Zodiac victim.

BRUCE:
Well, Zodiac DID at least take credit for the Johns event (7-24-70), let's not forget. And while we're on the subject, I have a few questions regarding this Johns' event as pertains to what you (TOM) have written in the infamous "Arthur Leigh Allen File":

Under the heading: "Zodiac name/cross-circle symbol/ciphers/etc.," you list into evidence the alleged incriminating statements Allen made to a certain "friend," (Don) in 1968. You also list this in the "Arthur Leigh Allen Timeline" evidence under 1-68 (when statements were supposedly confided) and 7-15-71 (3.5 years later! A common theme with alleged Allen evidence it seems...) when this "friend" informed the Manhattan Beach police. So, just about every possible self-incriminating statement is put into the mouth of Allen from calling himself "Zodiac," to "taunting police with letters," to "signing letters with crossed-circle symbol from his watch," to "attach[ing] a flashlight to the barrel of his gun...", etc. But also listed is, and I quote:

"HE WOULD FOOL WOMEN INTO STOPPING THEIR CARS IN RURAL AREAS BY CLAIMING THEY HAD PROBLEMS WITH THEIR TIRES, THEN LOOSEN THEIR LUG NUTS AND EVENTUALLY TAKE THEM CAPTIVE." (my emphasis)

The way I see it, this one statement causes serious problems for the Allenites and the validity of the statements made by said friend, "Don."

(1) The favorite suspect is ARTHUR LEIGH ALLEN

(2) No one wants to acknowledge, apparently, that the Kathleen Johns event was a TRUE Zodiac event. Rather, they want to say that the Zodiac merely took credit for this event after the fact. As will be seen, this is a real problem for the Allenites, if it is true.

(3) According to "Don's" statements (in 1971), Arthur Allen made the above statement, describing in detail a Johns-type scenario, in (1968)! We are told (in Tom's outline) that this information "led to the first search warrant" against Allen in 1972" (in which "nothing incriminating was found," I should add).

(4) The Johns event occurred on MAY 22, 1970, over two years later, well after the name "Zodiac," and "taunting letters to the police," and signatures using the "crossed-circle symbol," among other things had made the headlines (but apparently went unnoticed by this "Don" character)!

(5) Johns describes her abductor as appx. 30 y/o, 5'9", with "short dark hair" (Allen was already bald on top at this time and Johns didn't mention this or any wigs that I recall, which would have been painfully obvious on a bald man), and weighing about 160 pounds (none of which qualifies for ARTHUR ALLEN!). The abductor also drove "a late model vehicle, LIGHT TAN in color." (so, evidently, over ten months after BRS, Allen's friend, Philip, *still* hasn't sold that car that Allen allegedly keeps "borrowing" from the service station that he hadn't worked at for over two years but allegedly *still* has access to? ahem...). And according to the police report, Johns also "frantically identified" her abductor as matching the composite sketch of the Zodiac killer (which also doesn't match Allen, btw--Incidentally, did Mageau ever look at the composite sketch and proclaim, "That's him, that's the man who shot me!" or did those famous words only come 23 years later?).

KEEP THESE FACTS IN MIND!

Are you with me so far?

PROBLEM #1:
If Allen IS the Zodiac, and he actually DID make the incriminating statements above regarding the Johns-like abduction (as alleged by "Don"), then the Johns abduction VIRTUALLY HAS TO BE A TRUE ZODIAC EVENT!

But the problem is, not a single aspect of the description characteristics match up with Arthur Leigh Allen! Please note that I intentionally DID NOT mention Johns' admittedly much later IDs of different people (ala' Mageau), although I must make the observance that she categorically DID NOT EVER identify Arthur Leigh Allen.

In either case, Kathleen Johns' accounts of these events and her views on them need to be given serious attention instead of blanket dismissals! The likes of Tom Voigt, rather than just questioning Johns' credibility, and making flippant assumptions and conclusions based on personal opinions ("and marrying a convicted murderer don't help her cause."), and summarily refusing to sit down and interview her is just shoddy to say the least.

PROBLEM #2:
If Allen's alleged incriminating statements about the Johns-type event are true (as "Don" states they are), but this WAS NOT a Zodiac event, then SOMEONE ELSE, who knew Allen, who knew of these statements made by Allen, who matches the description of the Zodiac composite as well as height, weight, and age, and who also drove a light tan late model car (none of which match Allen, remember), must have been responsible for the Johns abduction.

The only other logical conclusions are:

(a) ALLEN NEVER MADE THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING REMARKS! Could it be that this "Don" person's allegations of incriminating remarks (remarkably remarkable in every detail, mind you) more than three years after the fact, are nothing more than phony accusations with intent to implicate Allen.

(b) ALLEN IS NOT THE ZODIAC! (unless he can morph himself into different forms like the terminator, and had unlimited access to that light-brown car)

One other interesting point I will mention (for now, there are many more), is the two ORIGINAL descriptions given by Kathleen Johns and Mike Mageau. BOTH OF THEM AGREE:

(1) White Male
(2) Appx. 5'8" (5'9")
(3) around 30 years old (20-30)
(4) Brown (Dark) hair (no mention of baldness)
(5) Light Brown car
(6) Zodiac claimed responsibility for attacks

Yeah, I can certainly see why Johns case is so easily written-off as "a mess" and lacking "credibility"; all along while the likes of Mageau and especially this "Don" person are taken at face value with little if any criticism.

Pardon me if I don't pat people on the back at half-time.

Bruce M.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 12:02 am:

VOIGT:
Allen generates the most interest of all the suspects. It's a fact of life, has been long before my site was created, and that will only increase when Graysmith's sequel is published.

BRUCE:
Oh, well, I had no idea that objectivity and standards of truth were dictated by popularity contests! It was also "public opinion" that cost thousands of innocent people their lives in the Inquisition and Salem Witch trials.

Happy hunting...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8cec1a.ipt.aol.com - 172.140.236.26) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 12:07 am:

Bruce:
"PROBLEM #1:
If Allen IS the Zodiac, and he actually DID make the incriminating statements above regarding the Johns-like abduction (as
alleged by "Don"), then the Johns abduction VIRTUALLY HAS TO BE A TRUE ZODIAC EVENT!"

So, you think 1970 was the year some pervert invented the idea of disabling a woman's car for deviant purposes?

Bruce:
"The likes of Tom Voigt, rather than just questioning Johns' credibility, and making flippant assumptions and
conclusions based on personal opinions ("and marrying a convicted murderer don't help her cause."), and summarily refusing to
sit down and interview her is just shoddy to say the least."

I have NEVER refused to interview her.

Why don't you enlighten us all exactly why we should believe Kathleen was the victim of any crime, regardless of Zodiac's involvement?

By Gomper (Gomper) (slip-32-100-21-221.al.us.prserv.net - 32.100.21.221) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 07:50 am:

Kathleen Johns IS pretty flaky...I don't think anyone would argue with that. But then Mageau appears to be a flake, too(and I don't think it's solely as a result of the shooting; he seems to have been odd prior to that). Anyhoo, the point Bruce made is a good one: their descriptions of the Zodiac agree.
I have no problem with Allen as the lead suspect as far as the bloody knife(knives)story and handwriting comparisons go(and I'm referring here again to his 1966 writing sample). What I DO have a problem with is Allen's baldness, as opposed to all the eyewitness descriptions in which Zodiac had hair.
Obviously, if Allen committed any of these murders, he was wearing a wig or hairpiece at the time...Or maybe the old hypothesis that the letter-writer and the killer were two different men could be explored further?

Thanks,
Gomper

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wc044.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.39) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 04:00 pm:

Don't waste your time trying to point out the obvious problems here. It's much more serious than Tom would like to admit, and, his response that Allen wasn't the only person to have the idea to disable cars only demonstrates that he is not only unwilling to adequately address the very serious problems here, but that he is incapable of seeing them as such, let alone comprehending their implications.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca2dd44.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.221.68) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 05:50 pm:

Gregorypraxas:
"Don't waste your time trying to point out the obvious problems here."

Any chance you could take your own advice?

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.172.153.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.172.153) on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 11:40 pm:

VOIGT:
So, you think 1970 was the year some pervert invented the idea of disabling a woman's car for deviant purposes?

BRUCE:
In the exact detail that is cited in the quote? Absolutely! Or can you cite other examples of freeway abductions where these "exact features" of the story are carried out to the letter?

I think you already realized that this quote was a problem for the Allen theory, and that's why you leave it out in the "timeline" section of your Allen file, under the 1/68 notation, where you happily mention the "kill couples at random," "threaten school children," write "taunting letters to police," and "call himself Zodiac," but you left out the Johns-like abduction quotation (probably because that would require you to tie Allen to that event somehow, which you cannot do, and so you just push it aside with one excuse after another).

And this coming from someone who sees the symbol at the bottom of the "Bates Had To Die..." letters and thinks they look like a "32" so > we've got a "Connection" with Arthur Allen because Allen just happened to live at 32 Fresno street in Vallejo! I mean with evidence like that...

(Bruce earlier):
"The likes of Tom Voigt, rather than just questioning Johns' credibility, and making flippant assumptions and
conclusions based on personal opinions ("and marrying a convicted murderer don't help her cause."), and summarily refusing to
sit down and interview her is just shoddy to say the least."

VOIGT:
I have NEVER refused to interview her.

BRUCE:
Well, I guess I will have to go digging for your "exact words" on this point, since I do recall your saying something to that effect on this message board.

But since we're on the subject, are you going to interview her now?

VOIGT:
Why don't you enlighten us all exactly why we should believe Kathleen was the victim of any crime, regardless of Zodiac's involvement?

BRUCE:
Can you apply any more double-standards to your already subjective investigative reporting?

I listed multiple reasons in the previous post (which you conveniently ignored, I notice) as to WHY this account should not be written-off out of hand.

Indeed, if you are so insistant upon promoting Allen as being Z, then the Johns case (whether you choose to admit it or not) should be one of the TOP ISSUES ON YOUR LIST given that this case pokes all kinds of holes in your "evidence" base given in "The Arthur Leigh Allen File." It means either:

(a) Allen is NOT the Zodiac (he doesn't match one single described attribute, remember? Not from Johns and not even from Mageau, for that matter!)

(b) Allen is not the ONLY Zodiac (had accomplice?)

(c) The "Don" report to MBPD is pure fabrication with intent (and this also has other holes besides the Johns case)

Something has to give--it will be a hard choice for you as to what, but I suspect you will just pretend that it's not a real problem and go on citing your "evidence."

I find it more than a little suspicious at JUST HOW STRONGLY you try to sweep the Johns incident under the carpet, and yet you go to ridiculous lengths to make "connections" to Allen in virtually every other area (most prominantly in your attempts to place Allen at places you need him to be at in order to fit-in with your preformed conclusions of guilt).

Lastly, if *nothing* happened to Johns that night then what was she doing at the police station? Is it normal for a woman with child and pregrant to just be wandering around on the highways at night for the heck of it? Is it normal for such a person to also set their OWN CAR on fire, just for kick, giggles and grins? SOMETHING happened, and given it's association to the Zodiac case, you should have the sense (not to mention decency) to acknowledge that with some semblance of objectivity rather than defiance.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wd011.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.151) on Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 02:36 am:

Tom, save your snotty remarks. Your constant attempts to avoid theses issues by insulting others is only making you look worse.

The issue is NOT whether or not Johns was the victim of a crime, and NOT whether or not she was really abducted by the Zodiac. The problem is: According to Don, Allen claimed he would commit the Zodiac crimes AND disable women's cars. Now, if Allen did make these statements (and there is more reason to believe he did not than there is reason to believe he did), AND he was the Zodiac, then that makes sense. However, if he also mentioned the "lugnuts" story, then the problems with this story are multiplied by ten.

Was Allen the only person to plan to disable women's cars, etc? Probably not. But, if he did NOT abduct Johns (and she said Allen was not the man*), then you are asking us to believe that he not only predicted his own crimes, but the crimes of someone else as well. This scenario becomes even more absurd when you consider that this crime, committed by some other person, was attributed to the Zodiac. Allen would therefore have to not only predict the criminal acts of others in advance, but predict the criminal acts of others which would be erroneously attributed to him. If you can't see the HUGE problems here, then God help you, and lord knows what business you have investigating anything.

When you add the fact that the story about the Johns abduction was featured in one the LA TIMES articles regarding the Zodiac, and that Don said he had "read and seen" articles about the Zodiac case in the LA TIMES, the problems continue to grow. When you consider that he apparently saw these Zodiac stories, and did not contact the police until months later, the man's credibility goes out the window. I mean, are we to believe that he said to himself, "Hmm...must be some OTHER Zodiac killer." This wasn't the X-FILES, or PROFILER, with dozens of nick-named serial killers running around. This was 1971. The are more and more problems with this story, and, you have apparently not come across them because you have not done the research on this matter.

You don't want to address this serious problem with the whole Allen as Zodiac theory, and that is why you contine to attack me and others, distort the facts, and act as if there is no issue here at all. Your attempts to dismiss this serious flaw in your theory demonstrate that you have not even thought this out logically, let alone objectively. Perhaps you are incapable of doing so, and, judging by the available evidence, I'd say that is a very strong possibility.

You were so thrilled by this "connection," that you posted it, and touted it as further proof of Allen's guilt, without even thinking it through. Yet, it was really the proverbial Trojan horse, welcomed into the gates, only to unleash forces of destruction before you even knew what was happening. The irony is rich.

*Johns has identified Kane. According to some people, she had identified others. However many people she may have identified as being the man who abducted her, one thing is clear: She said it was NOT Allen. She also made it clear that, when the VPD showed her Allen's picture, they were less than professional, and seemed very intent on having her pick Allen, regardless of the truth. one wonders if this was standard proceedure when it came to their favorite suspect.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (acab04dc.ipt.aol.com - 172.171.4.220) on Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 12:27 pm:

Bruce:
"I think you already realized that this quote was a problem for the Allen theory, and that's why you leave it out in the "timeline"
section of your Allen file, under the 1/68 notation, where you happily mention the "kill couples at random," "threaten school
children," write "taunting letters to police," and "call himself Zodiac," but you left out the Johns-like abduction quotation
(probably because that would require you to tie Allen to that event somehow, which you cannot do, and so you just push it
aside with one excuse after another)."

Wrong. I came up with that timeline long before I had the additional reports on Don and Philip.

Bruce and Greggy, you can keep spouting about impartiality until you are blue in the face. The bottom line about Johns is this:
There is no evidence she was the victim of anything criminal.
HAVE YOU EVER READ THE POLICE REPORTS???
Johns is quoted in one as saying the man was quite friendly, and made no threats to her whatsoever.
As far as I'm concerned, she might have been having a bad acid trip, because it doesn't sound like she was with a killer to me.