Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: 04-03-02 Update
|By Spencer (Spencer) (wood-hall-204-137.lclark.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 02:00 pm:|
Thanks for the update today. It's a lot to digest (just the transcript -- thanks to Det. Baker -- is approximately 60 pages), but I'm sure that there'll be a lively discussion in the next few days and weeks.
|By Mike_D (Mike_D) (spider-tq031.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 06:38 pm:|
That 30's case was wild.That girl could be Zodiac's mother and the boy his father.Any idea what year it happened?
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc33352.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 09:46 pm:|
If Z was in his teens or 20's back in the 1930's and had already begun his life of crime, he would have been in his late 40's or early 50's in 1969... the only one I can think of who might fit that is Jack Beeman, who was born in November 1917, as I recall...
|By WingWalker (Wingwalker) (ac902669.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:50 am:|
Wow..that 30's article sent a chill up my spine!! What magazine was that printed in?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-181.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 07:02 am:|
I am astounded at the responses so far focusing on what is at most a curiosity: the 1930's N.O murder. So Z might have seen the story. Great. Maybe he got the symbol from an old case. Not the watch.
Let's move on.
The real story here is the Morril analysis.
If the update had included nothing but the Morril results, it would still be your "biggest update ever". You are to be commended for balanced reporting, in publishing a report of Morril's negative findng on ALA handwriting. A couple of points jump out, however.
First is that we still don't have "Morril's handwriting analysis", complete or otherwise. We have one sentence in his boss's transmittal letter stating Morril's conclusion. That aside, if the statement is accurate and conclusion is correct, Allen did not write the Z letters. Period. Morril did not hedge. This does not have the same infirmity as a negative fingerprint finding, because we know who wrote the checks. Morrill did not say "we cannot match the samples". He did not say "it's inconclusive because one is cursive and the other printing". No, sir. He said it's not the same guy. He said, simply and uneqivocally the Z letters and the Allen samples were not prepared by the same person. Allen did not write the Z letters.
If Morril is correct, then Allen is not and cannot be Z, unless he got someone else to write the letters.
So, the question becomes: Is Morrill correct? Is Morril reliable? If the answer is yes, Allen is 99 44/100ths percent sure not to be Z. If the answer is no, then all the supposed matches with Riverside and Berryessa are out the window. Which is it? If the answer is, well, he could be wrong about Allen but I'm sure he's right on Riverside and Berryessa, my response is: "Bullsh*t".
As for Bawart's "report", it's more full of holes than Mike's targets:
The author of the Confession letter "called himself 'Enterprise'". This guy calls himself an investigator?
He accepts Cheney's hearsay as gospel, and dates in January 68. Twice. OK, he's only off by a year. Or Cheney is.
Accepts the Tucker hearsay as gospel. No one else ever saw zodiac sign at Allen's house. Tucker later can't recall telling anyone about Allen's night vision sights, but suddenly recalls him talking about hunting people. Which didn't come up in his first conversation with Toschi and Mulanax. Cause Toschi and Mulanax never asked. Right.
He accepts that handwriting can be disguised. Morrill is turning in his grave.
Accepts Spinelli's hearsay as fact. Res ipsa loquitur.
Accepts the 1978 Toschi letter as authentic.
Leaves out the part about Morrill concluding they are not the same guy.
Etc. etc, etc.
But to get back to the real story: do we have a consensus on the MB on Morrill?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-63-186.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 08:18 am:|
Peter, if it astounds you that Zodiac researchers would be fascinated with a murder
case featuring a body near water with a note attached signed with a cross circle, I can't
help you. In fact, nobody can.
(By the way, the "real story" is what someone wants to discuss...not what you find worthy.)
Regarding Morrill, Peter wrote:
"If Morril is correct, then Allen is not and cannot be Z, unless he got someone else to write the letters."
Allen was ambidextrous. The cancelled checks Morrill used to compare could have been written with his non-Zodiac hand. I mean, if I were ambidextrous and writing such incriminating letters, I would write them with the hand I don't normally use.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-17-103.bos.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:51 pm:|
Yes I know, a body near water etc etc. I guess I am not really astounded that there is so much interest in appearance, rather than substance. What, for example are the likeliest implications of the murder story: extremely mundane, if you ask me, which I know of course you didn't. Coincidence, Z saw the story sometime, too, Z wasn't very original; what else? Z was operating in the 30's? The San Diego Connection? Please. There's less there than meets the eye.
And yes, the Morrill analysis is the story. He said they weren't the same guy. The great man overlooked the possibility of ambidexterity, or some other means of disguise? Isn't THAT convenient. How do you know he didn't discuss it directly in his analysis? Oh, yeah, because we don't have the analysis itself, that's why. Betcha a Rainier Morrill could tell which hand a given sample was written with. Didn't get a thing wrong about Riverside or LB, but he missed a core concept when he eliminated everyone's favorite suspect. And never got right and left exemplars on a suspect known to be ambidextrous. Uh huh. OK, he's not turning in his grave, just slapping himself on the forhead.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-128-133.client.attbi.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:03 pm:|
Morrill didn't have left and right handed samples to work with, and at the time probably didn't know anything about Allen's background. He was a documents expert, not a detective.
|By Mike_D (Mike_D) (18.104.22.168) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:25 pm:|
I'm a doctor Jim,not a documents expert!
|By Oddball (Oddball) (slip-32-103-46-124.al.us.prserv.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:43 pm:|
Great update, Tom. I, for another, enjoyed reading about the 30s murder case. Oh, and Peter, I believe I can tell you why we find this interesting: it's mysterious. A fascination with mystery and things unsolved is what brought a lot of us here in the first place.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-21-240.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:31 am:|
Does Morrill's analysis include any mention of handedness? Did he say they are not the same person because one is right handed and one is left? Did he happen to compare the personality traits of the two writers? Or mention the fact that even an ambidextrous person will exhibit the same personality traits and mechanics no matter what the handwriting? (Which are major reason swhy it is so difficult to disguise one's writing. See the Red Phantom Letter) DO we now which hand Allen wrote his checks with? Or which hand the z letters were written with? Did Morrill? No. We don't, because we have never seen word one of Morril's actual analysis. All we have is his conclusion: Allen was not Z.