Jake Wark's, The Case Against Arthur Leigh Allen
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Jake Wark's, The Case Against Arthur Leigh Allen
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc061.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 02:09 pm:|
I've created this thread to specifically create a dialogue regarding Jake's
impressive seven-page essay, The Case Against Arthur Leigh Allen. I did not
start this thread strictly as a rebuttal to Jake's work, although rebuttals, like all
contributive thought, is more than welcome.
Okay then, I'll get the ball rolling . . .
First of all, I'd sure like to know what prompted Detective Lynch to interview Allen in the first place. Anybody know for sure?
Jake writes, ". . . a cursory look at VPD reports from the time shows that even the shakiest accusations were considered grounds for a police interview . . ."
Jake, that is what I mean about being more specific. Would you mind telling us if that is opinion or fact? Have you had the opportunity to peruse VPD's files from that era?
". . . it can safely be assumed that (the interview) was not accompanied by any significant evidence, as the conversation was quite brief and (Lynch) was not particularly aggressive."
Significant evidence? No, obviously not. However, something prompted Det. Lynch to interview Allen. Again, I'd sure like to know what that "something" was before I toss it aside as meaningless because of Lynch's apparent brevity and disposition during the interview.
With regard to Sgt. Jack Mulanax's VPD report dated August 9, 1971, Jake writes, "Too tall and too bald to match the Zodiac's description, he was quickly forgotten."
Come on, it should be obvious that this observation is anything but good. Too bald to wear a wig? Too bald in 1971 or 1969? Too tall? Sure, maybe according to Mulanax, but not according to much of the other Zodiac eyewitnesses out there. What about Hartnell? Or Mageau? Foukes and Zelms?
Okay, I'm sure that is enough for starters. I'll be getting into the Cheney stuff next.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-ta023.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 04:21 pm:|
Cool! My own thread! I'm right up there with Penn and Beeman now!
"First of all, I'd sure like to know what prompted Detective Lynch to interview Allen in the first place. Anybody know for sure?"
Graysmith devotes plenty of ink in ZU to the fact that no one, Det. Lynch included, knows who dimed Allen out. If anyone could dig this info up, my money would be on RG or Tom, and since neither has done so, we might have to relegate this to the Unsolvable Mystery file.
"Jake, that is what I mean about being more specific. Would you mind telling us if that is opinion or fact? Have you had the opportunity to peruse VPD's files from that era?"
Since the article was on Allen, I didn't feel that it was necessary to provide the case information on Tommy Southern, Don Benson, David Bagano, John Oswald, John Gohery III, Ettore Bertellotti, or Christopher Barry, who were all (but by no means the only ones) investigated as the result of tips, anonymous and otherwise. Southern was a suspect because he used "an imitation p*nis" to have sex with his wife; Barry was a suspect because he banged his head against the wall of his school gym when he lost a tooth. Those in between had similar factors in common with the Zodiac, which is to say zero. Anyway, the short answer is yes, I have had the opportunity to peruse those files at great length, and while "shaky" is a subjective term, I think it applies to all of them. Have you read these files? What's your take?
"Significant evidence? No, obviously not. However, something prompted Det. Lynch to interview Allen. Again, I'd sure like to know what that "something" was before I toss it aside as meaningless because of Lynch's apparent brevity and disposition during the interview."
Anything's possible. It might have been something good, or it might have been a yokel who knew ALA was a child molester, which would be about par for the course in terms of tips received by VPD. We may never know, although context may be a clue here: Lynch did go into detail on some of the more verifiably violent interviewees; some of the reports are up to two pages long. ALA's is, what, ten lines?
"Come on, it should be obvious that this observation is anything but good. Too bald to wear a wig? Too bald in 1971 or 1969? Too tall? Sure, maybe according to Mulanax, but not according to much of the other Zodiac eyewitnesses out there. What about Hartnell? Or Mageau? Foukes and Zelms?"
You ever seen a crewcut wig?
Hartnell, by his own account, was a bad judge of height. Mageau is a mystery, and his ID has been debated at length. What's certain is that he described Z to VPD as "short, possibly 5'8"." I must have missed Foukes' and Zelms' ID -- where'd that come from? The SFPD bulletin puts Z's height at 5'8", though, which is right in line with Mageau's description, and quite a bit shorter than ALA, right?
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p201.as1.clonmel1.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 08:30 am:|
Perhaps,Jake you could clarify something here.
Your account states that it was Cheney's business partner and not Cheney himself that made the approach to police.Do you know if he made this approach on Cheney's behalf or it was something
he took upon himself?.If the latter, one could suggest that Panzarella felt obliged to report this after some soul searching.Perhaps,(I don't know)Cheney never actually intended to report this story.Perhaps,this story was knocking around
long before 71 and Cheney's assertion that other murders sparked memories of this was only a cover
for him not coming forward sooner!.(once it broke)
BTW there appears to be a problem accessing that MBPD link from your site.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p48.as1.clonmel1.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 09:54 am:|
Whether Cheney's story is true or not,I find the reasons given as to why he made those
allegations a little hard to swallow.If this line is to be believed,then Cheney held a
deep resentment of Allen over a long period of time.So much so that he would have been
willing to see Allen jailed for life as revenge for the assault on his
daughter.Understandable perhaps,but only if there had been a previous confrontation
between Cheney and Allen over this.You would imagine a person capable of such anger would
have approached Allen or the police when the event occured.However, all he apparently did
was to mention it to Allen's brother.
If Cheney was telling the truth,then he's faced with major questions as to why he did not come forward sooner.After all, he would have known who Zodiac was all along.Following on from the previous message, he would, perhaps,have had to change his recollection of events and distance himself from knowledge of the Zodiac crimes.Hence
he claims he made the connection through more recent murders.
Just some thoughts...
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc013.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 11:44 am:|
"Have you read these files? What's your take?"
Unfortunately no, I haven't read the files. If Lynch can't even recall why Allen became a suspect, then I suppose we'll never know. That's very frustrating but typical of this case.
"You ever seen a crewcut wig?"
No, but I'm going to contact a couple of makeup artists that I know and see what they have to say about it. Also, Mulanax was referring to Allen's hair in 1971, right? What about Allen's hair in 1969?
If I'm not mistaken, Hartnell claimed to be a poor judge of height because he himself was pretty tall. It seems logical, therefore, that the Z was probably roughly the same height as Hartnell because he certainly didn't describe Z as being "short to medium" in height. First impressions are critical in eyewitness testimony. Yes, Hartnell claimed to be a poor judge of height. However, we do have his initial statements regarding Z's height and they don't mention anything about Z being short, small, and/or of medium build. 5'8", IMO, is a height that I feel would have been characterized as either "short" or "average."
As for Foukes and Zelms, I was referring to the amended SFPD composite. If I'm not mistaken, it was their descriptions of Z that led to the amended composite, right? Btw, the SFPD composite itself is somewhat confusing and misleading. Why it says "approximately 5'8"" is beyond me because I, personally, do not see how someone with that height can be characterized as having a "heavy build" without also being described as "overweight." Also, looking at the composite itself, I certainly don't see "heavy build" in any of the features in either drawing. Has anyone else noticed that?
As for Mageau, you're right, his testimony is pretty questionable, which is fortunate for the non-Allenistas considering the fact that he fingered Allen as "the guy that shot me."
Lapumo wrote, "Whether Cheney's story is true or not,I find the reasons given as to why he made those allegations a little hard to swallow."
Me too, Lapumo. If Cheney was "out to get" Allen because Big Al inappropriately touched his daughter, why didn't he call the police and file charges as soon as discovered the information?
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-wg051.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 01:56 pm:|
"Do you know if [Panzarella] made this approach on Cheney's behalf or it was something he took upon himself?"
I was just going by the report, which didn't offer any explanation either way, although Graysmith implies in ZU that it was on Cheney's behalf.
"What about Allen's hair in 1969?"
Check out http://www.zodiackiller.com/1968Class.html.
"Yes, Hartnell claimed to be a poor judge of height. However, we do have his initial statements regarding Z's height and they don't mention anything about Z being short, small, and/or of medium build."
Well, we have his description of Z as "Maybe 5-8 or maybe 5-10, 6 feet, somewhere in there" (NCSO Interview, 9/28/69), implying that Z was, if anything, shorter than the victim. It's also consistent with the other witness reports. Incidentally, I was just referred to my own site (duh), which quotes Foukes as describing Z as 5'10" in his 10/12/69 memo.
I don't know why Cheney would make such an accusation if he didn't believe it to be true; my suspicion is that he just got more than one conversation mixed up -- one or two with ALA, then one or two about Z. As for the molestation story, I was quoting Mulanax, and if you've read the article then I'm sure you recognize that I was offering it as a reason why Allen would be reluctant to confide in Cheney, and not a reason why Cheney would rat him out.
|By Judy (Judy) (waf-dc25-177.rasserver.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 01:59 pm:|
Maybe Cheney was trying to protect his daughter
from the trauma of a police investigation, a
possible court trial, etc. My memory is that she
was pretty young-which would have made her testimony somewhat tenuous. A "he said-she said"
scenario involving such a young child would most
likely be very difficult to prove.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc044.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 03:43 pm:|
You know, the whole debate concerning Z's hair is somewhat puzzling. The "crew
cut," if in fact that was how Zodiac really wore his hair, certainly isn't
reflected in any of the composite drawings. I refuse to rule Allen out based strictly on
his hair because, in all fairness, Allen did have hair. He even had hair in 1991,
as evidenced by his driver's license photo in ZU.
Jake wrote, "Well, we have (Hartnell's) description of Z as 'Maybe 5-8 or maybe 5-10, 6 feet, somewhere in there' (NCSO Interview, 9/28/69), implying that Z was, if anything, shorter than the victim."
Yes, I will agree with that. It does seem apparent that Z was probably shorter than Hartnell. However, for the sake of argument, can we just use the average of Hartnell's description? If so, that puts Z at 5'10, which is also in accordance with Foukes' description. I'll leave Mageau's description of 5'8" out of the mix because, as previously noted, he fingered Allen as the guy who shot him. Personally, when combined with the descriptions of Z's weight, I don't get how Allen can be ruled out based upon Mulanax's "too tall" statement. Allen was 6 feet tall, only 2 inches off of Hartnell's and Foukes' descriptions. Sorry, I just can't concede to the notion of Allen being "too tall."
". . . if you've read the article then I'm sure you recognize that I was offering it as a reason why Allen would be reluctant to confide in Cheney, and not a reason why Cheney would rat him out."
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, it only makes sense if Allen knew of Cheney's daughter's allegations. If Allen knew nothing about it and considered Cheney a good friend, then why would Allen "be reluctant to confide in Cheney"?
Finally, a question, did Allen's improper advances on Cheney's daughter occur before or after Allen's and Cheney's incriminating conversation? For whatever reason, I can't seem to find the appropriate timeline.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-wq074.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 08:08 pm:|
"I refuse to rule Allen out based strictly on his hair because, in all fairness, Allen did have hair. He even had hair in 1991, as evidenced by his driver's license photo in ZU."
In that 1968 photo, Allen's hair was clearly thinning. It could only have decreased with an additional year. In none of the Zodiac descriptions is the killer's hair described as such -- it's "short, curly, light brown" (Mageau); "dark brown" (Hartnell); and "Light colored hair possibly greying in rear" (Foukes). Both the SFPD and Lake B composites show a guy with a full head of hair, whether it's a crewcut or a pompadour. Nowhere is it described as thinning or balding. I'd stick with the wig theory.
"However, for the sake of argument, can we just use the average of Hartnell's description? If so, that puts Z at 5'10, which is also in accordance with Foukes' description."
Absolutely fair and I'll go along with you on that.
"I'll leave Mageau's description of 5'8" out of the mix because, as previously noted, he fingered Allen as the guy who shot him."
Cough-twenty years later-cough!
Seriously: neither Mageau nor Hartnell had reason to lie about an ID in the days after their surgeries. Mageau, who has demonstrated that he wants nothing to do with the case, did have such a reason in '91: to get the police off of his back and put the matter behind him.
"I don't get how Allen can be ruled out based upon Mulanax's "too tall" statement. Allen was 6 feet tall, only 2 inches off of Hartnell's and Foukes' descriptions."
It was Lynch, but okay.
"However, it only makes sense if Allen knew of Cheney's daughter's allegations. If Allen knew nothing about it and considered Cheney a good friend, then why would Allen "be reluctant to confide in Cheney"?"
Cheney complained to Ron Allen, and though I can't find it documented, it seems reasonable that Ron would talk to Arthur about it. After all, Ron and his wife visited Valley Springs on Arthur's behalf when he got popped for groping the girl there, and they were no strangers to his proclivities. Nor, for that matter, was anyone else, judging from the stories in ZU. At any rate, Allen would certainly have noticed that Cheney never brought his family around after the incident, wouldn't he? I mean, if he were interested in the girl, wouldn't he notice her absence? And wouldn't this smart guy be able to put 2 and 2 together?
"Finally, a question, did Allen's improper advances on Cheney's daughter occur before or after Allen's and Cheney's incriminating conversation?"
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta081.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 12:35 pm:|
"I'd stick with the wig theory."
As you kindly noted in another thread, and as I noted above, the "crew cut" concept may be off the mark in describing the Z's hair. If the amended SFPD composite is anywhere close to being correct, I'd say that the Z didn't have a crew cut. Therefore, the "wig theory" is still viable.
"Cough-twenty years later-cough!"
Yeah, yeah . . . I know.
"It was Lynch, but okay."
Um, are you sure about that? Even your own essay credits Mulanax with that statement.
Pardon my apparent ignorance, but I haven't been able to locate the specifics with regard to the incident. What was the date or general timeframe of the incident?
Btw, did this thread get pitched into a vacuum or what? A Milly Vanilly (sp?) reunion tour would draw more participants.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta081.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:23 pm:|
Okay, I found the info I was looking for. Our very own TV provided the answer (of
course) in another thread. Tom wrote, "This incident happened in 1965 or so, and
obviously didn't hurt their friendship."
Hmm . . . let me ponder that for a while.
Jake, is it just me, or do you hear birds chirping also?
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-th042.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 05:13 pm:|
"Jake, is it just me, or do you hear birds chirping also?"
And crickets, too. Come on, y'all!
I'll check the Lynch/Mulanax flub after I digest this meal.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:15 am:|
I'm not pumped about another Allen debate unless there's some new information to throw in the mix. (That "Titwillow" line sure did the trick for a while, though.)
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb083.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:30 pm:|
Come on, Tom . . . you never know what is going to be attained or forced to the
surface in a fresh debate.
For example, and I hope Jake is in agreement with me, because of this thread we may have a whole new angle on how the Zodiac wore his hair. I think that there is very good reason to doubt the whole "crew cut" hairstyle that has been attached to Zodiac's description for so long. Jake, are we in agreement on this? Also, I feel pretty comfortable at placing the Z's height at approximately 5'10" instead of 5'8". I think that Jake and I also concur on this notion as well.
Just a couple of examples of what this thread has already generated and we haven't even moved beyond page 1 of Jake's essay yet. Also, this thread should be pretty tightly focused considering that we are using Jake's essay as an outline.
Anyway, these are the best arguments I can put forth as to why this thread should be allowed to continue. However, it's your site so I'll follow your lead. What do you say, Tom?
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-ti073.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 03:51 pm:|
"I'll check the Lynch/Mulanax flub after I digest this meal."
Okay, looks like my footnote was a goof -- thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was Lynch, not Mulanax, who describes Allen as "6'1, 241, heavy build, and is bald."
And yes, I think we're in agreement on both hair and height.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb012.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 05:53 pm:|
You see that, Tom? Jake and I are "in agreement on both hair and height."
Without this thread I don't think either one of us would have concurred on the "no
crew cut" or "Z was approximately 5'10" instead of 5'8"
concepts." Two very important aspects if you ask me, and also a very new piece
of deductive reasoning, right?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb064.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:22 am:|
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:33 am:|
That's great. I have no interest in seeing this thread end, I just don't have anything to add.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb072.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:40 am:|
Seriously? What is your opinion of the Zodiac's hair? Crew cut or no crew cut? 5'8" or 5'10"? Isn't it time to make the myths conform to the facts?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:49 am:|
I think Zodiac probably had short hair and wasn't tall. The circumstances didn't support a more detailed assessment of his appearance.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta033.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:59 am:|
"Short hair" meaning, not a crew cut? Obviously 5'8" isn't tall, but what about 5'10"?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 01:13 am:|
The witnesses may have said they thought Zodiac was of "average height", and
the officers might have assumed "average" meant 5'8".
If the witnesses actually verbalized 5'8" specifically, the officers should have asked something like, "How tall do you think I am?" However, I have no knowledge of what was said.
From 60-feet away at night, short hair is short hair.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-15.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 12:46 am:|
Hartnell,who WAS a witness and saw Z up a lot closer than any of us will,said that Z was "medium to SHORT in height."In one PD report Hartnell said Z "was"5'8"to 6'."In one PD interview Hartnell says"And I DON'T KNOW how tall he was.Maybe 5-8 or maybe 5-10,6 feet,somewhere in there."This continues through the other reports with variations!He starts age at 20 years to 30.Weight starts at 160 lbs up.Your pick your choice!
Combed dark brown hair that was sweaty and greasy was consistant.Costume fairly consistant to.
Concerning height we know Z was wearing military shoes(Riverside/Johns -if accepted as Z,I do), Wing Walkers/chukkas and /or engineering boots(Foukes).What was his TRUE height?If he were 5'8" as Mageau and Hartnells(if Z,KJ told me 160 ish lbs-5'9" tops) start height indicate then without shoes he was 5'6" as boots would raise him up about two inches(if he had heel lifts then two more inches could be added according to my research-yes,lifts cause a 'lumbering gait'!).If Zs true height was 6 feet then boots would take him to about 6'2" and with lifts two more inches or 6'4".Just something to think about.In court it would be a nightmare just trying to establish Zs height!If I were a lawyer I could argue this from various perspectives, including the angle/height perspective of each witness,etc.We don't know Zs height or weight!We all tend to pick the one that best fits our guy.If we don't have a suspect then we just present or we pick one or we say between 5'8"-6"2".Or from 160 lbs -250 lbs. as to weight.All are guesses.He "looked" or "seemed" to be a certain height or weight is what we get from our witnesses.No one had scales and measuring tape when they met or saw Zodiac!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc064.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:20 am:|
The reason that Jake and I came to the conclusion of "approximately 5'10"" is essentially for the exact reasons your post stated. We're using -- correct me if I'm wrong here, Jake -- the average of Hartnell's descriptions and also Foukes' description. Why? Because these are the most reliable eyewitnesses that we have, both of which also happened to see the Z at a very close range.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-ta082.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 09:19 am:|
You can't average out one particular individual. To say "well, one guy said he
was about 5'8, and another guy said about 6', so gee, he must be 5'10!" is utterly
Now before you start with having to resort to personal insults Scott, save your fingers...let's see 1)you really hate me 2)Tom should get rid of everyone like me and keep everyone like you. Blah, blah, yawn, yawn.
Why not stick to substance?
My hunch is that Jake can only be trying to humour you here, because to say that "Jake and I" came to the conclusion that Zodiac is 5'10 is so silly it is comedic.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta034.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:00 pm:|
Sylvie wrote, ". . . to say that 'Jake and I' came to the conclusion that Zodiac
is 5'10 is so silly it is comedic."
Actually Sylvie, you are right, that was a very awkward way to phrase what I was intending to say. However, it's obvious that you haven't bothered to read this thread in it's entirety because if you had, you'd realize that your statement, "You can't average out one particular individual," is completely wrong; that was not how we came to the conclusion.
Also, we never "concluded" that the Zodiac was 5'10". What we concluded is that it's probably fairer to describe the Z as "approximately 5'10" rather than approximately 5'8"." Am I missing the mark here, Jake?
Oh well, I've come to realize that such misinformed tripe is par for the course when coming from you, Sylvie.
"My hunch is that Jake can only be trying to humour you here . . ."
Maybe you are right, big deal.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc08aa3.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 03:10 pm:|
When I met Narlow back in October 1999, he mentioned that Hartnell and Z stood "eye-to-eye". Considering that the ground is hardly level on that part of Zodiac Island, I'm not certain that proves that Z and Hartnell were the same height.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-73.linkline.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 12:32 am:|
Considering Zodiac was wearing that hood -we keep forgeting that large hood-which easily could have had at least three inches of space from the top of his head to the top portion or surface of the hood ;it is clear that Harnells estimate was confused due to the hood/boots(and possibly heel lifts) and uneven surface of the attack site.It was by far an abnormal costume which could cause both height/weight false estimates.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld84b.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 06:47 am:|
I think what must ultimately be acknowledged here is that height estimates are simply most often wrong. Even experienced detectives will say this is the case. Of course, it's possible to get it pretty close in some circumstances. However, what is it that is trying to be arrived at? Is someone going to be ruled out based on a height estimate? I don't think it's unfair to say that the suspect description has ever strayed from the high 5's to low 6's range. IMHO, one would be better off trying to eliminate/confirm suspects using the official composite drawing. Although height/weight are interesting topics of discussion, I'd like to know exactly where the people on this thread see the discussion leading. Hopefully it's not towards any conclusion about a certain suspect. That's right, I'm talking about.....Alfred E. Neumann!
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tp042.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 07:11 am:|
I'd never heard Hartnell's estimate of Z as 5'6", which I'd say is pretty short.
Where'd that one come from?
I'm going along with 5'10" as a good guesstimate, not as the average of 5'8" and 6' but because it's close enough to several descriptions and was offered by a cop who may have seen him up close and by the nature of his job would be good at such estimations without a reference point like a car (Mageau, the kids) or his own eye level (Hartnell). It seems like a pretty good place to start, but it sure isn't hard and fast.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (a010-0035.stbg.splitrock.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 09:01 am:|
Scott wrote: "The two patrolman: They saw Zodiac for what, maybe 10 seconds?
Again, Z was probably in disguise, it was dark, and they were looking for a BWA, instead
of a WMA. I doubt that they were able to recall anything about Z's desription except for
the very basics, their attention to detail probably flew right out the window when they
noticed that Z was a WMA."
Scott also wrote concerning the cop eyewitness: "Because these are the most reliable eyewitnesses we have, both of which happened to see Z at very close range."
I agree with Slyvie: This is ridiculous. The cops are reliable when helping you to better match Zodiac to Allens height, but that's it. I know for a fact that if the composite read 6'0 250 and looked like a picture of Allen, that you would not question it. You would say " Isn't it uncanny how the composite matches Allen so perfectly. It makes sense, those kids were only 20 yards away and had all this time to see the Z. Wow, they nailed it." Let's face it Scott, you don't like a 5'8 description, and your spinning every which way to put it closer to 6 feet. You should be more concerned that a really large individual in baggy clothes is drawing desriptions of 160,170, and fairly lightweight. By the way, Mr. Hartnell(the other most reliable witness) is responsible for the "average weight" desription. Perhaps you and Jake are best working together, you're both very good "spinners". Jake, I'm still looking into that Kaczynski/golf course connection. I'll let you know if I find anything.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (168.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 09:22 am:|
Zander, I'm not sure where you might be going with the golf course connection, but
golf is the kind of activity for which Kaczynski probably had nothing but contempt. In the
Manifesto he writes, "For instance, there is no practical motive
for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of
postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding,
golf or stamp collecting." In other places he refers to his despite of "bigshots" and the desire to do them harm; in another place he writes of vandalizing a house which he describes as "a real luxury place." Kaczynski's hatred obviously extended to those who had been successful in life, and there's no greater symbol of success and the "good life" than playing golf. Is that what you were getting at?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta064.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 01:56 pm:|
Come on folks, take it easy, okay?
I suggest that everybody go back and read/reread the very first post on this thread; that should clarify a few things for everyone.
I clearly started this thread as a forum in which to discuss Jake's essay about Arthur Leigh Allen. Jake's essay is an attempt, among other things, to eliminate Allen as a viable Zodiac suspect. All I'm doing in return is offering a rebuttal. In the course of doing so and while bouncing ideas off of each other, Jake and I came to a couple of very similar conclusions, both of which have to do with the SFPD composite drawings. We agreed that neither drawing depicts the Zodiac's hair as being worn as a "crew cut" and that the height on the amended drawing should have been rewritten to reflect the Zodiac's height as "approximately 5'10"" instead of "approximately 5'8"."
Ray, do you find this information to be unimportant? Is this line of thinking nothing but a waste of time? Seriously, what's wrong with debating Jake's essay? Also, you wrote, "Hopefully it's not towards any conclusion about a certain suspect." Really? Do you mind if I ask you why?
Zander, I notice that you label almost everyone a "spinner" that doesn't agree with your ideas. It is obvious that you are just frustrated because people like myself are able to rip your ideas to shreds using nothing but basic logic as a weapon. That's the exact same reason that Sylvie has such disdain for me and that's fine; I'm tired of having to point out the obvious to idiots like you and Sylvie. The less the 3 of us communicate the better, okay?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (a010-0044.stbg.splitrock.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 02:57 pm:|
Concerning the golf connection, I was being totally sarcastic with Jake and his
previous "spin" attempts. One was ridiculous, something about why Kaczynski
would be near a golf course, some total off the wall "spin" that he produced.
As far as the world of "spinning". Ray appears to be a die-hard Allenite, yet I don't accuse him of being a "spinner". Notice Scott, that when you tried to totally discredit the Stine eyewitnesses, Ray disagreed with you and said that the lighting from the cab may actually have afforded the witnesses a good look. You would never say something like that. You start off with "Allen is Zodiac, period" and then work from there.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-wa032.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 03:42 pm:|
"One was ridiculous, something about why Kaczynski would be near a golf course, some total off the wall "spin" that he produced."
Oh, come on, if you want to pluck my dumb quotes from the ether, I'm sure you can do better than that one. There are a hell of a lot more down there!
Sipping a daquiri,
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc051.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 04:19 pm:|
Zander, why do you leave yourself open to looking foolish time and again? If I was an
"Allen spinner," as you suggest, then why is it that I have stated on more than
one occasion, including right here in this thread, that I find little or no credibility in
Mike Mageau's testimony? If I were a "spinner," wouldn't I cling to Mageau's
testimony for all it was worth considering the fact that he has openly pointed at Allen's
picture and said, "That's the guy who shot me."?
Do you see how easy that was to counter your claims that I am a "spinner"? No wonder you agree with Sylvie, you both are all bark and no bite and lack the philosophical and logical thought processes that are present in most ten year olds. Instead of attacking me with labels that are obviously not true, why don't you spend that time coming up with a logical reason as to why "approximately 5'10"" is a bad or biased conclusion? But no, here's what I get instead: Sylvie with her idiotic "To say 'well, one guy said he was about 5'8, and another guy said about 6', so gee, he must be 5'10!' is utterly ridiculous." And you with your, "Gee, Scott must be a spinner" crap. Your arguments lack all manner of substance and you must resort to attacking me rather than my thoughts because you both lack the intellectual capacity and/or ability to do so. Face it Zander, you and Sylvie simply don't have what it takes to run with the big dogs, so stay on the friggin' porch where you belong.