Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: 12-18
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldceo.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, June 15, 2002 - 02:06 pm:|
Since no one else has seen fit to drag this little gem out from under the rug, I can no longer resist...
Zodiac called attorney Melvin Belli's residence on December 18, 1969, only days before receipt of the Christmas letter. This is a documented fact. The call was taken by his housekeeper. The FBI has documented this conversation in report number 9-49911-88 as noted in ZU.
The teletype text is as follows:
VIA TELETYPE ENCIPHERED JAN 14 1970 2:14 PM URGENT "ZODIAC." EXTORTION. RE: SAN FRANCISCO AIRTEL. DECEMBER TWENTY-NINE LAST. ON INSTANT DATE, INSPECTOR ARMSTRONG HOMICIDE DETAIL CONFIDENTIALLY ADVISED THAT UNSUB, WHO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS "ZODIAC," TELEPHONICALLY CONTACTED BELLI'S RESIDENCE IN EFFORT TO CONTACT BELLI. UNSUB WAS ADVISED BELLI IN EUROPE AND STATED, "I CAN'T WAIT. TODAY'S MY BIRTHDAY." SUTEL. ARMED AND DANGEROUS. END NSM FBI WASH DC.
Being that this is an official FBI document removes the possiblility that it is a "fabriGraytion". That the date precedes any believable date that Armstrong would even be aware of the name Allen, let alone any connection he could have to the case removes the possiblility that SFPD was trying to railroad Allen. Therefore, what criteria has been used to dismiss this as not relevant or inclupatory vis a vis Allen? Or do we simply have a widespread outbreak of Ostrichism on our hands here?
It should come as no surprise to anyone that I find this a most interesting document. I would, therefore, like to hear from anyone who has an opinion on why it's not particularly important or why it can be ignored or discounted. Or for that matter, anyone who has any opinion about it at all.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-ntc-ab02.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, June 15, 2002 - 08:00 pm:|
What a keen observation! My God, I'm thankful that you finally brought this out for discussion! If I were you, I'd be prepared for every explanation except the simplest one. Perhaps the Zodiac made the call and perhaps he didnt. However, if he did . . .
Keep up the good work, my friend! You know where I stand on this issue.
|By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) (sdn-ap-008txhousp0457.dialsprint.net - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, June 15, 2002 - 09:18 pm:|
I don't see the date of December 18 anywhere in the quoted message.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, June 15, 2002 - 09:43 pm:|
Roger, do you ever check your e-mail?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 01:21 pm:|
Was the call made on December 18th or 29th? Ray, you may have locked yourself into stating as fact that The Zodiac was born on December 29th, thus for you, eliminating Allen.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb072.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 03:08 pm:|
AND do you really think Zodiac is dumb enough to give out his birthday?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 05:51 pm:|
Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that Allen made the call.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldchk.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 01:10 pm:|
The teletype isn't the most straightforward document. The call did not occur on December 29, however. The call took place while Belli was away in Munich. The Christmas letter was postmarked December 20, but due to heavy mail volume did not arrive until after Christmas on the 26th or 27th. When Belli's secretary opened the letter, it was photocopied and a legal assistant actually flew to Germany to give Belli these materials. In other words, the police were not alerted to the phone call until after Belli received the letter and had the press conference. After SFPD investigated and interviewed the housekeeper, Armstrong reported the phone call to the FBI, presumably on Dec. 29. The teletype is an internal FBI communication of this fact, sent 16 days later.
Why should I doubt it? We know Allen himself did some very dumb things, such as bring up the existence of a bloody knife, admit to being up in the LB vicinity, wore a Z ring and a Zodiac watch, etc etc. What does that tell you? OK, so it's a dumb thing. Did the housekeeper make it up then? BTW, what do you consider sending ciphers in which he claimed to encode his name? Do you place that under the heading, "smart"?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 03:23 pm:|
It is kind of paradox though, that in order for Allen to be The Zodiac, one has to set a foundation of nearly complete incompetence from which to promote his candidacy. But I will admit, the fact that someone called claiming a December 18th birthday, matching a major suspects birthday, is interesting.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfjt.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 10:02 pm:|
Zander, do you mean incompetence on the part of police? There were also other factors,
IMO - not the least of which was that he was a lucky SOB. See my reply at the Stine Murder
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 04:05 pm:|
I mean Arthur Allen. I don't view the police as being incompetent in the Zodiac case. I believe they were dealing with a very elusive individual, a mad genius. But another thing that I find interesting in line with December 18th, is what Zodiac wrote in the 12-20 letter: "I wish you a Happy Christmass." That could be taken as a phrase used by someone celebrating their birthday and Christmas at around the same time.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (2.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 04:32 pm:|
Speaking of Christmas, here's a quote from a letter Kaczynski wrote to his parents:
"The resentment I have
toward you will always remain, but your last letter does soften my
attitude a little," he wrote. "Enough anyway, so that I will take
back what I said about hoping you drop dead on Christmas --
cause it's true that you were always good to me on Christmas."
Christmas evidently meant something to him. It must have been a real bugger for him to have been so far from home and lonely during the Christmas season of 1968.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldcon.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 08:36 pm:|
What is it about Allen in particular that requires an assumption of incompetence? Aren't you saying that Zodiac was incompetent? Did he not successfully complete every attack? Even if we stipulate that Zodiac was incompetent, on what basis is Allen's competence one way or the other to be judged?
I don't understand this competence analysis at all as it relates to whether or not Allen was Zodiac. Can you explain please?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 09:24 pm:|
I don't see any incompetence necessarily from Zodiac. I do see incompetence in Allen as Zodiac. The Stine crime as an example: Allen would be reckless in committing murder only days after being interviewed as a Zodiac suspect. He should assume that somehow they were on to him and lay low, he does the opposite. A composite is developed that looks nothing like him, and he is nice enough to tell the police(in a Zodiac letter), that he looks entirely different than the composite. There is a catch-22 of incompetence. If you promote a particular possibility, with it you must accept a serial killer glorifying himself as uncatchable, who is actually incompetent. Such as: The Cheney pre-confession. You can say well that may not have happened. But if you are to promote it as Allen-evidence, you must also accept that it would showcase a severely incompetent serial killer. Actually, the December 18th phone call would be another example. Maybe it wasn't Zodiac, but if you are to promote it as Allen-evidence you must also accept, as Sylvie has pointed out, that that would be a very stupid thing to do, to give out your real birthday. Why not throw in your name while you're at it. There are other examples, but I think you get my point. The paradox is the combination of an incompetent serial killer with a 34 year serial murder case. In fact the statement of "incompetent serial killer" is somewhat of a paradox in that "serial" suggests a killer competent enough to get away with murder, until bad luck catches up with him.
|By Chris (Chris) (adsl-65-65-246-122.dsl.elpstx.swbell.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 02:51 am:|
I find that teletype an incredible little tidbit. Why would she say it was his
Did Allen really later consult Belli for legal council in this case?
Everyone is full of their opinions, it is my opinion that Mr. Belli was of the few privy to the identity of the masked marauder. If Allen trusted him enough to confide in him that is.......
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc064.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 07:23 am:|
Zander wrote, "The Stine crime as an example: Allen would be reckless in
committing murder only days after being interviewed as a Zodiac suspect."
Wasn't the Zodiac and Allen, regardless if they are one and the same, known for their taunting behavior? Especially toward the police? What better way to taunt them than to commit a crime just days after being interviewed? I wouldn't call that "reckless," I'd call it confident egotism. Remember, Allen was able to defeat a polygraph test, a pretty amazing feat if he were the Zodiac. If he were able to defeat a polygraph, why wouldn't he be able to commit a homicide such as that at PH?
"He should assume that somehow they were on to him and lay low, he does the opposite."
Perhaps Allen's reasoning wasn't as provincial as you seem to be suggesting. It's obvious that the Zodiac's wasn't.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldf4n.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 07:41 pm:|
I see what you mean now. I don't see it that way, though. You might call something dumb, but how dumb did it turn out to be? Was anyone ever charged? No. Zodiac was playing chess with the police. Sure it was dumb, but that's what he did. I don't see, then, why we have to discount something as a possible Z action if we decide it would have been dumb to do that. If we take that position, then we have to conclude Z never sent any letters or codes or made any phone calls from in front of police stations, because those would have been dumb things to do. My God, Z even went so far as to give the description of an eyewitness who had seen him at the public phone! That was definitely stupid, in fact that's right up there at number 3 on my list of most stupid things he ever did. Then of course, we have Allen wearing Z jewelery to the police interviews, talking about LB and bloody knives and zygomatic arches, etc etc etc. In other words, both Z and Allen had this trait in common - intentionally doing stupid, self-incriminating things. And that, as anyone can easily imagine, is very uncommon. Especially when the individual will likely face the gas chamber if caught.
We have to remember that taunting was the name of Zodiac's game, so of course that's going to entail throwing out some bait that would drive the authorities nuts. Remember, he didn't give his birthday to the police on a recorded line. He gave it to the housekeeper, who would write it down or whatever. This information relayed to police falls under the category of hearsay. Of course, it is coming from a believable witness, but the defense would shred this by disputing the date, etc. So they have his birthday, but they can't use it against him effectively in court. Knowing who Zodiac was wasn't going to help them. They had to prove it, and Z knew this of course. All part of the game.
As far as PH coming on the heels of the Lynch interview, that's an important point, but I see it the other way around, not reckless but necessary. Because Allen had lost his anonymity, he felt he had to distance himself from the minds of the police. If they were satisfied he wasn't Zodiac because of alibi/appearance, then he could devise a means of irrefutably linking the series of crimes with the Zodiac. That was putting bloody swatches of cloth in future Z letters. He just needed to obtain some bloody swatches. As long as Z was responsible, and he wasn't Z, he was safe. That he waited only 4 days underscores how shaken he was, and how desperately he reacted. I see this timeline as inculpatory for Allen. Of course, this was an extremely bold move in a dangerous game, but that's how Z played it.
Allen I don't think ever actually contacted Belli, at least as Allen anyways. He talked about it during an on-camera media interview when he was threatening legal action for harassment with search warrants. Very interesting how he just dropped the name Belli like it was second nature. Also, various publications were found during the execution of the search warrant, including a nice little newspaper clipping all about the insanity defense. A copy of this article is in the FBI report. Very, very, impressive stuff. I think Allen had even made some notes on this, but the handwriting didn't look like Z. Hmm, he didn't have any physical evidence from the crime scenes at his house, but he had this article just lying about? Perfect devious Zodiac mentality. It would cast suspicion on himself by having the article clipped out, but simultaneously contradict this with handwriting that does not match. It just doesn't get anymore maddening than this for police or fun for Allen.
Basically, I can't imagine a housekeeper who couldn't have any personal interest in who Zodiac was falsely reporting the conversation. And, giving his birthday to police unverifiably through a third party is exactly what I'd expect from the Z.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldf4n.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 08:09 pm:|
Actually, to be fair, it seems that Allen did not really "pass" the polygraph examinations. Det. Bawart had two other examiners review the results and they concluded Lister's test was invalid. The VPD examiner, Johnson, opined that Allen was under the influence of a psychotropic drug during the test, which in effect negates the results. So, to find out, they got a search warrant for Allen's medical records at Atascadero, and sure enough, they were giving him Valium. Further investigation indicated the probability that he self-administered Thorazine that he stole from the dispensary where he worked. Either one of these would defeat the test. Other examiners who looked at the results said there weren't any control questions given at the start of the test about meds, prescribed or otherwise. So, they might as well have not even given him the tests.
After all, if he passed the test and knew it and knew the police believed it, then why the phony letter from Jim Silver?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 09:28 pm:|
Ray: you use the example of The Zodiac playing chess: good enough in a way: Then you
admit to all the dumb things that Zodiac has done. I don't believe that The Zodiac was
incompetent, only that Allen as Zodiac would have been, however let's both agree that
Allen as Zodiac did some stupid things. This is the point I'm making: Why did he win the
game of chess, while making all these stupid moves?
As far as what Zodiac wrote in his letters: I believe he did a masterful job on that, you said it yourself, he is not occupying a jail cell, actually I should say that they never arrested The Zodiac for his Zodiac crimes. Of course, if Allen is writing, then maybe it was not so masterful. I believe that the name of the game was not "taunting", a component of the game it was, yet I believe the "game" was terrorism. It all seems to point that way: Bombing, striking back and taking credit for his acts. Demanding buttons be worn or else. That might be taken as a joke, maybe he was serious about the buttons, I don't know, but it is terrorist intent. Terrorists aren't satisfied until the larger force that is oppressing them, has an attitude change. Even then, bitterness might run too deep to alter the terrorists disposition. That leaves us with The Zodiac as a terrorist for life or until society is radically changed. The Manifesto, right? The way I see it, in order to fit Allen into The Zodiac crimes, one has to develop this 007ish type weaved tale that is not anywhere near being true to what a terrorist is all about.
|By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) (sdn-ap-008txhousp0457.dialsprint.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 10:41 pm:|
I guess I missed where it nailed down that the housekeeper received the birthday call
on Dec 18.
It would have been nice if she called the police right away, but this didn't happen, so we must rely on her memory of when she received the call, if she did indeed say she received it on the 18th. But I'm sure she has a good memory.
But I notice on p.361 of ZU:
"On December 18, 1969," Belli recalled, "the Zodiac mailed me a brief note wishing me a happy Christmas."
But the letter was actually mailed on the 20th
( http://www.zodiackiller.com/BelliEnvelope.html ), so either Belli recalled incorrectly or Graysmith misquoted him. Now Belli was one of the best lawyers in the country, and one would expect him to give great attention to detail, at least as much as the average housekeeper; but if Belli was wrong, I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
Roger, do you ever check your e-mail?
What's E-Mail? I just got on the computer last week.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 10:48 pm:|
"Belli was one of the best lawyers in the country"
He was no Lionel Hutz, but he was pretty good.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td021.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 08:55 am:|
Thanks for the information with regard to Allen's polygraph test.
Zander wrote, "Of course, if Allen is writing, then maybe it was not so masterful."
Let me get this straight; you're saying that if the Zodiac wasn't Allen then the Z missives were "masterful" but if Allen was the Zodiac then they weren't?
"I don't believe that The Zodiac was incompetent, only that Allen as Zodiac would have been . . ."
Let me guess, TK as the Z would have been competent, right? I agree with Ray when he wrote, ". . . both Z and Allen had this trait in common - intentionally doing stupid, self-incriminating things. And that, as anyone can easily imagine, is very uncommon." Exactly, Ray.
"I believe that the name of the game was not 'taunting' . . . I believe the 'game' was terrorism. It all seems to point that way: Bombing, striking back and taking credit for his acts."
Terrorism? Exactly what was his agenda and who was it that he was terrorizing? The desire to be recognized, even when it involves murder, doesn't make an individual a terrorist. Nor does murder for the sake of self-gratification or self-glorification. In fact, I can't think of a single motive that can be safely ascribed to the Zodiac that would classify him as a terrorist. Mass murderer? Maybe. Terrorist? No. At least, not in my opinion.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldec8.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 04:25 pm:|
Yeah, the housekeeper of a defense attorney calling the police when potential clients call to retain his services. Do you think she would have a job if she did that? Do you also think a prominent attorney might actually have a written log of calls taken in his absence? Do you think Armstrong actually interviewed the housekeeper and saw the log? What do you think any of this has to do with Graysmith's inability to tell a factual story?
Don't you think SFPD determined the date of the call before reporting its existence to the FBI? Don't you think this date is in their records? How does the fact that it does not appear in the teletype suggest that it is not December 18? Do you think SFPD/FBI has no more paper on it than this?
You know, the thing that really has me going is that there's a big circle of heads in the sand around this issue. Too many to make me think it doesn't have merit. You guys are apparently afraid of this because it's an A-bomb with a trip wire. If not, they'd already have had it up on the "ZU Stupidity" thread months ago pointing at it and laughing their heads off to the tune of, "Yeah, right so then why didn't the housekeeper call the police?" and "HA HA, no way Zodiac was that dumb!"
Where's my Thorazine?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 05:43 pm:|
I guess my whole point on this 12-18 is that if you believe that Allen was The Zodiac and phoned in his birthdate, then you have to accept that Allen is a boob, an imbecile. I don't see how that matches "The Zodiac". I see "Z" as someone with compulsive leanings towards killing and seeking publicity. He is a terrorist, afterall... he is going to make some phone calls. That doesn't mean he was stupid. I mean, you might as well say that Zodiac was stupid to shut off his car at Lake B.. What if the car didn't start again ? There are unavoidable risks if you decide to start up a murder spree. People generally frown on that sort of thing. What's the word.. "inherent" risks. So it just seems that there is some connection being placed between Allens incompetence and the fact that Zodiac was a publicity-seeking killer. One is better off arguing that Zodiac had a problem controlling his anger than to argue that he was stupid or lucky. But with Allen one is locked into saying such things.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 06:12 pm:|
There is a difference between plugging in Allen as The Zodiac and lets say Kaczynski as The Zodiac. For example, Kaczynski would commit the Stine crime..... Allen would commit the Stine crime after just being interviewed as a Zodiac suspect. That's incompetence, there's no doubt about it. I don't care if he was the most confident killer who ever lived. He would not know whether he was being watched or not. He should assume that he is. This sort of thing causes competent killers to lay low or even pack it up. As far as Zodiac writing masterfully: The difference again: If Kaczynski is writing...it's pretty much mastery as far as I can tell, unless I missed something... If Allen is writing then we know he was nice enough to tell them the composite was wrong. That would be a very stupid thing to do. These are just two examples. Try it for yourselves R+S. It's a lot of fun. Maybe you can find some more. The basement line might be another.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (163.philadelphia04rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 06:23 pm:|
The thing that bothers me about this 12/18 business is that I can't seem to find it anywhere in my set of comprehensive FBI files, nor do I see any mention of it in the '91 affidavit.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddko.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 07:10 pm:|
Now we're getting somewhere. My whole point of this thread was to bring this out. It is not in those documents, is it? But it is somewhere! And one of the places is the SFPD file. Now we have a possible explanation for why they kept after the guy for so long even when certain other things didn't seem to match up.
Again, you are making a long series of unfounded assumptions. Here's an example:
"...if you believe that Allen was The Zodiac and phoned in his birthdate, then you have to accept that Allen is a boob, an imbecile."
No I don't. Nobody has to accept this except you. You have to accept it because it is how you see TK as Zodiac. Going back to the chess game angle, say you have a championship match where a player intentionally sacrifices the queen early in the game. That is something most people will say is dumb. But if he is way ahead of the game and ends up winning, does that make him incompetent? Z certainly won this game. This is the same nonsense as with your terrorist angle. You have blown your cover as a subjective analyst as I always knew you would. There is not one person on here (including Doug) who's going to accept that you evaluated the evidence and that led you to decide you were looking for a terrorist, thereby coming to embrace TK as the Zodiac. What actually happened is that you first decided TK was Zodiac and now you have to confabulate to make it work. Therefore you are doing exactly what you are always lashing out at others on here for - spinning the evidence so that one particular person is implicated.
So, if Doug comes to your defense, I'll concede at let it go at that. I know no one is ever going to get through to you, least of all me.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 08:52 pm:|
Ray, you obviously don't play much chess. In a championship game, the scenario you've laid out is totally unrealistic, sacrificing a queen early in a game leading to victory... that might happen if you and Scott played a game, but not championship play. Fischer once got his queen trapped fairly early by Spassky, but quickly resigned. You are way off in you previous post. I don't have to be right in who I predict is the killer. For example, if I were to name my pick for The Ripper suspect, I would say MJ Druitt. However, you would be lucky to squeeze a 25 percent probability out of me. With Kaczynski it's basically 99.99 percent. That's just the way I see it. I'm not making any claims that I established and researched Kaczynski as a suspect like Doug has, but everything I've been able to read on Kaczynski leads me to believe that he must have been The Zodiac before FC. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I did allow that fraction of 1 percent as a loophole, right? In your post you name Kaczynski The Unabomber as a terrorist, so why isn't Zodiac. They both made bomb threats, and were publicity seeking killers, so why aren't they both terrorists. Other labels are apt, I'm not suggesting it's the only one, but I believe if you are to choose only one label, terrorist would be mine, it seems to explain the most. Terrorists are drawn to bombs, feel persecuted, seek revenge, and like to take credit for their crimes. How about this line, from memory though, "I promiced to punish them if they did not comply with my wishes by anihilating a full school buss." You won't find that in the "Ted Bundy Confessions Files" so I'm thinking we're dealing with someone with at least a passing interest in terrorism.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wp084.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 09:05 pm:|
just curious, how can you possibly speak for Doug?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddq0.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 09:22 pm:|
OK, that's fair enough. I can accept that. You're right, I don't play chess, mainly because I always lose.
|By Linda (Linda) (208-59-124-121.s121.tnt1.frdr.md.dialup.rcn.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 11:02 pm:|
A terrorist is someone who insights fear, horror, panic, alarm, dismay, consternation
in order to gain control. Terrorists can use all kinds of methods to get their message to
others; the key is communicating the threats to the general public in order to gain
control over the most people. Zodiac used written communication to the police and media to
ensure he was heard and acknowledged once he had committed a known action that proved to
the public he meant business.
I certainly think Zodiac qualifies as a terrorist.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 11:05 pm:|
Zander wrote, "I don't care if he was the most confident killer who ever lived. He
would not know whether he was being watched or not. He should assume that he is."
If any police department was watching Allen following his being interviewed on October (6th?), it would have been Vallejo PD. Therefore, it makes sense that Allen as Zodiac would have traveled elsewhere -- San Francisco -- to commit his next murder; a location where he hadn't committed a crime yet. Also, doing exactly the opposite of what the police would expect -- not laying low because he'd just been interviewed -- is, in my opinion, pretty creative thinking.
Zander, this kind of provincial thinking that you continue to exhibit is exactly the reason why the Zodiac has never been caught. Zodiac was able to think "outside of the box". It will require that same type of logic before this case will be closed to everyone's satisfaction.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 02:38 pm:|
Scott, What are you saying here. Allen would be surveilled by Vallejo PD, and then when he drove out of the Vallejo area, it would be like, Well, have a good night Mr. Allen. You can't even make sense when discussing something as simple as surveillance. Scott, debating you is like dealing with a child, and I'm tired of the nonsense. I thought that maybe Ray had a little more class than you, but I noticed his follow-up to my "car door" theory and it seems that you are both low-class losers.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfuv.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 03:14 pm:|
OK, maybe I went a little overboard on that one, but you have to realize I'm not attacking you personally. I don't do that on here. It's just that your recent ideas are, IMO, groundless and not supported by any evidence. To that end, as you do as well, I counter them as best I can. However, I apologize if I offended you.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (25.philadelphia04rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 04:46 pm:|
I prefer not to use the word "terrorist," because it's generally used to describe organizations that use terror for political purposes. Be that as it may, I don't think it's inappropriate as it applies to both Zodiac and Kaczynski. I believe that each derived some kind of gratification from causing fear in society at large, probably because it imbued them with a sense of power; i.e., the ability to manipulate the masses. I certainly don't think that Kaczynski imagined he could change society by maiming the few unfortunates who were unlucky enough to be in the way of his bombs. He enjoyed killing and terrorizing because those activities shored up both his worldview and his ego.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 10:58 pm:|
Zander, it is patently obvious that you know absolutely nothing about police
investigation. Tell me, what right would VPD have to tail Allen into a different
jurisdiction? The fact is, they wouldn't; period. I can't even believe that you feel such
a topic is even open for debate.
I'm tired of the nonsense also, Zander. Never in my life have I come across someone with as many unfounded assumptions as you have; you epitomize the word ignorance and, unlike Ray, I have no problem attacking you on a personal level because I'm not afraid to call things like I see them. You say that debating with me is like debating with a child and yet you are the one who can't even comprehend the basics of police investigation. That's right Zander, VPD would not have been able to follow Allen into San Francisco.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 11:50 am:|
Sylvie, Scott, Zander, etc...enough of the flaming, OK? No more insults, just ignore each other if you have to.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 08:51 am:|
SCott: They couldn't arrest in another jurisdiction without a warrant and usually a courtesy call on the locals. They can tail anywhere they want.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 09:04 am:|
Hey, did anyone ever answer Roger's very cogent question? Exactly what does put the phone message on the 18th?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 09:05 am:|
Anyone confirm whether Belli's home phone was listed at the time?
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbfd786.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 06:07 pm:|
Peter: hopefully, more Z-search is to be accomplished this Wednesday, so, if at all possible, I shall check it out.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 08:58 am:|
Belli's home phone listing and what makes the date of the call the 18th ?
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbed167.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 10:39 am:|
I have no idea how to find out when that call was made, but I can find Belli's home address and number if either or both were listed in 1969.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 10:52 am:|
The question at this point is not so much when the call was made, but what was the basis for the statement that it was made on the 18th.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 10:56 am:|
COme to think of it:
Ray. YOu started this with the statement that the call was made on the 18th. What's your source?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:23 am:|
Ray? You there, Ray?
Its a simple question:
Why do you say the call was made on the 18th? How do you know it was made on the 18th? Where did you read that? What's your source? Who said so?
Is the question clear?
If Ray has no answer to the question, the entire premise of this thread is false. We have seen no evidence at all that the call was made on the 18th, and all of this discussion about whether it was made on Allen's birthday, or if Allen would do that, and why and wherefor is completely pointless.
Thanks a lot, Ray.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldd0j.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 05:26 pm:|
The short answer is that I don't know for sure that it was the 18th. I said it was reported in ZU in the opening post on this thread. My source for this is Zodiac Unmasked page 362. I know Graysmith gets dates wrong quite often, but he also gets them right from time to time. The whole point I have been trying to pry loose is exactly this: Even though the date apparently is not in the FBI report, it is a fact that the phone call took place during the time Belli was overseas. This is consistent with the reported date, and narrows things way down. What's more, the authorities, including the SFPD, which no doubt investigated what the date was, know it for sure. The fact that it hasn't been publicly released is kinda suspicious. This is also consistent with the long-standing interest in Allen as a suspect after several other avenues of investigation didn't really pan out with him. Of course, everything Graysmith writes admittedly has to be corroborated at least once. But he does have sources. And notwithstanding this, there is neither any evidence that the date was anything other than the 18th - so I can pose the opposite question, "How do you know it was not the 18th?" Do I have to be able to prove it before the discussion becomes germane? I hardly think so. So, we must acknowledge accordingly that it might well have been the 18th. I would say this makes a discussion along these lines quite far from pointless.
Also, something else that makes me think there is something to this is the Lynch interview. If you look at the text of the report on that interview, you find that Allen's DOB is noted in the short section that relates to him. It's probable that the information in there was given to Lynch by Allen personally. That would just be the most perverse thing he could possibly do - give out his birthdate as the Zodiac knowing he had already provided it to the authorities as Allen. But of course, just to be a pill, he would do it in a way that would drive the police nuts. They might get the information, but it would not be admissible at trial as it would fall under attorney-client privelege. Then, of course, there's the hearsay angle. In any event, I can't really see Belli confirming in court that his own client called him on the 18th, can you? My God, that's perfect, and it's exactly what I would expect from the Z.
I have a potential source myself and I'm attempting to get verification of this. In the meantime, let me pose the following question. Say we had the 18th down in an official police report. What would you say then about it's import? Would you acknowledge that it is inculpatory for Allen, or would you say that it only has a 1 in 365 (oops, 1 in 364.25) chance of being so? I know you don't like Allen for any of this, I just want to see if there's a point where the Contra-Allenistas (love that term, BTW) are ever going to stop avoiding the scary issues. Yes, you are, because according to you I'm not even supposed to start a thread like this until I have proof. Maybe you can appeal to Tom to delete this entire thread of baseless allegations.
Ray the Heretic
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldd0j.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 05:35 pm:|
Of course, don't forget, if we can't find Belli's number in the book, then Armstrong is a liar and we can just move on. You're not pitching to a jury here, Peter. You have my full permission to get real.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 05:44 pm:|
I believe the 12-18-69 date is actually somewhere in the FBI reports.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldcre.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 06:46 pm:|
I don't have a complete FBI file. APBNews went off the air before I could finish downloading it. Does anybody have it on CD Rom? Or if there is a e version somewhere to dl?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (102.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 06:52 pm:|
I've got the whole set and haven't been able to find the 12/18 reference.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 05:55 am:|
Thank you, Douglas.
Ray: No, you don't have to prove it before the discussion becomnes germane, and I never said you did. What you have to do, however, is establish that there is some basis for the premise that the call was made on the 18th. Especially when you assert that "this is a documented fact." A report in Graysmith, as we all should know by now, is decidedly not documentation of a fact.
It may be reporting of a documented fact, but the only way to make that assertion is to check the document.
"Of course, everything Graysmith writes admittedly has to be corroborated at least once."
So corroborate this. Once.
Further assertions without documentation do not help, viz:
"Even though the date apparently is not in the FBI report, it is a fact that the phone call took place during the time Belli was overseas."
Again, what is the source or documentation for this? When exaclty was he overseas? How do we know he was overseas? I sure as he** wouldn't be as soon as the 18th under the circumstances. The fact that SFPD "investigated and knows for sure" is equally unhelpful. What exactly do they know? As far as we know, what they may know for sure is that the call took place on the 29th, or any other date.
But "it might well have been the 18th." That aint exactly the same as "This is a documented fact", now is it.
You can start a thread on anything you like. I'd prefer to discuss documented facts. Coulda mighta maybe what if it was the 18th is a waste of time and Tom's webspace, IMNSHO.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldes3.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:12 am:|
Who appointed you Royal Conservator of Disk Space? It's my time to waste, and if Tom doesn't like how I'm using his space, I'm sure he'll let me know. You Ostrich-types always reveal yourselves with attacks like this. Yes, I shouldn't have said it was a documented fact, I should have said it was documented as fact. It's apparently obvious to everyone but you that what I'm trying to do is get a discussion going about this and see if the actual date can be found or proven. You suggest that I prove it myself before I even mention it on here and you mercilessly attack every statement from top to bottom. That smacks of someone with an agenda, someone who doesn't want the date to be known or discussed, because it might be detrimental to your case. Your lawyer technique kind of gives you away here.
I really like the way you decline to answer my question based on the assertion that it's a waste of time and space. That's the worst argument I've ever heard in my life, and yet it comes from someone with intelligence and debating ability. But hey, what am I saying? You're not even reading this thread anymore are you, because you're not wasting your time with it. You have other documented and proven factual matters to discuss, such as that LB was not carried out by Z!
If you are still here, the best thing you can do is go find some evidence that it was not the 18th. That's not likely to happen though because that would require you to actually get involved in something, and you're more comfortable just cruising through here looking for posts to attack. I don't know why you get pleasure from this, but you are only going to continue to undermine your own credibility if you maintain this infantile course of judging whether certain conversations have earned the right to exist.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-92.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:46 am:|
Who appointed you purveyor of false premises?
This is obvious to everyone but me? Go back and look at the posts. Every single one engaged in the discussion of whether the date can be found and proven is asking you the same question I am: where does the information come from? Everyone else (Chris) accepts it as fact. It's your assertion, pal. In any forum I know of, law, science, debate, literature, you name it, the burden is on the one asserting a premise to establish its basis, not the other way around.
"Documented fact" vs "documented as fact"? Distinction without a difference: one mention in Graysmith is not "documented as fact". Documented as fact where, other than your post?
Where exactly did you ask whether the date can be confirmed? I missed that. You said in the second line of your first post that it was confirmed and then proceeded with the discussion of the implications of the fact.
No one is asking you to prove anything. We just want to know where the information came from, other than the unsupported assertion of Graysmith. If we knew the call was actually made on the 18th, the discussion would have an entirely different meaning. Without that information, your question amounts to nothing more than hey, gang, what if this call was made on the 18th?
Just exactly what does "lawyer technique" give away? Anybody know of any serial killers who have been nailed without it?
OK: evidence that it was not the 18th. (Sigh . . .)
1. Graysmith asserted it, without reference to a source. That's not just an absence of support. That makes it statitisticaly likely that Graysmith made it up. That's his MO.
2. It does not turn up in Douglas's search of the complete FBI record.
3. After almost 2 weeks on the subject, you have been unable to identify one single reference to it anywhere except Graysmith.
4. Remaining statistical probability that it was made on the 18th:
Assuming it was made in 1969: 1/363
Assuming it was made in Dec. 1/28
Assuming it was made in ay given week. 1/7
Assuming it was made while Belli was in Germany 1/# of days he was away.
Complete answer to the actual question you asked ("How bout that dec 18th "birthday" phone call"?)
Yeah, Ray, that would really be something. It obviously increases the likelihood that it was Allen and that he was an idiot or begging to be caught, stopped, helped. Yeah that would be interesting. Is it true?
OK I answered all your questions. Now you answer mine: what's the evidence that the call was made on the 18th?
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-wk063.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 01:35 pm:|
I've noticed Z's risky behavior being referred to as "dumb" or "incompetent," whereas it appears obvious to me that the riskiness of the behavior was deliberate (phoning from in front of the station etc) as that was a very important part of the "thrilling experience" for him. Kleptomaniacs and other pathological criminals also often display a tendency to get a big rush from taking a big chance. So how was it dumb or incompetent if it was deliberately supposed to be risky?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldejc.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 04:55 pm:|
You are exactly right. That's what makes the most sense to me, too. There's no fun to be had if it isn't dangerous, in other words. Exactly.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-220.127.116.11.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 07:17 pm:|
I dont find any relevance to the year in which the claim is made insofar as determining the odds of a non-Zodiac claim of a December 18th birthday coincidentally matching that of Mr. Allen. A February 29th birthday is less likely, of course, but I don't see that as a factor in this situation, where there are 366 possible birthdays and the caller has one of them: Thus 366 to 1: Of course, determining odds is a funny medium, and if someone can argue that I am wrong on this, a counter can be entertained. Speaking of odds: Another factor is that Allen not as Zodiac is much more likely to place the call than Allen as The Zodiac : But I don't want to set odds. Why? Because what is the point until it can be said as factual that the call is December 18th in origin? If we were to find out that the call was, in fact, placed on December 14th, for example, Ray and other Allenistas would drop this issue like a hot potato on July 4th. This displays an unobjective directive whereas if it appears Allenistic, it has the golden touch, if not, it crumples into the Allen-reject pile where his whole weaved majical story will end up in the post-DNA end. Of course, after that it will be fun reading the threads about how Kaczynski must have wrote for Allen or this and that but until then: Keep weaving.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 05:33 am:|
"Speaking of odds: Another factor is that Allen not as Zodiac is much more likely
to place the call than Allen as The Zodiac : But I don't want to set odds."
And Allen's motivation for that would be . . .?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld82r.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 12:12 pm:|
Something not verified is not proven false.
Distinction without a difference?
Documented as fact means Graysmith reported it to be a fact. This is potentially, albeit not necessarily, different than being an officially documented fact.
"Just exactly what does "lawyer technique" give away?"
It gives away your desire for a specific result. You would not attack posts like this (which merely explore possibilities) otherwise. You said it yourself, why waste your time with it if there's nothing to it? But here you are coming back again and again to discredit and repudiate everything I say. That's ok with me, I can reciprocate if forced to do so.
As far as evidence, you have provided absolutely no evidence that the call came on a different date.
"1. Graysmith asserted it, without reference to a source. That's not just an absence of support. That makes it statitisticaly likely that Graysmith made it up. That's his MO."
The phone call happened. The police know the date. Graysmith had a source that he didn't reveal. In my view, someone is going to have to show this to be wrong before it's no longer a topic of discussion.
"2. It does not turn up in Douglas's search of the complete FBI record."
I don't know what Douglas has, but I doubt anyone has a complete FBI record. If he has the version released via the FOIA, it is heavily redacted. Moreover, there are many pages that have been redacted in their entirety. Replacement pages are inserted wherever report pages are not provided and the statutes that provide the reasons are referenced. Even if Douglas has a complete version, that he can't find any date is not evidence that the date is something other than the 18th. That argument is totally lame.
"3. After almost 2 weeks on the subject, you have been unable to identify one single reference to it anywhere except Graysmith."
So what? How much time do I have? I didn't know I was involved in a race. Besides, are you saying that FBI Report 9-49911-88 doesn't read as Graysmith reports? There's no reason for this report to even exist unless SFPD first determined the date of the call. If Graysmith is confabulating here, he's being foolhardy because the actual date is in the possession of law enforcement. Even if it is not in the FBI file, it is for sure in the case file of the SFPD.
The remaining statistical probabilities are irrelevant because they are based on variables whose values are unknown, and we have other evidence to consider. Just wanted to see if you were going to be logical about this or take the bait, so to speak.
"Yeah, Ray, that would really be something. It obviously increases the likelihood that it was Allen and that he was an idiot or begging to be caught, stopped, helped. Yeah that would be interesting. Is it true?"
I don't know. Maybe if more people would get involved, we could find out in a time frame that even you might find acceptable. Hence this thread. Why is it that your sole input on this board seems to be criticizing other posters?
Zander, you wrote:
"If we were to find out that the call was, in fact, placed on December 14th, for example, Ray and other Allenistas would drop this issue like a hot potato on July 4th. This displays an unobjective directive whereas if it appears Allenistic, it has the golden touch, if not, it crumples into the Allen-reject pile where his whole weaved majical story will end up in the post-DNA end."
If the call was not placed on the 18th, of course I will drop the issue. Why wouldn't I? At that point in time, it would seem that Allen would not be so strong a suspect. What I find unobjective is people saying at this point in time that there is evidence that the date is something other than the 18th, when no such evidence has been found. It's like I have to prove Graysmith's claim before I can talk about it. That's what is interesting, too. No advocates of other suspects want to talk about this either, because the possible range of dates isn't applicable.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (158.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 08:35 pm:|
If the report of the 12/18 birthdate were there, the information would most certainly have been used in the 1991 affidavit. In that document the police literally impugned their own fingerprint and handwriting analysis in order to obtain the warrant. A piece of information such as the 12/18 reference would not, in my opinion, have been overlookd.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (41.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:34 pm:|
I had some misgivings concerning whether the document in question actually appeared in the FBI files, so I carefully went over them a second time and did indeed find the document mentioned by Ray at the beginning of this thread. It's part of the file named FBI8.pdf in the APB set, page 26. There's no mention of the 12/18 date, so this will have to be corroborated somehow if the Allen theorists are going to make anything of it. My earlier assessment still stands, namely, that this information, if cogent, would have appeared in any affidavits to obtain warrants against Allen.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:46 pm:|
Doug, if the 12-18 date is true add it to the pile of "coincidences" against
Allen. It's a big pile.
I disagree that it would have appeared in an affidavit since I bet you not one investigator ever knew Allen's birthday. A ton of circumstntial evidence was overlooked.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (91.philadelphia04rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 02:56 pm:|
Tom, the suspect's DOB is included in every FBI document in which a particular suspect
To tell you the truth, I don't buy into the argument that there's a "ton" of circumstantial evidence against Allen. What we have is a denunciation against Allen and a desperate scrambling for connections on the part of the authorities and the amateurs.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 03:01 pm:|
Doug, since when do SFPD or VPD consult FBI documents when preparing an affidavit?
Hell, VPD's George Bawart didn't even know where Allen was working in 1969. He was quite surprised to learn Allen was employed at a grade school at the time Zodiac was threatening school children.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 03:02 pm:|
By the way, there's no desperation here, Doug. It's more like an easy game of connect the dots.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (251.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 06:07 pm:|
Doug, since when do SFPD or VPD consult FBI documents when preparing an affidavit?
It was SFPD who gave the information to the FBI!
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-129-49.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 06:24 pm:|
"It was SFPD who gave the information to the FBI!"
About the Belli call, not Allen's birthdate.
|By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) (sdn-ap-008txhousp0476.dialsprint.net - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 07:45 pm:|
Allen's birthday does, in fact, occur in the 1991 affidavit for the search on Allen's
house. The affidavit is on pps.31-45 of the file I have labelled as 'zodiac1.pdf', and the
birthday appears on p.34. No mention of Belli, though.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfna.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 08:01 pm:|
And therefore the information must be in the SFPD file. So, eventually, we should be able to determine whether Graysmith is FOS on this point.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (104.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 08:16 pm:|
Roger, his birthday may appear on the affidavit, but the point is that SFPD didn't
employ it as an argument in favor of the warrant. If they were willing to impugn their own
fingerprint and handwriting analysis, which they supposedly had relied on for decades in
eliminating suspects, I should think they would have jumped on such a salient point as
Allen's birthday corresponding with Zodiac's statement.
Those FBI files aren't very inviting, but I think we ought to peruse them a bit more carefully. Here are a few things relating to handprinting and fingerprints that I derived from my recent reading:
FBI14.pdf, pg. 29
Document dated February 21, 1974
Comparable areas of unidentified latent prints previously reported on items from different crime scenes, as well as latent prints on different envelopes and letters, were compared with each other, but no identifications effected.
FBI 6, p. 3
Document dated 11-24-69
File No. 95-157498
It was not determined whether the hand printing on Q1 and Q3 was prepared by SARGEANT [redacted] or by the other persons whose writings appear in the K1 logbook because of distortion in the questioned material. ... Additional handwriting specimens prepared by the suspect or suspects would be of doubtful value because of the distorted nature of the questioned writing.
FBI 8, p. 32
Document dated 1-20-70
File No. 9-49911
It was not determined whether the questioned hand printing on the threatening letters in this case were prepared by [redacted] because the threatening letters in this case were hand printing and the K06 samples were handwritten in a disconnected script.
|By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) (sdn-ap-008txhousp0476.dialsprint.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 09:27 pm:|
Roger, his birthday may appear on the affidavit, but the point is that SFPD didn't employ it as an argument in favor of the warrant.
Actually, the affidavit was from Vallejo PD, but that was my point too. Tom theorized that the didn't mention the correspondence, if any, to the Belli phone call because they didn't know Allen's birthday, and we now know that the affiant at least (name redacted but evidently Conway) knew it. Of course it's certainly possible that Vallejo PD didn't know about the Belli call.
One of the many projects that I've never got around to is to prepare an index of those FBI files. Maybe one of these days...
And therefore the information must be in the SFPD file. So, eventually, we should be able to determine whether Graysmith is FOS on this point.
Um, what information? The Vallejo PD affidavit, as I said above, doesn't mention Belli at all. And Allen wasn't a suspect (to SFPD, anyway) in 1970.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-110.linkline.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:22 pm:|
The idea that the elusive,evasive, secretive Zodiac would be violating his habit of
NOT leaving "clews"-by practically shouting out his supposed birthdate-is very
difficult to accept.Do we have HARD evidence the source was really Zodiac?This was the
zriminal that told the public that his code contained his name.
Like all of the evidence in this case it must be left on the table though.Nothing must be totally rejected ,within reason.This includes all viable suspects with ALA being the most prominent.
The case is unresolved and unsolved because there hasn't been hard evidence for conviction or resolution.To me ,it's part of the challenge we have all taken on until the case is,hopefully, solved.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldea8.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 09:38 am:|
Roger, you wrote:
"Um, what information? The Vallejo PD affidavit, as I said above, doesn't mention Belli at all. And Allen wasn't a suspect (to SFPD, anyway) in 1970."
Yes, they had his birthday on their reports. That's what's kinda cool about it. Allen knew they had it because of his interview. That he had been looked at briefly there may have caused him to act rashly. There's no way I'm gonna believe that SFPD was going to jump on the phone to VPD and get a list of their "eliminated" suspects with which to affect a comparison. It took them more than 2 weeks to report this to FBI. Gee, maybe they were doing some investigating themselves. Look at Douglas, even with his level of case knowledge, he still had to dig to find this - and he has a computer to work with, not 1000 carbon copies.
Of course, the information I am referring to, Roger, is the actual DOB given. There is no way to believe that the SFPD did not investigate and determine the actual date of the call. If they had determined that there was nothing to it, the FBI teletype would not exist. That a report was made means the call was verified. That a DOB was given means Armstrong darn sure found out what that date was. And, finally, he would write that information down on paper and put it in the SFPD file. The exact reason the date cannot be found in the FBI file I cannot explain, but this is no evidence that it's not December 18.
So, we see the campaign to pigeon-hole, deflect, and obfuscate all discussion related to this possibility continuing unabated.
That's a most interesting point you raise. I know you're just using it as an example, but allow me to point out how on the mark you may be with your correlation of the DOB announcement with the encryption of a name within the codes. Now, it is generally accepted that there is no name in the code, and therefore it can be taken fairly lightly that the actual DOB of the Zodiac was given (if I take your point correctly). My thoughts on this are to wonder whether the truth about either of these possibilities is known for sure...
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-44.bos.east.verizon.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:12 am:|
The date is not the 18th, it is the 26th.
That is now documented as fact.
|By Clark Kent (Clark) (test2.pacinfo.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 12:53 pm:|
Peter H wrote: "The date is not the 18th, it is the 26th. That is now documented
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-tm012.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 03:11 pm:|
I may be reading this wrong, but it seems that the implication has been made that the housekeeper did not immediately report this phone call to the police. This strikes me as very strange; if a well known serial killer that had plummeted your home state into paranoia and terror for many months called you on the telephone, would this not be more than just a little bit unsettling? Surely anyone in their right mind would call the police immediately, or as soon as their voice returned. And if she did report it to the police immediately, why would they wait almost two weeks to report it to the FBI, especially in a high profile serial murder case? Additionally, this would be the only known time the perp ever identified himself as Zodiac on the telephone, which he only is known to have used immediately after killing.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-17-11.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 04:19 pm:|
Clark, I have a source I can't disclose. I don't need any corroboration, do I, Ray?
Park, if a well known serial killer called me on the phone, I would be disbarred for calling the police. You ever call a lawyer? Want the receptionist to contact the papers immediately?
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-tm012.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 05:53 pm:|
"Park, if a well known serial killer called me on the phone, I would be disbarred
for calling the police. You ever call a lawyer? Want the receptionist to contact the
I said the police, not the papers, not that that necessarily matters. But is being contacted by a well known serial murderer who identifies himself only by a pseudonymn and simply says that it is his birthday the same as a legitimate solicitation for legal representation? How would that get you disbarred? How is this different from Belli turning the Happy Xmass letter over to the police?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddt8.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 07:07 pm:|
The point is that the call would have to be assumed to be a request for representation. In no case could an employee of the attorney decide what course of action to undertake. They could only forward the information to Belli. By the time Belli found out about the phone call, he would have already had the copy of the letter in his hand asking "Please help me." Advising the police that you had been contacted/retained by Zodiac is a far different thing than taking steps to assist the police in tracing his calls and identifying him.
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-tf072.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 03:14 am:|
"The point is that the call would have to be assumed to be a request for
Why? How is "I can't wait. It's my birthday." a request for legal counsel, especially considering he called Belli's home and not his office?
"In no case could an employee of the attorney decide what course of action to undertake. They could only forward the information to Belli."
This seems to me to be taking a house rule to an absurd extreme. When would a phone call to an attorney's home merit contacting the police, if not when it is from a confirmed serial killer (or someone impersonating one)? Is an attorney's employee exempt from protection against harassment?
"By the time Belli found out about the phone call, he would have already had the copy of the letter in his hand asking "Please help me."
And once again I ask, how would turning this over to the police not get him disbarred, whereas reporting the phone call would, as Peter was saying it would?
"Advising the police that you had been contacted/retained by Zodiac is a far different thing than taking steps to assist the police in tracing his calls and identifying him."
So far the only thing in question has been reporting it to the police. How is this distinction relevant here?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-19-117.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 08:16 am:|
Right on, Ray. Park: Police, papers: no difference. The communication cannot be revealed. To anyone. Period. It's not a "house rule". Its the law. The only thing that can be reported to the police or anyone else is expression of an intent to commit a specific crime in the future. "I can't wait", for any reason, indicates the urgency of the need for the lawyer's help. The fact that it was a call to his home also makes no difference: if its a call to an attorney for legal help, its a confidential and priveleged communication. In fact, there is an argument that none of it should have been revealed to the police. However, in tis case, the communication to the press was an attempt to communicate with Z, to respond to the request for help. Since that could only be done publicly, it is presumed to be in Z's interest and not a violation of confidentiality, although it is arguable either way.
|By Mike (Oklahoma_Mike) (22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 08:39 am:|
Belli may well have given his housekeeper, his entire list of employees who might
answer the phone instructions, as Ray suggests, to forward the information to him before
taking any action other than clear emergencies (house on fire, etc).
This would not be an unusual practice for any attorney, especially someone like Belli who was much in the public eye and doubtless received many calls, at home and office, seeking representation and legal advice.
The entire crux of this thread boils down to 2 or three answerable questions:
1. Can we document, independently, that Belli received such a call on a specific date?
2. Do any suspects have a birthday on the specific date?
The second should be easy to answer through birth records. The first is tougher, but if anyone finds a police file listing the date I would tend to believe it. If Belli did give staff information about phone calls he likely instructed them to record such data as who, DATE, and time of call.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddi3.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 10:51 am:|
I can't figure you out. It's like you seem to demand probable cause prior to asking the scary questions. What exactly are you trying to protect?
You wrote, "I have a source I can't disclose. I don't need any corroboration, do I, Ray?"
(For clarification for others, this is not really true. Peter is using this ruse to mockingly disestablish Graysmith's claim. Peter has no such source of information.)
In a previous post in this very thread I wrote, "Of course, everything Graysmith writes admittedly has to be corroborated at least once."
See how you are playing the obfuscation game? You are knowingly misrepresenting my stated position on the matter so you can portray me as someone who requires no proof of anything that implicates Allen. This is more lawyer technique, attempting herewith to paint everything I say with the wide brush of incredulity. I hope you didn't believe anyone on here was really going to fall for that, although you do have some folks confused. Great effort, though. Of course Graysmith's obiter dictum requires corroboration. I have been working on getting that corroboration, in part by starting this thread with the hope that it would get someone involved who has some way of obtaining the necessary documentation. One logical step along the way would be to try to figure out where this information might be located. I think it is obvious that the SFPD case file would be a good starting place. Any way you slice it, the information exists. Sorry it's taking so long to locate, and I'm sorry you're so afraid of what might be found. I hope you can stand the suspense. In the meantime, why don't you simply allow those who are committed to the advancement of the case through constructive input to discuss the matter as we see fit and close the valve on all this intentionally disruptive spew? As usual, you can be found high atop Mount Sarcasm, casting stones in all directions.
On the other hand, Graysmith, with all his flaws, has, over the years, occasionally produced some very nice information through dedicated investigation. So there is at least a tangible possibility that he has a credible source who has provided him with reliable information in this instance. The only thing to do is investigate this ourselves as a possibility. We don't have to know the answer before we ask the question. And we certainly don't have to first satisfy your skepticism.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddi3.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 10:59 am:|
Belli would have likely chosen a different course of action had Zodiac not already himself established the news media as his preferred method of communication with the world.
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-wl043.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 11:49 am:|
"Right on, Ray. Park: Police, papers: no difference. The communication cannot be
revealed. To anyone. Period. It's not a "house rule". Its the law."
I was (obviously) not aware of that. Tell me this, though it's not directly on topic: hypothetically, if someone took legal action against me, and after the trial I contacted their attorney, would their attorney be bound by the same confidentiality law? And would it make any difference if my contacting them had anything to do with the previous legal action or not?
"The only thing that can be reported to the police or anyone else is expression of an intent to commit a specific crime in the future."
Hence turning the letter over was quite different because of his bomb and "nineth and possibly tenth victom" talk. So if he had sent Belli other letters but did not express a desire to commit crimes in them, Belli would be legally barred from releasing them? Also, where is the confidentiality line drawn on the other side of the issue (i.e. where does an attorney's capacity as such end and his "civilianhood," as it were, begin?)That may sound like a dumb question, but the more I think about it the less I'm sure.
"I can't wait", for any reason, indicates the urgency of the need for the lawyer's help. The fact that it was a call to his home also makes no difference: if its a call to an attorney for legal help, its a confidential and priveleged communication. In fact, there is an argument that none of it should have been revealed to the police."
What is the argument based on, since he expressed an intention to commit crimes in the letter? Was it because he spoke of it in terms of "losing control"?
"However, in tis case, the communication to the press was an attempt to communicate with Z, to respond to the request for help. Since that could only be done publicly, it is presumed to be in Z's interest and not a violation of confidentiality, although it is arguable either way."
I see. Pardon all the questions, just pop me if I ask too many...
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-wl043.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 11:53 am:|
"Belli would have likely chosen a different course of action had Zodiac not
already himself established the news media as his preferred method of communication with
In other words, if it had been his first known communication with anyone, he probably would have gone ahead and told the police? Would the confidentiality law permit him to do so?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-21-83.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 12:39 pm:|
"We don't have to know the answer before we ask the question."
You didn't ask a question. You made a statement:
" Zodiac called attorney Melvin Belli's residence on December 18, 1969, only days before receipt of the Christmas letter. This is a documented fact."
The questions you did ask were:
"Therefore, what criteria has been used to dismiss this as not relevant or inclupatory vis a vis Allen? Or do we simply have a widespread outbreak of Ostrichism on our hands here?"
The criteria use to dismiss this as not relevant to Allen are (1)there is a complete lack of the corroboration you acknowledge is necessary, and (2) there is not one bit of evidence anywhere else that your premise is correct.
To use a "lawyer method" that any investigator should acknowledge, it is irrelevant as a matter of law because it assumes facts NOT IN EVIDENCE.
What we have here is an outbreak of common sense. Show us that there is some reasonable basis for believing the call was made on the 18th.
By the way: if I were afraid of what might be found, would I be begging for someone to come up with it? Please, someone, find the dam* record of this phone call. Incidentally, ray, you have stated independently that the call was at least made while Belli was in Germany. Is there a source for that, or just Graysmith's assertion. If Belli's itinerary and some indication that the call was made during the trip, that would at least help.
Park: You're getting it. The phone call, in and of itself, was only an inquiry for assistance of counsel. Without more, confidentiality would certainly have applied. But the threats of future criminal action in the letter are a sound basis for lifting the protection of confidentiality.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-tj032.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 02:28 pm:|
And I still do not think Zodiac would ever make a mistake like exposing his birthday, so I really do not think it matters even if the call was placed on the 18th.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldc7a.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 03:09 pm:|
No, that part of it is in fact substantiated. The FBI teletype indicates Armstrong told them the housekeeper advised the caller of Belli's whereabouts. That is also part of the evidence (albeit incomplete at this point) that the timing of the call is consistent at least with the proper week of December.
You're right, I did make a statement, but it was only to paraphrase Graysmith. I did in fact ask a question, which is why is this possibility being blown off instead of looked into?
At least now you're saying you want to find the record and lay this to rest, instead of suggesting that it should be actively ignored until independently verified.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldc7a.dialup.mindspring.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 03:29 pm:|
Well, actually there was a press conference where Belli read the letter and offered to help Z, etc.
If Z had not been using the papers to communicate, there probably would have been no press conference, at least not then. But he would still have been under obligation, at least according to one school of thought, to notify the police that Z was threatening to set up the school bus bomb again. So yes, the police would likely have still been advised, but maybe the media wouldn't have been immediately involved. Just a guess.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldc7a.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 03:32 pm:|
Well, the FBI didn't blow off the report. But maybe they don't really know how to establish the relevance of evidence as quickly and accurately as you seem to be able to do.
|By Park Grubbs (Parkgrubbs) (spider-tp022.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 04:52 pm:|
What about the possibility that Z was simply trying to put a bee in the housekeeper's bonnet with a sarcastic quip? I've never heard of a lawyer giving a "birthday discount," so why would he even bother mentioning it? "I can't wait, it's my birthday" taken literally seems to imply special urgency because of it being his birthday, but why?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (193.philadelphia06rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 06:55 pm:|
The theme of the Belli letter, mailed December 20, was Zodiac's inability to control his impulses and his consequent necessity to seek "help." In that context, "I can't wait," should be read as "I can't wait to get help." If so, it strongly suggests that the phone call was made at some point after the letter was mailed.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (193.philadelphia06rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 07:44 pm:|
Here's another interesting document I came across when re-scanning the FBI files:
FBI9.pdf, p. 35
For information of the Bureau and Sacramento, Inspector [redacted] advised that investigation has disclosed that anonymous phone calls received by local T.V. stations directed to Attorney MELVIN BELLI, San Francisco, were made by [redacted] WMA, DOB [redacted] from [redacted] Oakland, California. [redacted] has Oakland Police Department [redacted] and is a [redacted]. Fingerprints of [redacted] compared with latents this matter by San Francisco Police Department Identification Bureau with negative results.
Calls to police agencies directly following an assault appears to have been Zodiac's m.o.; however, I find it difficult to conceive of him placing an extended social call to anyone else and identifying himself as Zodiac, especially considering the risk this would entail. On the other hand, I've no difficulty at all supposing that some publicity-seeking nut case such as the above named individual would play upon the Zodiac phenomenon to get his five minutes of fame. A major event would precipitate such an act, and in this case I can perceive the media response following receipt of the December 20 letter as providing the necessary impetus.
|By Classic (Classic) (spider-mtc-ti014.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 09:00 pm:|
The communications between z and Belli would not fall under the attorney/client
priveledge for the simple fact that z was not a client of Belli's. Ther are two glaring
reasons for this.
1. For an attorney to have a client, he must know who the client is. Not applicable here.
2. Some means of compensation must be established. Yes attorneys do pro bono work sometimes, but see rule #1. What was z going to pay him with and how? No way is Belli taking on a case of this size, even with all the free publicity, without getting some compensation.
Belli had no reason to hide anything from the police. Actually, he had a lot to gain by giving everything to the police. If z is caught, Belli either gets to defend him in court, or if z is ticked that Belli helped the police to catch him, Belli gets the credit for helping catch a killer. Pretty simple. Classic
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-17-14.bos.east.verizon.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 06:42 am:|
Make a few distinctions here will you? Like between what I am saying and what I am not saying? No one is blowing off the report. I am blowing off the uncorroborated assertions about the report. There's a difference there, and if you can't see that you're going to have a tough time distinguishing between probative evidence and conjecture in any aspect of this case. That's quite a handicap to an investigator.
OK. Someone made a call sometime on or before the 29th to Belli's house and mentioned his birthday. Maybe the call was taken by the housekeeper. Please note that there is nothing in the report about a housekeeper. At least not in the version you quoted. But let that pass; it doesn't change anything. So the call was made. Like Scott says, maybe it was Z and maybe it wasn't. Until there is some basis other than conjecture that the call was made on the 18th that's all we've got. Even if it is shown the call was made on the 18th, there are a lot of inferential dots to connect before it leads to ALA. Like the assumption that the statement was true.
Pretty simple, yes. But wrong. Any communication to an attorney seeking legal assistance is privileged, even if it does not lead to a formal relationship. The reason for the privilege is to encourage full disclosures to attorneys by those in need, and applies to any communication seeking assistance of counsel. Obbviously, the necessity for full disclosure attaches at the outset. If someone comes to me and says "I just killed a cabbie, I need help", I can't disclose the admission just because he wasn't my client yet. If for some reason I have to turn him down for representation and he never becomes my client, I still can't disclose. It would destroy the purpose of the privelege if I turned him in or helped track him down.
And no, Belli, would not have to be paid to establish the privelege or the client relationship. Compensation is one thing that certainly shows the relationship, but is not necessary to do so. And this is exactly the kind of case Belli would have taken first -- if at all -- and worried about compensation later. California has -- and had -- the best provisons in the country for court appointment of attorneys -- and investigators, BTW -- for criminal defendants.
Finally, Belli could not be motivated by the possibility you describe: having his choice between defending Z and burning him. That is not a legitimate reason for turning over anything to the police. He had nothing legitimately to gain by turning anything over to the police that he was not required to turn over, and a lot to lose: his license.
|By Classic (Classic) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 02:56 pm:|
Peter H. How could z have had any expectation of confidentiality when he was going to
talk to Belli on a t.v. show.
The dream team got paid(some). Belli would have wanted paid too, especially because back then there weren't any laws against killers profiting from their crimes like there is now. Classic
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-17-136.bos.east.verizon.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 07:09 am:|
Its not a matter of the caller's expectation: that is presumed. It's a matter of restrictions on what a lawywer may do. It's confidential until expressly waived.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldeip.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 09:29 am:|
Once again, here you are attempting to speak authoritatively on yet another subject you obviously know little about. Why don't you go do some reading instead of posting this stuff off the top of your head?
|By Classic (Classic) (spider-wb011.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 04:41 pm:|
What's your problem Ray? And what do you mean "once again". I don't know who
you have me confused with, but I am quite certain you weren't talking to me.
How can an expectation of privacy be there when the conversation is going to be on t.v. That makes no sense at all. If there was a private conversation between them, that would be another matter.
In legal terms, can zodiac be a client of Belli's, or would it have to be ALA,TK or whoever. Could Belli represent a person who's identity is unkown? There ya go Ray, you're so smart, answer that.
As an aside, what motivated z to contact Belli in the first place. He was already getting publicity without having to share the limelight. Was z questioned by police, thus giving the motivation to start the ball rolling? Classic
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:04 am:|
The sincerity of The Zodiacs pleas to Belli is suspect. Keep in mind, he essentially writes (at Christmas time) that the kiddies are safe from being blown up for now, but at any moment he may prepare the bomb and wipe out a school bus. He seems to be writing that he is as unstable as a bomb. And also, he writes that the kids are safe at the moment because the bomb is too massive, but the busses arent running during Christmas vacation? Anyway, I view The Zodiacs pleas to Melvin as an attempt to reach as many people as possible in a terrorist threat. In the Manifesto, Kaczynski writes: "Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone." Another thing too: a School bus is probably the noisiest and most irritating vehicle on the road! Just got back. Dam this greyhound lag!
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 02:18 am:|
My head is spinning from this discussion...First of all, there is a possibility that Zodiac did make that call to Melvin Belli on the 18th, not because of "stupidity" but because he was truly seeking help. In his Dec. letter to Belli, he asked for help several times "please help me I am drownding." If, and I emphasize if, Z's letter was sincere (who knows?), then it is possible that him saying that "today's my birthday" on the 18th of December was a clue...because he wanted help but didn't want to outrightly give his identity away so easily. That would definately be a surefire link to Allen, once again. I was able to speak with Sharon at the t.f. mtg., who said that Allen liked to push the boundries alot (I can give examples on request). I asked her if he did these things knowingly or if he just didn't understand social boundries, and she said that he was fully aware of what the social boundries were but liked to push them anyhow. So Allen liked to push the line...if Z and Allen, again, are one in the same, he could have been truly asking for help (as stated above) or just wanted to push it, to see if he would get caught. Just a theory...I like to get way out there sometimes, and I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve what I'm saying but like to throw things out there for discussion to mull over. Another possibility was that Zodiac, whether Allen or not, went into multiple personalities or fugue states that propelled him to do things unknowingly, like committing murders and writing the taunting letters under one state, and writing the letter to Belli under another (I only theorize this because of the difference in Z's handwriting. On the Belli letter and some of the others, his writing is much "calmer".) If this were the case, then if Z did call Belli's house on the 18th and said "Today's my birthday", maybe he was in one of his states, related to but not the same as,his murdering self. Lastly, I do not believe that Zodiac was stupid. All of those ciphers and letters were meticulously written, and although he wrote that we would know his name after decoding the first cipher, he never revealed it " I will not give you my name because you will try to sloi down my collecting of slaves for my afterlife" Far out, man.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-152.bos.east.verizon.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 07:00 am:|
Classic: Listen up. Despite his tone, Ray is correct in substance. You are asking
questions that have alrady been answered in this thread.
To quote my favorite President, let me make this perfectly clear: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CALLER'S ACTUAL EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. The lawyer is under a legal obligation not to disclose a communication that was apparently made in an effort to get legal help. See the period at the end of the last sentence?
That obligation applies until something happens, like the caller threatens a future crime, he expressly allows the attorney to disclose, he discloses the communication himself, asks the attorney to communicate publicly or under court order. So you need to ask yourself: which of these events occurred in what order?
BTW: What conversation, exactly "was going to be on TV?" the only TV connection I know of was a hoax, and even if it had been the same caller, that doesn't change the circumstances as of the date of the call to the house.
P.S. "Expectation of privacy" is 6th Amendment jargon that also applies to invasion of privacy by outside parties, and has nothing to do with attorney disclosures.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-152.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 07:53 am:|
So, Ray: How's the research going? Been a month or more since we chatted. Any indication whatsoever that the call was made on the 18th?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldcl4.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 08:50 am:|
I'm not quite sure whether that's a genuine question. You're probably suggesting instead that I'm someone who thought I'd just get everybody all riled up for a laugh and then blow it off. I can assure you that's not the case. I prefer to think of myself as a contributor to this case in the truest sense. In fact, I have been working on this case full-time now for ten months. That means I have no job and am not doing anything else. There are plenty of people I know who think I am "a little off" because of this, but nobody has yet seen fit to say I'm not following through on checking things out. It's true, I haven't been able to verify this report yet. Time will tell. I am also involved in other avenues of investigation not involving priveleged information. These are more promising and I've been devoting the majority of my time there. In my view, the passage of time has no impact on whether something is or is not true. I do work slowly, but at least I'm doing something tangible. Or trying to.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-152.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 09:32 am:|
Nope, not a suggestion of anything 'cept the question itself: is there anything at all to Graysmiths assertion that this call was made on Allen's birthday.
|By Ricardo (Ricardo) (pool0044.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 08:06 pm:|
If the call was actually made on December 18, it ought to be mentioned that there are
still other possibilities if the Zodiac is not Arthur Leigh Allen (and if the Zodiac was
not also born on December 18):
(1) Maybe the Zodiac was trying to cast suspicion on Arthur Leigh Allen? Could the Zodiac have found out that Allen was a suspect, whether or not the Zodiac knew Allen personally?
(2) Maybe the Zodiac found out that Paul Stine was born on December 18 and decided to use the birthdate of the last victim as a false clue?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld81a.dialup.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 09:19 pm:|
You're a very smart guy. I wondered if anyone was going to bring Stine into this. Recall, he did have access to Stine's birthday. In fact, I think it would have been too much to resist had the actual Zodiac had the same birthday as Stine, to resist talking about it in some way. So, I think you are right. I think he was using his/Stine's birthday, but I think the reason he did it was for sport - because it was his own birthday, he was not yet a suspect; he was almost anonymous. Because it would still not nail him due to the fact that Stine's birthday was ALSO December 18 and it was given to the police in a way he probably felt could not be used against him.
Finally, someone who brings some thought provoking analysis to the table! I would point out, that Allen was not a suspect at the time the call occurred. It would be nearly impossible for Z to know Allen's name. Unless he was personally aquainted with him and out to frame him as a patsy. But there is no evidence that is the case. In fact, if it was a frame up, two things about it are true: 1) It failed. 2) Allen actively participated in it.
Good show, Ricardo.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld81a.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 09:34 pm:|
Of course, Ricardo, what you suggest leaves the end result of this open for debate in
the following form:
If it can be proven the call came on the 18th, it does not prove anything (not that would have before your post). But now, we can't say the birthday of Zodiac was December 18th, because we know Stine's birthday was the 18th.
If it can be proven the call did not come on the 18th, it doesn't say anything about Allen either, again because of your observation that Stine's birthday was also the 18th.
However, what will not be open for debate is that it would be very interesting if it did. Also, it would indicate an enormous police screw-up. All they had to do was scan all their own paperwork (Lynch interview) and they would have found they had already interviewed a guy with a 12-18-33 birthday. Yes, the call was placed in SF. Should this info have been shared with not only the FBI but Vallejo, too? This could have been shared inter-departmentally and multiple search warrants could have been simultaneously served on all his properties in different jusrisdictions. Had that occurred, this board would likely not exist, IMO.
A VERY nice observation, Ricardo.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 10:01 pm:|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I still haven't seen proof that anyone called Mel Belli on December 18, 1969...
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 01:08 am:|
Tom, not only that,but if the call did come in, where's the proof that the caller
said, "today's my birthday?"
Ray N. Oops, I just reread your first post about the FBI report. I'm still a little leary, though. Wouldn't it be great to interview Belli's old housekeeper (if she's still alive)?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 01:20 am:|
"if the call did come in, where's the proof that the caller said, "today's my birthday?""
Kendra, there could be no proof outside of a recording of the conversation.
I believe the housekeeper is probably giving an accurate account of the conversation, however as far as I can tell the 12-18 date is an assumption.
(Of course, after the Jim Dunbar Show fiasco I'm sure Belli received his share of prank calls. IMHO.)
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-21-54.bos.east.verizon.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:40 am:|
Right on. I'm still waiting for Ray, who claims to be working on Z full time, to come up with this one bit of info, which is the premise of this entire thread.
I thnk I'll start a thread on "What If Don Cheney Actually Had A Tape Recording Of His Famous Conversation With Allen And In The Background You Can Hear The Radio Playing A Live Broadcast That Can Be Proven Took Place On 1/1/69"?
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-21-54.bos.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:42 am:|
"Yes, the call was placed in SF."
And we know this how?
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldefb.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 01:48 pm:|
Well, I mean the call was placed to SF, and investigated by SFPD. They had the
info which they could have passed on to other departments.
You know, Peter, if you think it's so easy, there's nothing preventing you from digging up "this one bit of info" yourself. Since you want me to shut up about this, that would seem a suitable motivation for you. Although I am full time on the case, I am hardly interested in having my investigative priorities dictated to me by you. I'm still waiting for you to get constructively involved in this case on even a token level, Peter.
Oh, yeah, and by the way, when you start your new thread, make sure you include the FBI report that mentions the Inpector's name who reported the radio broadcast he personally determined had actually been recorded. Then we might be able to discuss where we might find the rest of the story. Thanks.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-21-54.bos.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 01:55 pm:|
No Ray, I do not want you to shut up on this. To the contrary.