Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: District Attorney: "I Could Convict Allen Easily!"

I'm posting this on behalf of an attorney who prefers to remain anonymous.

Hey all,

That's a pretty inflammatory subject line, but I'm quite confident that I could convict Allen of several of the Zodiac murders.

Having tried TONS of cases with pure circumstantial proof, this case would NOT be a big challenge. Trust me, when you line up this many facts that point to someone's guilt of crimes this horrific, a jury convicts. A smoking gun is NOT necessary. Cops in general (and in SF in the 60's and 70's in particular) felt a huge need to bury someone with proof before they pushed hard for a conviction, and DA's were the same way. The key is "reasonable" doubt, and when you put 100 or so facts forward that show guilt, 100 separate explanations don't work as a defense. Add to this that Allen made everyone who talked to him about this nervous or scared, a jury would punt him into prison in no time.

Believe it or not, smart defendants are often their worst enemy in court. A jury doesn't like to see someone who is too clever working too hard to defend themselves. They think innocence makes its own case; if someone has a million explanations for everything, they look guilty. The summation goes like this:

"ladies and gentlemen, the defendant would have you believe these facts are all explicable by different excuses: The bombs were left by a friend. The watch was a random gift from his mom. He was going to Berryessa on the day of the Shepard/Hartnell attack but changed his mind. That his mechanical skills and the disabling of cars of victims was a coincidence. That his unusual use of language (Trigger mech, xmass, etc) in an identical manner to Zodiac is also a coincidence. That his forged exonerating letter allegedly from the Justice Department is authentic. That all witnesses who claim to have had Allen confess to them are lying, but he's telling the truth. That his own family never saw the evidence they told police they saw. The access to identical cars, connection to Darlene Ferrin, ownership of a bloody knife used "to kill some chickens", ownership of matching weapons, shoes, his build, and on and on were all nothing more than coincidence. That a witness picked him out of a photo lineup in error. All these incongruous and unlikely explanations on one side, and on the other, the single reasonable explanation to all these facts: Arthur Leigh Allen is the Zodiac!" etc...

Allen blabbed way too much and has far too many lame excuses to escape a jury. His defense lawyer would be heavily limited by Allen's previous tales and explanations. If the guy had shut up, never talked to anyone, and didn't come up with any excuses before trial he'd be far tougher to get. But he left so much to work with.

I just can't believe the police and DA's didn't go for the jugular. I've never seen a prime suspected treated with such respect. Look, they could EASILY have threatened sending him back to Atascadero on a parole violation for just looking at the parole officer wrong. The burden of proof for a PV is very low, evidentiary rules are relaxed in favor of the state, and a judge is always going to go with the parole officer on any decent set of facts. I just can't figure it out.

And all this business of it being impossible to get a search warrant across county lines is absurd! I know Toschi was the man, but they were all WAY too respectful of Allen's rights as a suspect. I've walked through DOZENS of warrants out of county with way less than they ever had.

They should have played rough with him, hooked him up for a PV or weapons violation, or as a suspect. Then let him sweat it out in custody while you bring charges, and squeeze a confession out of him in exchange for not putting him to death. Force him to cough up some hard evidence of his guilt, of course, but he'd be blabbing his guts in no time rather than spending another few years at Atascadero getting the worst possible treatment from the guards. Meanwhile, take your sweet time searching every square inch of every piece of property you can connect to him or a friend. Force the family to testify before a grand jury, depose Belli so that:

1) he couldn't defend Allen and
2) get all the birthday confession phone call evidence in.

I just don't get it. Usually cops and DA's are itching to find an excuse to arrest a prime suspect, here it seems that they did everything they could to avoid it.

It really isn't that tough to convict a guilty man, all this micro analysis of the case makes it seem much harder to prove guilt in a criminal court than it is in reality. Allen would be toast if they'd charged him, and he would have chickened out and plead rather than face poor treatment in the prison system, and possibly the death penalty. He would have provided specifics in his confession, or at least festered in prison for the rest of his years, and the victims would have some measure of closure. The fact that this man lived out his life in freedom is an affront to justice and to the memories of those whose life he ruined.

Anon

I wrote in another thread, "If you really take a good hard look at Allen and then check your bases from the pov of a prosecutor, you'll clearly see that any number of prosecutors would be willing to put Allen on trial. From my point of view -- btw, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be -- and assuming I was a prosecutor, I'm confident that I could nail Allen for Presidio Heights. Everything from there is a no-brainer."

It's good to see that somebody with a degree in law was willing to corroborate my assertions. I am wondering, however, if this anonymous DA feels the same way about any of the other suspects?

Scott

"I just don't get it."

Res Ipsa Loquitur, counsel.

"Res Ipsa Loquitur, counsel."

Because it lacks logic? Just a guess Peter, I've never studied Latin. How close am I?

"The fact speaks for itself". He knows what it means. That Allen was never busted even in 1991 (long after the era in which learned counsel claims SF prosecutors needed to pile on evidence to get a conviction) belies his boast that it would be "easy" to get a conviction on the circumstantial evidence against Allen. Apparently this guy didn't follow the OJ or Rodney King cases. Depose Belli to conflict him out and get the apocryphal birthday call in. Sure. And get Mark Furman to do the search. Belli would have had "anon" for breakfast.

BTW, Scott, just how would you get Allen for PH? Now, that I just don't get. (Diff thread?)

I'm inclined to think that given today's judicial environmental, anyone who becomes a plaintiff in a criminal proceeding, no matter what the evidence, stands a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

I agree 100% with Anon. Whoever this person is, that's the way it lays out. Even without a smoking gun, I just don't see the logic in turning one's back on Allen. Of course, if there was a smoking gun against another suspect, then fine. But there's not. Any investigator will tell you that eventually the circumstantial evidence tells you where you need to focus your investigation. In this case, it's a veritable roadmap to 32 Fresno St.

"The fact speaks for itself".

Now I'm up to speed. I've asked this before and I'll continue asking it until someone can provide a completely fair and easy answer: How much circumstantial evidence does one have to compile before it becomes something other than circumstantial?

I'm going with Anon. and Ray on this one; Res Ipsa Loquitur indeed, Peter.

Scott

Peter:
"That Allen was never busted even in 1991 (long after the era in which learned counsel claims SF prosecutors needed to pile on evidence to get a conviction) belies his boast that it would be "easy" to get a conviction on the circumstantial evidence against Allen."

Peter, after the 1991 search at Allen's residence the Vallejo Police Department had enough to put him away for the rest of his life. It was a no-brainer; a convicted felon in possession of a multitude of guns, bombs and ammo. (Not to mention his sex-offender status and the fact he was in possession of alleged child porn.) They chose not to even issue a citation.

With the VPD it's not a matter of "not having enough hard evidence"; rather, it's a matter of incompetence.

Scott:

Simple answer: A finding of guilt, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's all. Nothing special. Its not how much evidence, its how good.

First, however, you need to understand what circumstantial actually means. It doesn't mean doubtful or weak or uncertain. Circumstantial evidence requires some intermediate inference to be drawn in order to prove a given fact. You look out the window and you see rain. That's as direct as evidence gets that it is raining. You look out a window and you see a dozen people pulling out their umbrellas. You don't see any rain, but you infer that the people in the street feel it. You conclude it must be raining, even though you can't see it. The pulling out of the umbrellas is circumstantial evidence that it is raining.

Second, circumstantial evidence never "amounts to" anything other than circumstantial evidence. That's not how it works. More evidence does not make it less circumstantial. In fact, most evidence is circumstantial to a degree, and arguably all is. I saw Z pull out a gun and shoot Paul Stine. Is that direct or circumstantial? Well, I saw him pull the gun and operate the trigger mech, I heard the report and I saw blood explode all over the cab. Pretty direct. But the conclusion is that Z shot Paul. I didn't see the bullet, but there must have been one. That requires the inference that when I saw him pull the trigger and heard the report, it wasn't a blank and a bullet was actually fired into his head. Didn't see the bullet, but I sure saw its effects. That's circumstantial, if only slightly. Got it?

OK, so you want an easy answer? If there were an easy answer, there would be no need for judges, for juries, for cops, for witnesses, for due process, for the rules of evidence, for the burden of proof or the standard of proof. Just send in Mark Furman. As Justice Black said: It's not supposed to be easy. The whole point of 4th, 5th and 6th amendments is that it is supposed to be difficult. That's because it has to be fair. Not perfect. Fair. And fair is never easy. That's why this is America and no place else is.

As for what's fair: that's easy. The circumstantial evidence, or any other evidence, required to convict, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's all.

It means that there is no other explanation that a reasonable mind could accept. It does not mean that guilt is the best explanation, or the more likely explanation or even the overwhelmingly more likely explanation, or the one on which most reasonable minds agree. It does not mean that guilt is the explanation that you believe. It does not mean that no one has proven it untrue. It means that guilt is the only explanation that any reasonable person could believe. It means that guilt is the only explanation, because you have eliminated all the others.

It means, Scott, that you have the syringe in your hand, and the needle is in the vein of Arthur Lee Allen, strapped to the table there in front of you. It means that you are so certain that Arthur Lee Allen and only Arthur Lee Allen could have committed these crimes, that you will personally push the plunger. The decision is yours, and yours alone. It means that you will take responsibility for that decision before all the world, your Creator and yourself as long as you live, at least.

It means, by the way, that in preparing your case on PH, you have considered and fully explained such things as the following. There is no reasonable doubt that Z mailed Paul's bloody shirt in that letter. There is no reasonable doubt that Z is connected to the other crimes by the letters. There is no reasobable doubt that Sherwood Morrill made this connection by concluding that the same person prepared the letters. That's why given a conviction for PH, the rest is a no-brainer, right? There is also no doubt that Morrill examined Allen's handwriting exemplars, compared them to the Z letters, and concluded "they were not prepared by the same person". Not that there were differences, not "unless ALA was ambidextrous", not "unless the handwriting could have been disguised". T

They were not prepared by the same person.

Full stop.

Sherwood Morrill, the key witness who connects the PH perp to the other Z crimes through the letters has taken the stand and sworn on oath that in his professional opinion, Arthur Lee Allen did not prepare the Zodiac letters.

And when you have fully explained this little anomaly to your satisfaction, be prepared for ten, or a hundred more.

No reasonable doubt?

Push the plunger.

Excellent analysis, Peter. It's why I wouldn't vote to convict "my guy" (as Howard would say) on the basis of the available evidence, despite the fact that I feel strongly that he was involved.

Peter... I concur with Doug... I could almost hear you standing in front of a jury posing this as your closing argument! Great job!

IF, and it is indden big, IF all the 'facts' Anon lists in the post could be documented, it would indeed sound like a strong case. However, a number of bits of the 'circumstantial evidence' cited is open to hot debate for even existing. For examble, the 'birthday phone call to Mr. Belli'. A number of posters here have searched to find documenting evidence that it did occur on that date, but so far no one has posted such documentation. The 'connection to Darlene Ferrin, also has TONS of conflicting testimony. For every witness Anon puts on the stand testifying it was Allen stalking her the defense can put on somone who swears it wasn't. Numerous posters here, interviewing various 'witnesses' have already encountered this. "Ownership of matching weapons", WHAT matching weapons? I have never read any report which indicates other than all guns found in Allen's posession did NOT match ballistics. So what if he owned a .22, it was not
the same type used per police reports! Great circumstantial evidence all right, for the DEFENSE! "That a witness picked him out of a photo lineup in error", well, if you mean Mageau, picking him out 20+ years later after almost that many years of alcohol and drugs, an average defense attrorney would have a field day in cross examination.
As I said at the beginning, IF all the 'facts' of circumstantial evidence mentioned by anon were not in dispute, the case might be good. But such is not the case to date.

Well, Peter is missing the point and getting some of you to follow. First off, Res Ipsa is a term of civil law, and has no applicability at all to criminal proceedings, the term is useless in the context of this conversation. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... Peter, I'm guessing you are a law student or paralegal, am I correct?

Whether criminal charges are or are not filed is subject to the same vague standards that any other decision is subject to. Mistakes get made all the time, usually NOT charging aggressively enough IMO. There was some crazy stuff going on in Vallejo to not have brought charges, that's my opinion based on my experience convicting people with FAR less evidence than present here.

To say that Allen not being charged proves that there wasn't enough evidence (I think this is your point in saying 'res ipsa...'), this is just absurd. I've had dozens of convictions in cases where a defendant was subject to multiple jurisdicitons and the other agency didn't think there was enough to go by. Just like being charged doesn't prove guilt, NOT being charged doesn't prove innocence or lack of evidence.

And a few other things. Circumstantial evidence is NO less reliable than direct evidence. COmes down to quality. DNA and fingerprints are both circumstantial evidence. There is never a need for direct evidence, circumstantial does the job just fine.

But I was trying to make two big points: 1) there is too much evidence to explain away, and 2) the authorities were WAY too polite to Allen. Fine, you can explain away one or ten of the individual facts, but not all of them, and not all of them combined. That's the real leverage you have prosecuting a case like this: things add up to only one result, guilt. You really think there are other reasonable explanations for EVERYTHING, and the fact that they ALL point to Allen? Gawd, the watch, the build, the language, the confessions to friends... WAY more evidence than you'd ever need when you add it up and see who it points to.

And you know what? Even if Allen were to be acquitted, you HAVE to try him. If a jury wants to walk him, fine, that's the will of the community, but as a DA you have to do the right thing by the victims. The truth is that Allen should have been in custody from the start, should have been charged with PV's within weeks of his release from Atascadero, and should have been pressured into a confession from prison. Convicted child rapist that he was, he should NOT have been given the breaks he was given.

Anon

Peter, you wrote, "A finding of guilt, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Yes Peter, I understand that, and I believe that there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict Arthur Leigh Allen for the Zodiac crimes.

"Its not how much evidence, its how good."

I would say that the circumstantial evidence against Allen is good and plentiful. BTW, I know what "circumstantial" means.

". . . circumstantial evidence never 'amounts to' anything other than circumstantial evidence."

By your own admission, it amounts to a conviction if it is good enough.

"It means that guilt is the only explanation that any reasonable person could believe."

In the hands of the right DA, I'm positive that a jury would find Allen's guilt as the only reasonable explanation.

"It means that you are so certain that Arthur Lee Allen and only Arthur Lee Allen could have committed these crimes, that you will personally push the plunger."

Yep, that's right, and I would.

"There is also no doubt that Morrill examined Allen's handwriting exemplars, compared them to the Z letters, and concluded 'they were not prepared by the same person'."

That's right, he did come to that conclusion. However, you and I both know that handwriting analysis is not an exacting science and, as a DA, I'm not obligated to put Morrill on the stand; I'll leave his testimony for the defense and see if I can find a handwriting expert that can counter Morrill's conclusions. Besides, Morrill's analysis is not needed to connect the Zodiac to LHR, BRS, or PH, only Lake Berryessa.

Doug, you wrote, "Excellent analysis, Peter. It's why I wouldn't vote to convict 'my guy' (as Howard would say) on the basis of the available evidence . . ."

I wouldn't vote to convict TK either, Doug; especially given the amount of evidence that points away from him.

Linda wrote, in reference to Peter's last post, "I could almost hear you standing in front of a jury posing this as your closing argument! Great job!"

Maybe so, but if I'm sitting in the jury box I'm not buying it; my vote still goes for Allen's conviction.

Plunge away!

Scott

Anon,

Right. So, in the absence of a confession, you just don't charge him with LB and that way he only gets death or four life sentences.

Scott: Can you list your key points that point towards conviction of Allen. And then can you list the key points of evidence you feel would point away from Kaczynski?

Thanks. Linda

Linda, how about in a different thread...

Good idea, Tom, but when I move it, I think I'm going to change the question slightly and present it on two separate threads... One for Allen and one for Kacyznski and ask both Scott and Doug to prepare a listing each item of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) as if they were both prosecutors presenting their opening statements to the jury for their respective suspects.

Hope this idea sounds OK to you.

Board:

I'd like to clarify my position on this. Maybe the point we're missing is that there is a distinctive difference between maybe having enough circumstantial evidence to convince a jury to convict, vs. getting a conviction of the right guy based on the available evidence. There is such a thing as blind justice. Only thing is, I don't think any suspect would be getting any of that from anyone on here. Point being, just because a case can be made, it doesn't mean that case should be made. Some people think a comparable case can be made against TK. Does that mean we should charge them both and see which one the jury convicts? What if two juries both convict? Does that mean the two defendants were ipso facto partners? I think not. Personally, I'm not particularly in favor of capital cases being built on circumstantial evidence alone, particularly when much of it has been willed into being with intros like, "there was a report that..." or "it is commonly held." I agree that the circumstantial facts against Allen are strong, but on the other hand, The Innocence Project exists for a reason. We are talking about killing a person here. I'm afraid we'll need DNA or something of that caliber before I'll consider doing any plunging. So while I still agree 100% with Anon that he could win the case, it seems to me from his tone that he would be more than willing to just "give it a go." Of course, that's easy for a prosecutor to do, because he isn't the one who makes the freedom/death decision. Whatever the jury decides, the attorney retains a plausible rationale of non-responsibility in that all they did was present the "facts" to the jury.

Ray

I would like to know how much knowledge the DA read in the police files. Reading his post,it looks like he got most of the info from this board. The problem with that is,not everything about Allen is carved in stone. The lake B boots? Allen did not have them, yet we have read on this board that VPD found them at Allens. I heard "Graysmith" on Chan.2 say that the police found size 10 1/2 wingwalkers at Allens.That was one big lie,to sell his book,and make Allen look more like zodiac! Davis, Kane,and Phillips, are much better suspects when you look at what they have done, and how they looked in 69.We have far more witness's saying Z was a short man about 5ft 8, than one very traumatized young man looking at someone with a tall head piece on. In 69 Mike M said the shooter was a head taller than Darlenes car,again that makes him short.

Sandy, the story of Allen owning size 10.5 Wing Walkers came from me. I read it in a report at the Hall Of Justice in San Francisco.

Also, Allen wasn't a giant; he was under six-feet tall.

One more point on this subject... Peter is misstating the burden of proof.
The standard is NOT as he states:

"It means, Scott, that you have the syringe in your hand, and the needle is
in the vein of Arthur Lee Allen, strapped to the table there in front of
you. It means that you are so certain that Arthur Lee Allen and only Arthur
Lee Allen could have committed these crimes, that you will personally push
the plunger. The decision is yours, and yours alone. It means that you will
take responsibility for that decision before all the world, your Creator and
yourself as long as you live, at least."

Again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is no 'Moral
certainty' jury instruction. All that is required is that there be no
REASONABLE doubt of the guilt of the accused. Not that you would personally
be willing to squeeze the life out of the defendant. Not that you'd
personally be ok with pulling the trigger, flipping the switch, pushing in
the plunger... This is a VERY misguided argument and one that no judge would
allow in court. Please don't confuse the ability to personally carry out the
eventual sentence with the initial finding of fact! The jury is there to do
one thing only, to determine whether the elements of a crime were committed.
Not to decide whether this is enough evidence to lead them to personally
execute someone. Peter once again shows limited knowledge of the law and how
it applied at trial.

Ray, I get your point loud and clear, but this is not the case with me at least. I am CERTAIN that Allen is the guy, you just don't get this much evidence and not find a guilty man. There is a SPECIFIC jury instruction that FORCES a jury to reason that circumstantial evidence deserves no more or less weight than direct evidence on the basis that it is circumstantial; it comes down to quality and quantity, and in this case there is an abundance of both. Don't get pulled into this 'we can't put a man to death with only circumstantial evidence' ploy...

Anon

And I, along with a lot of other people, are quite CERTAIN that Allen is not the guy. When you say "this much evidence", perhaps you should be more specific. What evidence is that? Name 5 things that, when added together, would be very hard to explain away, and would convince me or anyone else that Allen and no one else is the Zodiac. I haven't even seen one piece of really powerfull evidence on Allen. So, he wears a Zodiac watch. This only suggests he could be Z, not that he is. Thousands of people wear Zodiac watches. So, just pretend like we're all the jurors, and convince us.

Signed,

The Juror

Anon,

Thanks for your reply. I had no idea that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence cannot be viewed with different weight. You obviously have a lot of experience in this area. That would seem to say you might well be right about the outcome of an Allen trial.

Still, something about your argument makes me uncomfortable. I am one of the most dyed in the wool Allen advocates on here, and yet if I had to make a reasonable doubt decision based on the evidence that is available on this site, and whatever else I know and/or believe to be in the police files, I would still vote to aquit Allen. That's after a long time looking at and studying this evidence.

You've obviously made up your mind about Allen's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But your job would not be to convince us to reach the same conclusion by a show of your personal level of satisfaction, although that might be a technique you could use. Rather, we would have to be convinced by the evidence that you describe and present, irrespective of any showmanship. I don't know how much time you've spent reviewing the evidence in this case. I'd wager that it's less than the collective efforts of this board. What I'm leading up to is that the strength of your conviction in this case seems to lie in what you perceive as an established pattern of evidence and guilt. In other words, your past experience tells you when there's this kind of evidence, there's guilt. But what kind of guilt? Judicial or factual? I submit there's no real way for you to know! Still, I'll stipulate that the argument you make is probably true most of the time. In the justice system, however, it would have to be true all of the time in order to pass muster. Then we could just skip the formality of a trial. Past case verdicts have no bearing on anything. The only thing that matters is the evidence in this case against this suspect. The only jury that would convict Allen based on the evidence I described above would be a jury who didn't already know all of the facts. Just the kind of jury you'd get out of the pool. But if you tried it with a jury picked from this board, Allen would have gotten away with murder, because the whole body of facts, not just those facts you would present, leave plenty of doubt.

Your opinion is very thought provoking, and it's very nice to have a real prosecutor come on here and give his views and legal opinions. It's my true hope you will stick around. Your expertise will be drawn on many times in future discussions should you so decide. Welcome to the board.

Ray

Tom,
to say that Allen was under 6' is pure spin.
Okay, he was 5'11 and 11/12th.
This should be a no spin zone.

Sylvie, go outside and lay on the ground in the dark. When you are comfy I want you to guess how tall people are who attempt to shoot you.

Allen wasn't a six footer. Big deal.

Ray,

Wonderful post, I totally understand your position. One of the paradoxes of trial is that you don't want Jurors who have all made dilligent investigation of the facts independently. Too many things in these scenarios are "off the record". Facts presented by neither the prosecution or defence play a role in the decision, and this presents a serious threat to the rights of the accused. Sort of a secret trial, because everything isn't on the record, and nobody agrees to what the case is or isn't about...

I'd personally LOVE to have an expert jury if I were to try this case. But it wouldn't be fair to a defendant, and he would have NO appelate rights at all in this scenario.

As far as why _I_ am so confident that Allen is Zodiac, just too many reasons to have time to type in. Take a look at "Unmaksed", in the back, Graysmith enumerates all the circumstantial evidence against Z. Too much stuff! Seriously, if only one or two of them were believed (like his conversation predicting that he'd kill as Zodiac), he's guilty. And while each individual item can always be explained away, its the aggregate picture that shows guilt.

That's why I'm so sure he's the man. Why would an innocent guy happen to have discussed killing in this fashion, wearing a matching watch, living in the same area, driving the same roads, with matching build and personal skills, storing bombs like those described by Z, etc. etc. etc. etc. and that it NOT be Z? And this is a guy with known sexual hangups and previous convictions for mollestation!

Just add up everything in Zodiac Unmasked's appendix that points to Allen and then say that there is a reasonable explanation other than guilt... I don't see it, not even close.This much evidence is a DA's dream case, I really don't get why they didn't slam him so hard that he BEGGED to give up all the details. You should go to a law library (or sit in on a local case in your area) and read through the jury instructions for murder and circumstantial evidence. GIven what it takes to prove the legal standard, and what we've got on Allen, he'd get crushed in trial. Plus he'd invariably want to speak in his behalf, and he'd scare the hell out of the jury. This is not a meek looking charming guy... Ohhhhh what I'd PAY to have him on the stand. M.

Sorry this is so rambling, gotta get to sleep

Anon

The idea that one could "convict Allen easily" is predicated on two premises the validity of which are, to my mind, doubtful. The first is that you can assemble a jury of twelve easily-swayed ignoramuses who can be led about at will by a skillful rhetorician; the second is that the case would be tried by the prosecution alone, with no defense involved. Apart from that, why yes; it could be quite easily accomplished.

anon:

You know I was using res ipsa colloquially as a comment on your take ("I just don't get it"), not asserting that it has anything to do with proving the case.

No the fact of no charge doesn't prove that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It does tend to prove that people close enough to the case to know thought there was not enough even to arrest. A lot of people. With a lot better grasp of the facts than you have. See Mike's post, just for starters. The police put all that was available together in 1991. Look at Bawart's report. Which itself overstates the case. And there wasn't one of our brothers or sisters in SF, Vallejo, or Napa willing to take it to the GJ. So just what is your explanation of why there was never an arrest. Incompetence? that's a pretty broad brush. We are aware of a lot of incompetence in not collecting or seeking evidence, but in not prosecuting on what was known? Come on.
Also look at Scott's answer to the Morrill dilemma. The circumstantial evidence you cite accumulates accross four separate incidents. And A couple dozen letters. You can't tie them all to Allen unless you can tie them all together. And the only way to do that is through handwriting. Through Morrill. You need Morrill to tie any more than even a few of the circumstances to Allen. And Morrill said Allen didn't write the letters. You cant throw away handwriting without throwing away the only means by which you can add up all the cirmcumstances. You don't get them all in one crime, so you have to tie the crimes together.

Scott: I'm still curious to see: How do you get Allen for PH? How do you get him without Morrill? Then, after PH, how do you get him for anything else? Without Morrill?

Marcia and Chris couldn't get OJ with a bloody glove and DNA. We're going to get Allen with a bloody knife no one ever saw and ciphers no one ever found?

Tom: Of course he could have been busted for the bombs. And maybe the weapons. That's a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the Z crimes, which is all I am debating here. BTW I am still not sure Allen was a convicted felon. As was discussed in another thread, a defendant gets sent to Atascadero under a particular designation as a Mentally Disorderd Sex Offender. Unless you have an explicit record of a conviction, it is possible that it was never entered. It seems more likely that a conviction would have landed him in prison. He didn't, which means he may never have been on probation or parole to violate. If he was convicted, there must be some record of who his PO was, a possible source of insight as to why he was never busted for the z crimes.

"The first is that you can assemble a jury of twelve easily-swayed ignoramuses who can be led about at will by a skillful rhetorician; the second is that the case would be tried by the prosecution alone, with no defense involved."

So what are you saying, Doug? That sounds like a very surreptitious way of calling people such as myself, Tom, RG, and other advocates of "Allen as the Zodiac" theory, "ignoramuses" who haven't explored any other side of the issue. If that is what you are implying then you are not only extremely arrogant but also seriously misinformed. Granted, I don't honestly believe that the hypothetical criminal proceedings against Allen would be "easy," but I do believe a conviction against him as the Z is attainable and well within the realm of reason.

Further to Anon:

Be forwarned: The following is strictly an nunabashed ad hominem attack:

When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat every problem as if it were a nail;

There, I feel much better.

Now, will you please understand that I am not and have never tried to give a purely legal definition of the standard (not burden, Counselor) of proof, aside from saying that it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Scott shows an interest in a little broader and deeper understanding of what is reasonable doubt than any jury instruction can provide. Of course I know there is no moral certainty instruction. I was trying to give him a feel of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" might mean to someone exercising it conscienciously. Of course it doesn't mean that the juror must be willing to do the deed. Duh. But the juror must be certain enough to know that the deed will be done based on his decision, and for Scott, who is not a juror, to say that he his certain beyond a reasonable doubt means something like putting himself in the position of a juror, who better be morally certain, because if the State acts based on his belief and decision, someone dies.

Wait a minute. Who am I talking to here? I just reread the last post. This DA is a guy who thinks Graysmith's list of supposed circumstances is the same thing a s "this much evidence".

Yes, Anon, like a zillion people have said, if its all true, its a little tough to conclude that Allen wrote the Zodiac scenario six months before Zodiac surfaced but was not Zodiac. Duh. If Bif fat if. Graysmith's list is not evidence. Its assertion. it barely even refers accurately to evidence. You might just want to take a peek at some of this evidence itself instead of accepting Graysmith's characterization of it as gospel. The evidence is Cheney's account of the conversation, and that account is no DA's dream. You just take a look at Tom's transcript and tell me if you want Cheney on the stand. If you didn't alrady know the details of Cheney's first statement to the police, you wouldn't even know what he was talking about with Tom.

And BTW, Allen had no priors. The molestation rap, singular, was years after the last Z killing, and he went to Atascadero as an MDSO. I havn't seen a conviction record, although I have asked any number of times if anyone has.

Sorry, one last shot:

"The jury is there to do one thing only, to determine whether the elements of a crime were committed. "

Very telling comment.

New entry in CALJIC: You are instructed that because this case was brought by A.D.A. M. Anon., you can be sure the right defendant is sitting before you. Your only job is to decide whther a crime has been committed.

I thought they were also there to connect the lements of the crime with the guy who actually did it. I think I understand your posts -- and why they are anonymous -- a little better now. Thanks.

Peter, I don't know what you mean by a "conviction record". However, Allen definitely had a probation officer. His name is Bruce, and I talk to him often. (He's also at a loss to explain why Allen wasn't arrested in 1991 after the search.)

Thanks, that clears that up, at least in part. the record of a conviction is a document in the court records entering the verdict. Convicted of a crime means found guilty, and carries with it all of the cosequences of being a con or an ex-con. Loss of votng priveleges, etc. Probation could just be a condition of release from Atascadero on MDSO status.

How long was Allen on probation? Still in 1991? If not, then he would have had to be charged with a crime, not a PV. What would that have been? Possession of a pipe bomb, maybe. If he was just an MDSO and not convicted, the weapons may not have been a crime in and of itself. Maybe Bruce could clear this up nect time you talk. Was a conviction entered? Suspended sentence? Continued without a finding pending successful probation? Was Bruce ever in position to violate him? Maybe these would cear things up a little for DA Anon, too. He suggests that Allen should have been leaned on with a PV. If Allen was clean from 74 ubtil the end of his probation, that does not seem practical.

"Scott: I'm still curious to see: How do you get Allen for PH? How do you get him without Morrill? Then, after PH, how do you get him for anything else? Without Morrill?"

Peter: Surely you are not asking me to convict Allen in a single post, are you? Trust me, I'm working up a legitimate theory against Allen that does focus on Presidio Heights. When the time is right, I'll make it available to those who are interested and I'll gladly discuss it here on the message board without fear of ridicule; theories hold their weight or they don't with the passage of time, not in the instant they were created.

Having said that, consider some of these possibilities and realities:

Any handwriting expert worth his salt, which Morrill certainly was, is going to be able to tell if the letters were prepared by the same person. That alone is going to connect the Zodiac, via the letters, to LHR, BRS, and PH, and via the car door to Lake Berryessa.

I think it's very possible that other handwriting experts, especially with modern technology at their disposal, might come to the opposite conclusion that Morrill did. After all, why would I allow my entire case to hinge on one conclusion from an extremely good man working in an unexacting science? I'd at least want to have his conclusions independently verified which, to my knowledge, still has never happened.

Having discussed this topic at length with a forensic scientist who works for the CA DOJ, it is not unreasonable to speculate as to whether or not Morrill simply came to the wrong conclusion, especially in light of the fact that any independent verification is missing. It's entirely possible that a different handwriting expert could take the stand and say, "Yes, the letters were not only prepared by the same person, but in my professional opinion, they were also prepared by Mr. Arthur Leigh Allen."

Why shouldn’t a handwriting expert's findings be subjected to the same scientific standards as the other members of his/her forensic team? It apparently didn't happen in this case in the early '70s, but I bet it would happen that way now.

Unlike any of the other known suspects, I can establish a motive for Allen as the Zodiac to commit the murder at Presidio Heights. I've already laid that concept out in a couple of other threads so I shan't take the time to do it here.

Also unlike any of the other known suspects, with the possible exception of Davis, I can get numerous people who were close to Allen to take the stand against him. These include, of course, Don Cheney, but also Ron and Karen Allen, ALA's psychologist at Atascadero, ALA's parole officer, and Allen's buddy who heard Allen say he was going to "go to SF to kill a cabbie" a mere week or two before Stine was killed. And there are more, a lot more. Can this be said of any other suspect?

What more can I say at this point? If that line of reasoning isn't worth serious scrutiny then what is?

Peter hard at work getting the law wrong again... You are seriously off
kilter legally, and should premise your arguments on something OTHER than
your very weak grasp of criminal law. You still haven't told us whether you
are a paralegal or a 1L, which is it?

You still can't explain your use of the civil term "res ipsa loquitur". If
you didn't mean that not charging proves innocence, what was your point in
raising it at all? Experience will teach you that legal terminology has
meaning, and using a term from a different branch of law will only
demonstrate a lack thereof. As a word of free advice if you ARE a lawyer
(which I doubt), don't use legal terms 'colloquially'. Don't mix the two in the context
of discussion about a criminal matter, you'll just look uninformed.

And you even restated your error with the "reasonable doubt" standard. It is
NOT to a moral certainty. Repeat, NOT! The People have the burden (yes,
burden) of proving the guilt of the defendant of the elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is asinine to say you understand this and then
say that you were merely using the inflammatory moral certainty language to
describe how a 'conscientious" juror would (or should) think. Just plain
wrong! Go back and reread my previous post on the subject: a jury's job is
as a finder of fact, not 1) as a moral judge, or 2) as an executioner. A
conscientious juror follows the law, and your argument would have them go in
another direction entirely. Surely you realize that you'd get a mistrial and
probably sanctioned for making this argument at trial?

I'll ignore your inability to understand context vis a vis the fact that
elements must be proven that were committed by the Defendant. Sorry, I
assumed you had a shred of legal knowledge and didn't think I needed to
explain that the elements need to apply to the Defendant, need to be based
on admissible evidence, need to be brought in correct jurisdiction, etc. Did
I mention that the Defendant is the one charged with the crime and the judge
is the person with the black robe in the highest seat? Boy this will be an
inane discussion if you read my last post as me thinking that nothing needed
be related to the Defendant. Of course I recognize that you are being obtuse
to make an ad hominem, but not a strong enough ad hominem to look like that
poor a reader, IMO. Hey, at least you know what a caljic is, that shows some
knowledge and promise.

Bottom line is that IN MY OPINION there is no reasonable doubt. I think,
based on my experience, that I would be able to attain a conviction based on
the evidence I've read over the years.

Yes, my
opinion is based on what other people have researched on the subject,
Graysmith, Tom, and others. Yes, I recognize that not all assertions are
true. To an extent, that's what trials are for. I still believe that there are too many people and too much evidence
pointing the finger at Allen.

But Peter, as someone who has CLEARLY never
tried a case, please don't try to argue using this through bad first year
law student legalese. I'd love to hear you give factual opinion, that is
always productive, but your lame usage of legal terminology, reliance on
Allen not having been charged, and half-baked ideas on moral certainty miss
the mark and do your position no good.

The fact that Allen wasn't charged in light of the evidence against him
shows in my opinion 1) that bad decisions were made and 2) that information
wasn't shared adequately. Plenty of bad decisions get made all over the
country to not arrest or prosecute people who are guilty and who should be
brought to trial... Not searching homes, not arresting, not keeping him in
custody pending the discover of the smoking gun were all in retrospect bad
decisions in my opinion. Police and DA's don't make cases that they should
sometimes, just like any other profession makes mistakes. Once a case gets
some notoriety and media frenzy starts, this goes double.

If I had to guess why some peole like Peter get so bent out of shape when someone suggests that Allen is the guy and that's the end of the story, I'd say that some people hate to see a mystery like Zodiac solved. Its a great mystery and some people like unresolved questions to stay that way. I agree in general with this attitude, but in this case I feel that there mystery is in the detail of how and why, not who.


Anon

Two points:

First, I didn't say its not worth serious scrutiny. It just doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny. That's in large part due to point two:

It's not a line of reasoning. It's a listing of the same facts (maybe) that supposedly add up if you believe them all. That doesn't nail anything.

If you are to nail Allen on PH, you need a theory, a complete line of reasoning, so we can see HOW it adds up. I am glad you are working on one. (And no, I don't expect it all in one post). Even Tom, who has compliled more info on Allen than the rest of the world combined, has never put forth a complete theory, at least not on this site. A conclusion, a general proposition that there is a pile of circumstantial case against Allen, but not a theory. This is no criticism, as putting together a theory is an awesome undertaking. It is essentially writing the summation, the closing argument, as Anon has suggested elsewhere.

As for the handwriting. I raised it in part because of your fairly summary dismissal of Morrill's conclusions on the Allen exemplars. Mighta maybe's aren't going to cut it. Sure, another handwriting expert might say somethng else, but until someone hires one,or a panel, we have Morrill alone.

"Any handwriting expert worth his salt, which Morrill certainly was, is going to be able to tell if the letters were prepared by the same person.

Exactly the problem. He is going to be able to tell, and what he could tell is that ALA didn't prepare them.

"That alone is going to connect the Zodiac, via the letters, to LHR, BRS, and PH, and via the car door to Lake Berryessa".

Correct again. There is absolutely nothing but the writng that positively connects the four scenes. Only Morrill provides that connection. You have to rely on him completely to connect the four, and dismiss his one direct finding on Allen, that he didn't prepare the Z letters. This is not just a legal evidentiary problem or a jury problem, Scott, it is a problem of the the fundamental logic of the case.

But as I appreciate your theory, what you have said of it, it basically begins with PH, and the rest falls out of that. So I take it the proof of PH does not depend on proving any other crime, or connecting ALlen with the bloody shirt letter itself. If that is the case, you at least don't need to rely on Morrill for PH. But you do have to contend with the fact that he said ALA didn't prepare the bloody shirt letter.

Truly looking forward to the PH analysis.

Anon, you may understand the scepticism expressed by many posters regarding your confience at convicting ALA if you consider this:
Several of us, myself included, infer you are drawing most of your information from Graysmith's works (correct me if I am wrong on this or other inferences). If so, much of your circumstantial evidence my be less than circumstantial, it may be nonexistent! A couple of months ago, I proposed a theory regarding a possible witness to the Lake Berryessa crime. It was a nice, solid theory, and I was oh so proud of it. However, Webmaster Tom informed me That the central indicent on which my idea was based has no independent documentation whatsoever and appears to habe been pure 'literary liscense'. I read that information in Greaysmith's first work on the subject, Zodiac.
When I express scepticism at your reasoning, it is not intended as an insult, but as a warning. Because for me, been there, done that, got burned.
Just because Greysmith's long list of enumerated circumstaltial evidence looks solid, that does not mean it is solid. When I got burned the 'incident' I quoted looked solid. It specified a certain type of behavior, by a specific individual, at a specific place and time and told who the 'witness' was (not by name but in a clearly identifiable manner). If a detailed indicent like this turns out to be fiction, ANYTHING else can, without solid independent verification.
Another example, quoted by Webmaster Tom, is the tale of how police were investigating a road leading to a crime scene (a non-Zodiac murder) when who should walk down the road but ALA!. Very damaging circumstantial evidence, except is is pure fiction!

Anon:

Why are we still on res ipsa? I have already explained a couple of times that I meant it as a comment on "I just don't get it", not that it has one freaking thing to do with either the standard or burden of proof of the criminal case. OK? Anybody still not understand this?

As for the implications of Allen's not being charged: again, not for an inference to be drawn by a jury, but it indicates to me NOT THAT ALLEN ISN'T THE GUY, OK? but that people a lot closer to the case and with a lot better grasp of the evidence did not think an arrest, much less a conviction, was happening.

Experience will teach you that I can use a latin term any dam way I like in a context such as this without it being crammed into a narrow legal context. Even most lawyers get it when I do so in conversation or correspondence outside the courtroom. Which is where we are. So put down the hammer, will you? Try to understand that there are tapes and levels and compasses and chalklines in the toolbox as well.

Factual opinion? OK, the Hemingway version:

I think the strongest evidence aginst Allen is Cheney. I think Cheney is a sincere guy whose memory generally has more holes in it than his Allen story. Which are considerable. I think if his memory was triggered at all, it would have been triggered when he first heard the name Zodiac in the press or in conversation, not months (or years)later when he heard the bus part of the story. I think if there were a profile composite that looked like Allen, Tom would have it. I think he did have some kind of conversation with Allen about Z, after Allen became aware of the details and before Cheney did. Like 1/1/70.

T: And when you saw the name Zodiac, did that ring any bells?

D: No. No, when I read the, uh, the quote that came out of one of the letters about the school bus thing, then, then I began to think, not only it looked like Leigh, it must be him.

T: Do you remember an approximate date, when you came into this revelation?

D: No, I have no idea.

Right. they have this heated discussion about the name Z, Cheney calls it childish and ALA gets ticked, and Cheney doesn't remember that, just the school bus bit. And Allen's driver's license number.


Oh, and he's got a motive, too:

T: Were you scared about coming forward?

D: No, I wasn’t, I wasn’t afraid about that, I wasn’t, I wasn’t even afraid of Leigh making any kind of a, a, attack on me, at that time. I was more worried about making a living. And here I had this scruffy job in the paper mill and didn’t know what I was going to do next and, uh, after, uh, a couple of changes in my career plan, why I started working in Torrance with Panzarella. And we discussed this and then we contacted Armstrong.

Uh-huh.

I think Allen was a sick guy, who liked toying with the Z idea, being associated with Z. I think he liked toying with Cheney on something Cheney knew nothing about. I don't think it took even VPD 2, 2 1/2 years to get a warrant based on Don's story to Pomona (or was it Torrance? or Manhattan Beach?). I think his time line is off by a year, maybe even two. (BTW Tom: did Don's profile pictures that looked like Allen ever turn up?)

I think the chicken knife, the Berryessa and Treasure Island stories (not in Lynch's report, BTW) the supposed confession to the Atascadero shrink and the like were all very safe ways for an innocent Allen to toy, and very stupid, implausible ways for a guilty man to act.

I think Spinelli had it in for Allen. He comes forward 20 plus years later and remembers the exact date that Allen said he was going to SF to kill a cabbie. Sure.

One of a number of possibilities:

Allen:

Hey Don, you read about this killing and these letters to the Chronicle? No? Boy, I'd like to do that. I think I will, I think I'LL do this stuff, call myself Zodiac, play the most dangerous game. What do you think?

Hey Ralph, don't mess with me: I'm as bad as this Zodiac guy. You read about this cabbie he offed? Yeah? You don't think so? Well just to prove it, I think I'LL go to San Fran and kill ME a cabbie, too".

Bragging. You recognize it?

And that's just one possibility.

That's what I think.

Consider also that the SFPD either has faith in the handwriting analysis and fingerprints, or they have no faith in the handwriting and fingerprints. If the former, Allen should be exonerated. If the latter, no other suspect should have been eliminated on the basis of handwriting and fingerprints alone.

Anon,
whether you are actually an attorney or not, you certainly are knowledgeable enough to know that it only takes 1 out of the 12 to blow your conviction. From all that you have presented, I can tell you without any doubt, I would be that one. As a former juror in a criminal case, I can tell you we would have ripped your case to shreds in deliberations.
But naturally it would never have gotten that far.
You could not even get an arrest on probable cause.
Scott wrote: "It's entirely possible that a different handwriting expert......",
yes a lot of things are possible. A different handwriting expert could also have said that all the letters that Morrill connected were written by different people. If you want to start dealing with "What if's" then that is a whole different ballgame.
Come on, are we not dealing with what is?
Obviously "what is" does not add up to a hill of beans, so we have to start moving to a bunch of "what if's."

Mr.District Atty. better think fast when it comes to no handwriting match,no fingerprint match,no DNA match etc.If that doesn't eliminate ALA then it dosen't eliminate 2000 other guys.
Allen being a mechanic proves he sabotaged cars?
When did Zodiac do that?O.K.then you'd better explain why Ms.Johns saw a slim crewcut guy sitting next to her for 2 hours instead of a bald fat man.And lets not even start on Cheri Jo....
And those so called witnesses!Cripes any 1st year law student would love to have at them.
"Lets see you think Leigh molested your child and 2 yrs.later you remember intimate details of conversations w/my client that match word for word what Zodiac wrote in letters published for all the world to see.Hmmmm."
You say your a convict and you just remembered ALA told you he was going to Sf to take out a cabdriver?And now you think of it just in time to show the parole board what a good boy you are.
Bombs under ALA's house.Who cares!Lots of people make bombs.Do they match exactly what Z described?
Knew darlene Ferrin?So bloomin what. She knew lots of creeps.Not ncessarliy the one that killed her.
If the DA is right and he could convict Allen on shoddy circumstatial evidence its a sad day for us all....
I was the lone juror for acquiting Bates boyfriend
guess I'll have to do the same for ALA.

P.S. to the last post.If ALA made incriminating statements so have a lot of other poor lonely slobs desperate for attention and a feeling of importance.As I'm sure any criminal psychologist will tell you.Theres even a book on it called the urge to confess.It's called False Confesssion Syndrome by shrinks by-the by..

"District Attorney"

We know that Peter is an attorney -- we don't even know your name. To learn that Peter is an attorney, all one must do is: (1) read his posts, or (2) look at his e-mail address and take a quick trip to http://www.martindale.com. While Peter's style is occasionally abrasive, it is usually entertaining, and always though-provoking -- yours is irritating, illogical, and offers nothing new to this discussion.

If your point is to impress us with your claimed title and regurgitation of Graysmith, you've got a lot to learn . . .

Spencer

P.S. Lay off on the law student bashing -- I'm starting to take it personally.

Isn't this list everyone keeps mentioning actually the list prepared by George Bawart of the Vallejo PD in 1992? If so, it wasn't pulled out of thin air.

Spencer, it looks like my thoughts are at least thought provoking, based on the 40 or so responses in this thread in the last week or so...

Agree or not, I'm just trying to add my voice to the discussion, and I'm sorry if my agreeing with most of the Z investigators (specifically that if they'd known then what they know now about ALA they'd have arrested him) offends anyone here. I thought I'd share my experience with you all, and give my perspective as someone who has tried people in criminal courts... Not gospel, I'm sure many more learned fellows would disagree with me, it is a human process.

I do think that many people like preserving a mystery, and that many of you would be dissapointed if the case were closed based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Perhaps to some extent I would also. I'm trying to call it like I see it, and I really do think that Allen would get convicted quickly in front of an impartial jury.

Who knows what is and isn't true. All I know is that there is (in my opinion) an abundance of strong evidence against Allen. If it were my job to make the decision, I'd have charged him. If you differ in opinion, hey, that's what trials are for, right? To argue that it would be a miscariage of justice to charge him seems like an untenable position, and to believe that there wasn't enough evidence (in retrospect anyways) to arrest him seems crazy to me.

Like I said, when cases stimulate media frenzy and crimes become legend, nothing seems normal, that's part of what makes celebrity criminals so hard to convict. I certainly respect the opinions of those of you (most of you) who are better informed than I, I just don't necessarily agree.

You don't need to answer each and every question that arises in a case (handwriting, etc) to convict Allen. Just show that beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the elements of the crimes.

I thought it might be interesting to focus a thread on the topic of what is actually required to obtain a conviction, not what is required to fit every piece together and solve the case sherlock holmes style. That just isn't the way (in my experience reading thousands of police reports anyways) that cases resolve in real life.

A silly analogy often used at trial is this: Say you are building a puzzle, and you have most of it built. And clearly, it is a puzzle depicting the golden gate bridge. But a few pieces of the puzzle are missing, say a few tiles of the sky, one of the deck, one of Hawk hill in the background. No question that SF looms in the background, or that the span has the unique "GG Bridge" shape and color. Does that mean you can never say, "that is a puzzle of the GG bridge"? No, you don't need EVERY PIECE to remove REASONABLE doubt about what the picture shows. At a certain point, you just know.

Many of our discussions here center on beautifully subtle aspects of the case; not all of these questions need be answered for a conviction.

Sorry if I've offended any of you, just thought it might be interesting to share my opinion. Since I'm discussing the case hypothetically, feel free to take it all with a big fat grain of salt! The words and theories we share on this fascinating case make little difference in the big picture, so if not stimulating, let's let this thread die.

Anon

"Sure, another handwriting expert might say somethng else, but until someone hires one,or a panel, we have Morrill alone."

IMO, that's half the problem: Only one expert opinion in an unexacting science. I'm sure that Morrill came to the right conclusion given the information that he had, but there are other things which need to be taken into consideration: Allen's exemplars were acquired "unnaturally" and handwriting can be disguised (I have confirmation of this assertion from a scientist who works for the CA DOJ). Even if all one does is consciously think of the act of writing, his/her handwriting will be different than normal. Another thing to consider: How do we know that the Zodiac wasn't disguising his handwriting when he wrote the letters or the message on Hartnell's car door? How do we know that he wasn't writing them while under the influence of drugs or while drunk? Any one of these factors could throw Morrill's conclusion off.

I respect Morrill but there are things that make me question some of his conclusions. In addition to the factors stated above, consider the Riverside desktop poem. That's not handwriting, it's etching. How in the world did he conclude that the same person that prepared the letters wrote the poem? How do you compare handwriting with something that was etched? I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense.

"Exactly the problem. He is going to be able to tell, and what he could tell is that ALA didn't prepare them."

What I was referring too was the idea that a handwriting expert could examine two documents prepared by the Zodiac and determine that they were both prepared by the Zodiac. IMO, it's quite a different matter when you have in one hand a Zodiac missive and in the other samples written by a guy who was under duress at the time they were written. Even if the samples taken from Allen were normal samples written in his normal hand, that still doesn't prove a thing when one considers that it is unknown if the Zodiac was altering his handwriting or not. Seriously, how do we know that the Zodiac missives were written in the Zodiac's normal handwriting?

Besides, it is not going to be the handwriting that makes or breaks this case, especially in a courtroom. Allen, as far as I can tell, is the only suspect to have a motive for Presidio Heights. Additionally, there are many people who would be willing to take the stand against him. Perhaps Cheney can be discredited and perhaps not. However, I doubt that every witness for the prosecution would suffer the same fate.

Some thoughts.

Scott

Keep in mind that the prosecutor is under no obligation whatsoever to prove or provide motive, so if I were trying Allen I think I'd let that one go, since apparently all the other Z crimes were motiveless. A serial killer by very nature has no motive, other than the joy of the kill.

Sylvie: that is a motive, and I'd suggest that the Z crimes were by no means motiveless. Just because one cannot divine the motive doesn't mean that one didn't exist.

I think we'd need something solid to convict anyone of being Z. Like Ed, said at the task force meeting. We'd need to find Stine's wallet, car keys and the rest of his shirt in Allen's trailer or locker somewhere. We'd need ballistics tests matching a gun to a bullet from the crime scenes. We'd need the knife from the Lake Berryessa attacks with Hartnell's and Cecelia's blood on it. We'd need Z's executioner's garb and clip ons. All matched or tied to Allen somehow.
The prosecution has the burden of proof and to also prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less than solid hard evidence is pure conjecture and/or hearsay.

No, this is incorrect. If you need a smoking gun, you aren't applying the law correctly, that's what I've been trying to point out. Many (if not most) cases are made on circumstantial evidence, this is NOT a defect in a case.

You may believe that there isn't enough evidence to convict, but the overwhelming sense I get is that nobody would convict anyone without "solid" (i.e. direct smoking-gun type evidence) evidence. This is not the way it works in court, and when a jury is instructed in the law, convictions are routinely obtained without a bloody shirt.

Anon

Then why no arrest of Allen based on this circumstantial evidence? Allen himself says thay
"They haven't arrested me, because they can't prove a thing."
And no matter what, you have to prove Allen committed the murders "beyond a reasonable doubt" to 12 voir dired jurors.
All a good defense attorney has to do is poke holes in all the circumstance and hearsay, and to plant the doubt in the jurors minds. This is harder to do with solid evidence, but not impossible. Just think if the prosecution had the murder knife in the OJ trial with Simpsons blood and hair on it plus the receipt he paid for it with, along with Ron and Nicole's DNA.

"All a good defense attorney has to do is poke holes in all the circumstance and hearsay, and to plant the doubt in the jurors minds."

With the number of witnesses that'd be willing to take the stand for the prosecution, that would be an immense undertaking on behalf of the defense. Is it reasonable to think that every witness against Allen is full of BS and that their testimony would be summarily disregarded by the jury? I highly doubt it.

And PLEASE don't assume that OJ represents a normal trial. If you have an OJ scenario, you can't expect to prosecute ANYONE successfully. But convictions are obtained DAILY with less evidence than exist towards Allen. While this may make some of you uneasy, society does NOT have the burden of proving EVERYTHING in a case. Just the elements of the crime, and only beyond REASONABLE doubt.

I think a defense would have a real hard time explaining away EVERYTHING. Lacking a cohesive 'theme' defense (like mistaken identity, single victim vendetta against Defendant, etc), you can't just do like Peter and others try to do here and fight everything separately. TO go back to my 'puzzle' analogy, he's arguing each tile, rather than arguing what the ENTIRE PUZZLE represnets.

And of course the reasonable doubt instructions state that the evidence must be viewed AS A WHOLE, not piece by piece.

THink of it this way as an extreme illustration: if 100,000 separate people say that they saw mr. X do crime Y, and the defense attorney shows that you can only believe each witness 80% by cross examining each separate witness (and in my opinion 80% likely = reasonable doubt), there is still NO reasonable doubt. If you can show that the 100,000 people got together and conspired, are part of a coordinated effort to wrongly convict based on some reason, or that they merely are confusing Defendant with his twin brother, fine. But a separate reason for each doesnt work. (i.e. witness 1: isn't it true that you didn't have your glasses on? witness 2: weren't you scared and not really looking at D? 3: isn't it a fact that D mollested your daughter two years ago? 4: didn't you say the killer's hair was blonde initially and now you say its brown because you really weren't there at all?).

But separate explanations for this and that (which gets done here all the time) won't cut it at trial. This is why there is NOTHING like seeing a great defense lawyer at work. They don't chip away at a case, they cut its guts out. THey have, practically speaking, more need to create a theme, motive, and context than the DA. THey have, in short a theory of the case that makes a wholistic attempt to explain why so much indicates their defendant is the guy.

What Peter and others do here just doesn't work, its amateur defense lawyer stuff; you just can't explain away each of a thousand items and say that therefore none of it exists. Effective lawyers don't do this because it does NOT work.

The beauty of a trial is that this tactic rarely works. Unless the defense attorney comes up with a REASONALBE theory of the case, with this much evidence against Allen, their client would be convicted. The great ones don't play the negative games that Peter is playing, they build a case of their own against the BIG PICTURE. THis is subtle art that I admire greatly and enjoy seeing come together at trial. But its far more common to see innefective chipping at details without addressing the multiplier effect of multiple separate facts and witnesses... and almost always to no effect.

Anon

"Any one of these factors could throw Morrill's conclusion off."

Throw out Morrill's conclusions on Z's writing, or any other expert, and you have zero connection among any of the crimes. Zero. To prove any one of them separately, you then have to look at the evidence against Allen that connects only with that crime. The question then becomes not "Who is tis guy that did al the Z crimes" but "who did PH. And that knocks out the following "evidence" with respect to PH:

Cheney
Tucker
the whole Berryeessa connection: supposed knife, supposed going up the coast story, supposed Treasure Island story
the Mikado connection
every connection in every letter except the bloody shirt
etc etc etc

"I respect Morrill but there are things that make me question some of his conclusions. In addition to the factors stated above, consider the Riverside desktop poem. That's not handwriting, it's etching."

I have the same doubts about Morrill, especially the absurd conclusion of the desktop poem. But etching isn't one of them. it was written with a blue ballpoint pen.


"Besides, it is not going to be the handwriting that makes or breaks this case, especially in a courtroom."

Really? Then how do you get more than one crime at a time?

"Allen, as far as I can tell, is the only suspect to have a motive for Presidio Heights. "

I am dying to hear what this motive is. To prove to Spinelli that he was Z? Or just that he could kill? Come on, folks. Does anyone actually believe that Allen was motivated to prove to his old enemy, or anyone else that he was this serial killer? Two weeks after he supposedly fabricated this up the coast with the mystery man from Treasure Island ruse to throw Lynch off? Pulleeeeeze. I can hear the thought process "Whew. That was close. Lynch really thinks its me. But he fell for the Treasure Island bit. Now no one will think I'm Z. Wait a minute, why would I want that? I want everyone to know. Or at least spinelli. Yeah, that's it! I'll just tell Spinelli! I'll prove it to him! But he'll tell everyone. No he won't, it'll be our little secret, I know I can trust him."

"Additionally, there are many people who would be willing to take the stand against him. Perhaps Cheney can be discredited and perhaps not."

Perhaps Cheney would be thrown out of the courtroom. Even if Cheney has the credibility of a saint, he can't provide one jot of info that connects Allen with PH. Nor can anyone else but Spinelli.

"However, I doubt that every witness for the prosecution would suffer the same fate."

I don't.

Tom:

I believe it is the "Bawart report", and I alluded to it in a post here. The problem with it is not that it was pulled out of thin air, exactly, but that it presents a list of supposed facts (some patently and comically incorrect, others highly questionable) which I suppose by their sheer weight are supposed to convict Allen.

Good examples:

Comically incorrect: THE CONFESSION letter was signed "Enterprise"

Highly questionable:
The assertion that Allen told Lynch he was going to Berryessa but went up the coast instead. Where does this come from? It's not in Lynch's report of his Allen interview. Tom's treatment of it is that "Allen later admitted" he said that to Lynch. Bawart's rendition is that Allen "confirmed this same conversation" to Bawart and Conway in 1991. So is the only record of this comment that Allen made the statement to Bawart and Conway in 1991? Does anyone know the original source of this. Or the knife comment? Or Treasure Island? Those don't appear in Lynch's report either.

Bawart reports all these things completely uncritically, as if they were gospel.

Are they?

I am somewhat of a newbie to this board, so I have missed a lot of the earlier posts, and have gone back and re-read some of Anon's and other's posts.
I am glad he is here and is giving a prosecutor's angle to to this case.
I am not ruling out Arthur Leigh Allen as the Zodiac, as well as I am not ruling out other suspects. But for me personally, if I were a DA and needed to bring charges against Allen as the Zodiac, I would definately feel more comfortable with more concrete evidence. Sure the OJ case isn't a "normal" case...but this case isn't "normal" as well. One thing I'd be terrified of, is the defense bringing Officer Foukes to the stand and asking him (by photo,of course) if Allen was the man he saw walking east on Jackson that night. Was it Allen? What if Foukes denies it? Has anyone shown Allen's (or any other suspect's)picture to Foukes? Tom? Ed?
For me personally and my self gratification, and just because the Zodiac has been more "slippery" and evil than most criminals, I'd need something conclusive.
**recommended viewing** The Star Chamber- starring Michael Douglas.

"Throw out Morrill's conclusions on Z's writing, or any other expert, and you have zero connection among any of the crimes."

Peter: Yes, I know that already. But Morrill's conclusions are possibly flawed for the numerous reasons I stated in my earlier post. I don't want to throw out the conclusions of any handwriting expert, just Morrill's. Why? See above. Therefore, all that testimony that you threw out? Throw it right back in.

I don't need Morrill's testimony; I just need the testimony of a handwriting expert who'll conclude exactly the opposite of Morrill; based on better information and better exemplars from Allen. Come on, Peter. Who are you fooling? I know you know what I'm saying.

Besides, if the jury has not only a doubt about Morrill's conclusions, but also an understanding that it's impossible to determine what mental state or, "what hand," Zodiac was using while writing the letters, a sensible jury, in my opinion, isn't going to put a lot of weight into the testimony of one man whose science is anything but exacting.

"Really? Then how do you get more than one crime at a time?"

Yes, to nail Zodiac for his known crimes, you need, at the minimum, any one of the Z missives that was included with the 3-part cipher, Hartnell's car door, and the October 13th, 1969 letter that was mailed to the Chronicle. You also need a Questioned Documents Examiner who can link the three together. However, said examiner can essentially conclude whatever he/she wants about whether or not they were prepared by Allen and it's not going to matter. Why? Because we don't know if Allen altered his handwriting while giving samples to Toschi and Armstrong, first of all. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we don't know if the Zodiac altered his handwriting while writing the letters. For that matter, how do we know that Zodiac didn't ritualistically drop 5 hits of LSD before writing every letter, or that he didn't pay some homeless guy to write them for him? And the list goes on and on . . .

In my mind, it's more important to link Allen to the crime, Presidio Heights or otherwise, than to link Allen to the letters. If the jury believes that Allen committed any of the crimes, they'll certainly believe that he also prepared the letters, whether his handwriting matches the Zodiac's or not.

"I am dying to hear what this motive is. To prove to Spinelli that he was Z? Or just that he could kill?"

Neither. As I've already stated on more than one occasion elsewhere on the board, Allen's motive was to determine if he was being monitored by VPD. Lynch's interview with Allen on October 6th, 1969, really put the bug in Allen's head. Just how safe was he to move around and go about his thing? He honestly has no idea and it's bugging the crap out of him; making him jump at shadows and hear nonexistent voices. So, what does he do to quiet the voices and make the shadows disappear? He devises a new murder; one that will take place in a different city that hasn't been used before, and will be pulled off using an entirely different MO so that it won't be readily attributed to the Zodiac.

By doing this Allen knows that in a very short amount of time either one of two things will happen: The police will be knocking on his door, or they won't. If they do, it means that he was being watched/tailed and he'll be prepared to fight to the death in a shoot-out with the police. If not, he'll lay low, dispose of all the physical evidence linking him to any of the crimes, and wait to see how long it will be before the police come asking for another interview. Well, we know the answer to both of those questions, don't we? And so did Allen. No, the VPD wasn't putting a tail on him, and it was better than 2 years before he was next approached by the police: Toschi and Armstrong.

I know what you're thinking, "But what if Allen successfully eluded VPD on the night Stine was killed, wouldn't that derail the entire theory?" Nope, because he also mailed a letter to the Chronicle taking credit for the crime as the Zodiac. If VPD had an inkling that Allen was the Zodiac, which obviously they didn't, they would have been knocking on his door, or busting in down, within days of learning about the latest Zodiac murder. When that didn't happen, Allen knew he was able to move freely with little or no worry about being connected to the crimes.

Gregusjay: Welcome to the board! Very good point about Foukes witnessing the Zodiac. It's also a very tough question to answer. There are entire threads devoted to the credibility of eyewitness testimony. Give them a read, they, like most threads on this board, are very interesting. If you want my opinion though, there'd be plenty of reason to question Foukes' and Zelms' testimony if the need presented itself; the least of which is that there's no guarantee that they actually saw the Zodiac. Enjoy!

Scott

OK before I get flamed for not reading enough before shooting off my post;

The earliest mention of the knives, chicken blood and Treasure Island appear to be in the Mulanax, Armstrong interview of 8/71. Correct? The earliest mention of going up the coast instead of Berryessa is still Bawart in 1991. OK.

So by the time Toschi, Mulanax and Armstrong are through with Allen, they have 99 and 44/100ths of everything we now know, or think or have ever heard about Allen. What they don't have is Saint Ralph's claim of of an admission, the "going up the coast" comment, the Mageau ID and the goodies from the 1991 and 92 searches, all 20 years afer the fact.

Does Anon think any of the 20-years-later stuff is necessary to his conviction? Does he think he could get the conviction with what Armstrong and toschi had as of the 72 search? The 71 interview?

How bad did Toschi want Z? Was he motivated? Would he have reveled in a conviction? Would it have made him the biggest celebrity cop SF had ever produced? Do ya think?

Did Toschi think he could get a conviction? No.

Incompetence?

Scott:

OK, thanks. At least its a theory. Now.

I would like you closely examine one question:
what is the difference between stating a theory and proof of a theory? Put another way, do you appreciate the difference between assuming a conclusion and proffering a set of facts that may explain the conlusion, and a proof of a conclusion that begins with no assumptions, but proceeds from what is actually known?

Your theory comes down on the wrong side of this important distinction in two ways: first in addressing the handwriting evidence, and second in addressing a motive for PH.

First, the handwriting:

" I don't want to throw out the conclusions of any handwriting expert, just Morrill's.

"I don't need Morrill's testimony; I just need the testimony of a handwriting expert who'll conclude exactly the opposite of Morrill; based on better information and better exemplars from Allen."

But you don't HAVE any one else. Doesn't that mean something? You think you have Allen beyond a reasonable doubt on evidence that you maybe might be able to get some expert to provide? That's right up there with the old joke about how an economist would have saved the Titanic passengers: assume sufficient lifeboats.

And you do NOT want someone to conclude the opposite of Morrill: you want someone to cherry-pick his conclusions that fit your conclusion:and conclude the opposite of the inconvenient ones: yes the same guy wrote all the Z letters, connecting all four crimes, but no, the Z letters and Allen's exemplars were not prepared by different people. But by Allen, who was a genius at disguising his writing. Gimme a break: there is no such evidence, and as Tom told Don "I wonder how, cause his handwriting was tested and tested and tested."

"[The jury] in my opinion, isn't going to put a lot of weight into the testimony of one man whose science is anything but exacting."

Including the expert you don't have who is going to refute some of Morril's findngs.

"You also need a Questioned Documents Examiner who can link the three together. However, said examiner can essentially conclude whatever he/she wants about whether or not they were prepared by Allen and it's not going to matter. ... we don't know if Allen altered his handwriting ... and ... we don't know if the Zodiac altered his handwriting while writing the letters."

Actually we do. You need to learn more about the difference between handwriting comparison and handwriting analysis. The former actually is quite an "exacting" science. You need to know the science in order to fool it. Not just talk about the possibility with someone like Don Cheney, you need to know the art.

I suggest you deal with what we have. Sherwood Morrill said Z and Allen are not the same guy. "Tested and tested and tested". Sherwood Morrill said all the Z letters ARE the same guy. Everything else is speculation, not evidence.

OK motive.

You don't have one. You assume one. You assume that IF Allen is Z, he would be thinking in a particular way. But you have absolutely no evidence that this could be his motive ASIDE from the assusmption.

"Allen's motive was to determine if he was being monitored by VPD. ..."

And your evidence of that is what? Zippo. An assumption.

Come on. His entire interview with Lynch consists of two or three statements about going to Salt Point Ranch and where he eas going to school. No knife, no Treasure Island, no Berryessa detour, no chicken blood, nothing. As far as we know, Allen didn't even know what the interview was about, and Lynch doesn't remember it even happened. But this chilling episode is enough to make him kill again, just to see if VPD is on to him.

" So, what does he do to quiet the voices and make the shadows disappear? He devises a new murder; one that will take place in a different city that hasn't been used before, and will be pulled off using an entirely different MO so that it won't be readily attributed to the Zodiac. "

Again with the lifeboats. Now I know you're kidding. In order to make sure its not readily attributed to Z, he tells Spinelli that he's Z and is going to prove it, and he sends the shirt piece in two days later. With a letter in his Z mode.

"By doing this Allen knows that in a very short amount of time either one of two things will happen: The police will be knocking on his door, or they won't. If they do, it means that he was being watched/tailed and he'll be prepared to fight to the death in a shoot-out with the police."

And your evidence of THIS is what? Actually one of at least three things: If he's being tailed, the plain wrappers and about 50 backup cruisers move in as soon as he shoots Stine. Is this the answer he is so desperately looking for? And after this high stakes experiment, either he's dead or he knows he has carte blanche from VPD.

" If not, he'll lay low, dispose of all the physical evidence linking him to any of the crimes, and wait to see how long it will be before the police come asking for another interview. Well, we know the answer to both of those questions, don't we? And so did Allen. No, the VPD wasn't putting a tail on him, and it was better than 2 years before he was next approached by the police: Toschi and Armstrong."

Actually, a little less than 2 years.

"I know what you're thinking"

Apparently not. He doesn't dispose of anything: he starts sending pieces of it to the papers.

"But what if Allen successfully eluded VPD on the night Stine was killed, wouldn't that derail the entire theory?" Nope, because he also mailed a letter to the Chronicle taking credit for the crime as the Zodiac."

OK, I get it. He had to make it look like a non-Z crime to see if VPD was tailing him, then later make it a Z crime to see if they just suspected him but had no tail. What, they wouldn't tail him to a Z crime?

"If VPD had an inkling that Allen was the Zodiac, which obviously they didn't,"

Except for Lynch, who grilled him relentlessly about Berryessa.

"they would have been knocking on his door, or busting it down, within days of learning about the latest Zodiac murder. When that didn't happen, Allen knew he was able to move freely with little or no worry about being connected to the crimes."

So he continues his Z spree, running up the number to the known 37 confirmed Z hits. And continues sending letters for years after his SFPD interview and the trailer search do actually establish him as the No. 1 suspect. But that's just to see if Toschi has figured out his handwriting disguise machine.

Well, at least it qualifies as a theory. The problem is that it assumes Allen is Z and proffers an explanation for why he might have done PH. It is as far from a proof that he did do it as you can get. How you think you can prove it is still beyond beyond me.

One last point: the only things in the entire Bawart/Graysmith lexicon that could tie Allen to PH are the handwriting and Spinelli. And you ignore or refute both.

Amazing.

Thank God we have an actual litigator on this Board.