Allen On Trial - Opening Statement Message Board: Arthur Leigh Allen: Allen On Trial - Opening Statement

By Linda (Linda) ( - on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 03:26 pm:

Scott... As suggested, I have moved my question to you to another thread and am posing the idea of presenting an Opening Statement as Prosecutor to an Allen trial, listing key points of evidence you feel will convict this suspect. (I'm suggesting this same venue to Doug for Kaczynski)...


By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 06:48 pm:


It'll have to wait for a day or two; I don't have the time for a lengthy post at the moment. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 11:12 am:

I tell you what Linda, I'm not a lawyer of any kind, and preparing a formal statement in a forum for which it was not intended and where everyone is likely to misinterpret what is actually being said seems unreasonable. As I've stated before, everything one needs to convict Allen can be found on this website. Might I suggest Tom's eloquently stated and simplified The Arthur Leigh Allen File for starters?

Perhaps from there perhaps you will read the thread in which a rebuttal to Jake Wark's essay against ALA as the Zodiac was presented. For whatever reason, Jake mysteriously abandoned ship before the discussion had even breeched the first page. I'm sure that he considers himself "above" the likes of the people that frequent this site, sorry to say, but I digress: If you really want a lawyer to present a real opening argument for or against Allen, I'm going to have to suggest that you differ to a real lawyer, such as Peter H. or Anon.

Granted, Peter doesn't believe that Allen was the Zodiac, but I'm sure he could prepare an opening statement as Allen's defense attorney. That's the thing Linda; we shouldn't allow ourselves to become biased based upon presentation. Instead, we should continually strive for the truth despite our personal convictions. Having said that, I'm still all for injecting the venom on Allen, despite what certain people think about Colorado's judicial system and the people who comprise it.


By Linda (Linda) ( - on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 12:06 pm:

I guess maybe my idea of suggesting an "opening statement" type of presentation in this type setting wasn't such a good idea. I know that between Doug & Mike's "Dr. Zodiac" and Tom's "Arthur Leigh Allen" file we individually read what's out there. I just thought the two threads would be good conversation makers and an interesting way to sum-up, so to speak, the strength of the evidences on these two suspects since I feel those are the two that appear to have the most circumstantial evidence going for them.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 02:28 pm:

Nothing wrong with that, Linda, but unfortunately it's not that simple; at least, not for me. I'm positive that Allen was the Zodiac. However, I'm not sure that I possess the requisite skills to articulate it in the manner that you described, that's all. It's not a matter of bad questioning on your part; it's a matter of me not being able to present my position in the manner that you requested. Your suggestion is an extremely good proposition, but not one that I have the ability, at present, to answer without fear of misinterpretation.


By Anon (Anon) ( - on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 10:58 pm:

And Lina, I'm just too busy :)

I'd love to do a real trial, but summations are a TON of work to prepare... Serously, I'd suggest this as a quick blueprint to what you'd present: look at the numbered circumstantial evidence of Allen's guilt in Graysmith's "unmasked", put on a witness for each of those factors, and drive home 1)the quality and 2)quantity of this evidence. Everything taken together, the maps of the crimes, areas Allen lived and worked and traveled, his statements to friends, his appearance and physical description... ONly one reasonable conclusion: allen is the ZOdiac.

Might want to look up the jury instructions for murder also, so you see what needs to actually be proven for a conviction.,

This is another common misunderstanding: the DA need not prove EVERYTHING relating to the case. How Allen produced the writing that differed from his own is unknown and maybe lost forever. Not the point, though, all you need to do is prove the ELEMENTS of the crime. PLenty of things go unexplained in life, it doesn't prevent a guilty verdict...


By Kevin (Kevinrm) ( - on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 12:37 am:

Dear Anon,

I hope you're not taking stock that all of that "circumstantial evidence" in Zodiac Unmasked is actually true. The book has major weaknesses, as even those who think Allen is the Zodiac will admit.

I'm willing to bet you can't prove even ONE element of the crime that connects Allen, and no one else, to a Z crime.

By John Prisk (Prisk29) ( - on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 01:36 am:

Jake has not "been around" because his computer took a crap, and he is getting it fixed. That and he has intrests that involve things other than serial killers.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:54 am:


You're not off the hook that easily. You said you could nail Allen for PH and I have asked you how. I think it was a mistake for Linda to frame it a request for opening statement. (Actually, closing would be more appropriate, but I won't ask that either). And I am not going to tear into it on the basis of what jury instructions you couldn't get or what evidence wouldn't come in or anything like that. I have yet to hear a cogent logical proof of Allen's guilt anywhere. All we have to date is Golly, gee, there's just so much circumstantial evidence it cant be a coincidence you just gotta beleive Allen's the guy. You don't have to meet the standards for what would convict to a jury in a courtroom, Just tell us logically how you would prove that Allen did PH. Why it could not have been anyone other than Allen.

General reference to everything on this site or Tom's file is a complete cop-out, and I think much better of you than that.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 12:08 pm:

Keep in mind that the facts contained in The Arthur Leigh Allen File were corroborated; I'm not blindly quoting a certain "author."

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 12:38 pm:


I would never even suggest that, Tom, and I did not mean to disparage that fine compilation. What I am saying is that no one has ever put these facts together in a reasoned proof as distinct from a narrative. Stating the evidence is not the same as setting out the reasoning of a proof. And beleive me, when it comes to this case, res sure doesn't ipsa loquitur.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 07:13 pm:


See my post under the "DA: I could convict Allen Easily" thread. We can take it point by point from there. Eventually, I will create a whole thread devoted to the subject of ALA and Presidio Heights.