Deer Lodge, Montana
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell: Deer Lodge, Montana
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-196-29.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 01:56 pm:|
John Douglas mentions that Zodiac possibly had a close connection with Deer Lodge
somewhere in his past and might have written letters to people of authority there.
Perhaps, sitting up in Deer Lodge, Montana, in someone's old file cabinet or a forgotten shoebox tucked away in an attic, is a letter, signed with Zodiac's real name. Maybe he wrote to the editor of the local paper or to someone in the community or the warden of the prison?
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 01:27 am:|
It turns out that the LB killer didn't say Deer Lodge Montana, It was Colorado. The town name sounded something like Feather. If the killer talked with a drawl, but not a Southern drawl (like Steven said) more like a speech impediment, then maybe he was saying Denver? Coincidentally Darlene's ex husband just came from there! Could the killer be traveling with her ex?
|By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tf054.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 07:50 am:|
Edward where does John Douglas mention that? I find that interesting.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8b6c9c.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 11:03 am:|
Hurley, didn't you read what Sandy posted? Zodiac didn't say he was from Montana, in fact he made no mention of Montana.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-35.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 03:48 pm:|
Douglas's book is called "The Cases That Haunt Us." There is a substantial chapter on Zodiac in which he discusses some of the techniques he would have employed to flush out Zodiac. He said that (had he a time machine) he would have worked with an investigative reporter up in Deer Lodge and the surrounding area to try and illicit a response from the community up there as to the identity of Zodiac. He is optimistic that Zodiac would have written threatening or complaining notes to people in positions of authority before his murders began.
As for Deer Lodge, Montana: Hartnell agreed that "lodge" was in the name of the place that Zodiac had told him he was from, and said it was "somewhere in Montana." The only prison with Lodge in the name up there is Deer Lodge Prison. I don't know where the papers came up with Colorado.
What is certain is that there appears to be an effort made to link Deer Lodge Prison with Zodiac, even going so far (in the FBI files) to secure photo's of possible suspects there, and nothing apparently ever came of it.
|By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-mtc-ti024.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 05:09 pm:|
I have never had an interest in true crime stories until I sort of stumbled onto this one. I had wondered myself about a Zodiac/ Montana connection. In the early part of the seventies there was a serial killer there who had later committed suicide and if I remember correctly he had been in the navy. I wouldn't even know how to go back and research that story since I don't even know any names.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac890e2f.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:39 am:|
Ok everybody, please read carefully.
There is NO known connection between Zodiac and Montana.
Within minutes after the attack, Hartnell told Ranger White (who was first at the scene) that Zodiac stated he was from Colorado. After surgery, Hartnell was interviewed and couldn't remember exactly where Zodiac had claimed to be from. For some reason, the interviewer kept mistakingly bringing up Montana, even though Hartnell initially had told White it was Colorado.
Ken Narlow told me the fact that Hartnell's memory had been forever altered due to faulty interviewing has bothered him for 30 years.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-51.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 12:21 pm:|
I respectfully disagree that there is no link to Montana. There may not be. It all depends on who you talk to or which interview you believe. It may be true that Narlow believes Hartnell had Montana "implanted" in his memory in lieu of Colorado simply because investigators were trying to make sense of his statement at the Lake. However, the question is whether you believe Hartnell's pre-surgery statements or his post-surgery statements. Hartnell said the prison Zodiac was from definitely had "lodge" in the title. The only prison I can find in America at that time that had lodge in it's name was Deer Lodge. "Mountain Lodge Prison" could easily be confused with Deer Lodge Prison.
In my experience, stress tends to affect one's memory and, unless someone is trained to recognize this, it is usually after the event, when one has had a chance to decompress, that memories can come flooding back the way they actually happened.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca2e2e3.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 12:27 pm:|
Hartnell's memory of the place Z claimed to be from, in order:
Feathers, Fern, Fern Lock.
According to all of the investigators I've spoken to, a victim's first account is usually the most accurate.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-108.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 03:43 pm:|
Given the number of puzzling names of places, it would appear the facts don't really
support any conclusions, yet.
As for Hartnell's first statement being the most accurate, who really knows? Perhaps a victim's first statement is generally the most accurate. However, I believe factors such as the fear of imminent death could have had a huge influence on what he "remembered." It seems that while Bryan Hartnell is a very intelligent individual who would have kept a level head in spite of his injuries, and who did attempt to tell everything he could while waiting for the ambulance, he also felt like he "wasn't going to make it." The stress of that experience could account for his subsequent confusion.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn082.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 05:30 pm:|
Whether or not the Zodiac mentioned Montana, the facts speak for themselves. Whatever
Hartnell may have said to White either went unnoticed or disregarded, as the FBI files
make it clear that everyone was checking possible leads and connections to Montana, and
There is a place called Red Feather, Colorado, for what it's worth. And, if we're going to go by the first account given by a witness, then the man who shot Mageau and Ferrin did not resemble Allen at all. His first description may have been inaccurate, but, then, Hartnell's initial description of the events may have been incorrect as well. People seem to pick and choose what they want to believe, one way or another.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac86c113.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 08:23 pm:|
Please quote from the report Mageau's exact initial description.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn022.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 09:27 pm:|
I'm not trying to imply that Hartnell's initial statement to White (given at the
scene) was not reliable, or that he did not say Colorado. I'm simply pointing out that
there seems to be a lot of room for error, confusion, and more in many of these accounts.
Personally, I would tend to believe Hartnell's initial account. What I have trouble with
is the fact that so many people were running around, investigating on the basis of an
erroneous statement (apparently elicited or perpetuated by an investigator) when someone
at the core of the Napa investigation was aware of the error.
If Narlow was so upset about it, why didn't he correct anyone? Why was everyone focusing on Montana, when White reported that Hartnell had said Colorado? If someone - namely the investigator in charge of the case - knew that Hartnell had said Colorado, it would seem rather important to mention that to the many other people focusing solely on Montana. Did Narlow not know of this problem until later? Didn't he have a copy of White's statement? Again, I'm not taking any sides here, just pointing out the obvious questions regarding this confusion.
Mageau's initial description, given at the scene, does not conflict with his later description. That's the difference between the statements of Mageau and Hartnell.
As for Mageau's initial description, I think it's important to remember that he had difficulty just talking, let alone making a coherent statement. Rust went over the events of that night, and the description of the shooter, many times after Mageau went through surgery. His description to Rust does not match Allen on several counts. That much is clear just reading the report. And if you want to know what I mean, read the report. You do have a copy of that report, after all, so asking me to quote the details of that report is a little silly, especially when it took nine zillion posts just to get you to give us a microscopic bit of information from reports we don't have regarding Don's story...
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca6083d.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 10:13 pm:|
My version of the report is out of order.
I recall Mageau describing the shooter as a WMA, heavy-set with a round face and short hair.
I can't recall the order as they appeared in the report, but Hoffman's version would contain Mageau's initial statements.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-72-109.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 10:51 pm:|
I believe you make a valid point regarding Narlow's seeming lack of concern for correcting what he thought was a mistake. Jurisdictional rivalry being what it was, maybe it fell on deaf ears.
As for Mageau's initial description of Zodiac: "wht male, young, heavyset..." I have to disagree with you that it doesn't fit Allen. When questioned the following day in ICU, Mageau's description of Zodiac's height being 5'8" (which is a hard thing to estimate when someone is shooting at your head) may be explained by the fact that Zodiac was almost certainly crouched in a shooting stance to take aim at them and the fact that Mageau only saw him for a moment in profile. Mageau did describe a heavy set, beefy, 180-200+ pound man with short curly hair, possibly blond, who had a large face. That could easily have been Allen in a toupee.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8413e7.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:12 pm:|
No toupee might not have been necessary.
According to people that knew him, Allen didn't have a lot of hair in 1969, but he wasn't bald. He had fine, short-blond hair.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn012.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 01:25 am:|
Edward wrote: "I have to disagree with you that it doesn't fit Allen."
Well, it's not a matter of whether or not you disagree with me, Edward. I was simply citing a fact. Of course it is possible that Mageau's description was inaccurate, but, that was not my point. The point is that key points of that description do not match Allen. That is a fact, not an opinion. Whether or not you choose to accept that description is up to you.
Here's the relevant portion of Hoffman's report which detailed the attempt to elicit a description from Mageau at the scene:
"RO then asked Mageau to give me some type of description & he replied that he can't. RO then asked a series of question & was told Mageau that the resp. was a wht male, young, heavy set..."
Here's the relevant portion of Rust's report, which detailed his interview with Mageau on July 6, 1969, shortly after 3pm:
"RO asked Michael if he could give a description of the responsible subject, and he stated as best as he could recall the description is as follows. Subject appeared to be short, possibly 5' 8", was real heavy set, beefy build. States subject was not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to 200, or maybe even larger. Stated he had short curly hair, light brown, almost blond...States he just saw subject's face from profile, side view, and does not recall seeing a front view. States there was nothing unusual about his face, other than it appeared to be large. Michael stated the subject did not have a mustache, nor was he wearing glasses or anything. He could not recall anything unusual except that he had a large face. Michael reemphasized that he really did not get a good look at the subject other than his profile. Also, it was dark out and it was hard to see the subject...Michael states that he could possibly recognize responsible if he had a profile view, as this is the best view he had of the subject. Stated subject was a white male, approximately 26-30 years. Was unable to judge real well what his age was."
Whether you like it or not, that description does not match Allen. Does that mean he could not have been the shooter? Of course not. Yet, the description is what it is, and it does not match Allen on several key points. Allen was practically bald, even though he still had some hair. He did not have curly hair. He was not 5'8" and he was not "short." Could the killer have been crouched, making him appear shorter? Certainly. Is that what Mageau said? No. Could the killer have been taller? Of course. Allen was older than Mageau, and Mageau did say that the shooter was "older than me." Does that mean that the shooter was old? No. Mageau said the shooter was "young." Allen was not necessarily "young" in 1969, being almost 36 years old. Does his mean that Allen could not be the shooter? No. Yet, that IS the description given by the witness.
Mageau said the killer was 5'8", and had curly hair. Mageau was sitting a few feet from the killer. The three witnesses who saw the Zodiac on the night of October 11, 1969, stated that the suspect was approximately 5' 8", with reddish blond crewcut hair. These witnesses had an unobstructed view of the suspect for several minutes, albeit at night, and from a second floor window. Even Kathleen Johns, who may or may not have been a so-called "Zodiac victim," stated that the suspect was of the same approximate height, and the rest of her description is not all that dissimilar from the others. Johns said she spent over an hour seated inside a car with the suspect.
Bryan Hartnell spent most of his time with Zodiac on the ground while the suspect stood over him and saw the killer in a pair of boots. Hartnell admitted that he was not a good judge of height. Hartnell stated that he could see the killer's dark brown hair through the eye-slits of the hood, indicating the killer's hair was not only dark brown - and NOT light blond - but long enough to hang down near the eye slits. The other Berryessa witnesses who contributed to the composite sketch, stated that the suspect had dark hair which was straight and parted.
Officer Foukes stated that the suspect was approximately 6' to 6'2". Foukes, by his own statement, only saw the suspect for "5-10" seconds, and from a moving car, and at night. The suspect was wearing boots as well.
Which descriptions are constantly cited when arguing that Allen matches the descriptions of the suspects? Those of Hartnell and Foukes. We are asked to accept Hartnell's height estimate, despite his statements that the killer was wearing boots, standing over him for most of the time, and Hartnell's own admission that he was a poor judge of height. Foukes saw the killer for "5-10" seconds, from a moving car, at night, and, he apparently spent at least some of that time observing the suspect's footwear. These are the descriptions cited in reference to Allen, and not the descriptions of witnesses who had seen the suspect from a feet away (as in Mageau's case), or from a short distance with an unobstructed view for an extended period time (the Stine witnesses), or even up close for an extended period of time (Johns).
When it was learned that Foukes had described the suspect as actually being 6" or more, Tom made a big deal about how this matched Allen. The description of the three witnesses who watched the killer for at least several minutes was abandoned in favor of that which was provided by another witness who had seen the killer for "5-10" seconds. Foukes' TV description, which matched those of the other Stine witnesses, has largely been abandoned in favor of a description attributed to Foukes by others.
It is entirely possible, indeed common, for witnesses to be incorrect judging height, weight, etc. When it comes to Allen, it seems standard procedure to abandon a description, or explain away the conflicting aspects, when that description does not match Allen. However, when the description does match Allen, the details of that description are embraced and cited as gospel. Essentially, the elements of the descriptions are examined in a "buffet-style" manner, picking and choosing what matches Allen and ignoring that which does not.
As is so often the case, when one cites the facts, it is seen as a statement of opinion when that is not the case. However, opinion plays very large part in picking and choosing which witnesses to believe, and which details to embrace. At times, the manner in which Allen is linked only to those elements of the descriptions which match him is so biased and selective that it is ridiculous.
It is perfectly possible that ALL of the witnesses who described the suspect as being 5' 8" may have been providing accurate descriptions. Yet, those who attempt to link Allen to the crimes seem to believe that only those elements of these descriptions which match Allen are reliable, and those which do not match Allen are not reliable. Do we know for a fact that they are reliable? No. Do we know for a fact that those descriptions are not reliable? No.
Either way, many of the key elements of these descriptions do not match Allen. That is a fact. That was my point.
Thanks for "listening."
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-146.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:19 am:|
Well, it's not a matter of whether or not you disagree with me, Edward. I was simply citing a fact. Of course it is possible that Mageau's
description was inaccurate, but, that was not my point. The point is that key points of that description do not match Allen. That is a fact, not an opinion. Whether or not you choose to accept that description is up to you.
You are correct that Allen's description does not match on several key points. But you must also admit that Allen matches on several key points.
Again, you feel I am disputing the facts. I'm not disputing the facts. The description Mageau first gave and whether or not it matched Allen was the subject of our discussion. He said white male, young, heavy set. Could that be Allen? Yes. To say Allen didn't match that simple, basic, description is not true. I suppose it depends on what the circumstances were surrounding both Mageau's ability and his desire to respond to an officer who was questioning him while he was bleeding from several painful wounds. Was Allen heavy set? Yes. Was he a white male? Yes. Was he young? To Mageau? Mmm maybe not. But 36 is certainly not old and Mageau suggested later he was a bad judge of age. To discount Allen based on this description is dismissive. I know that was not your point.
Let's go to the ICU description you quote from:
Subject appeared to be short, possibly 5' 8", was real heavy set, beefy build. States subject was not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to
200, or maybe even larger. Stated he had short curly hair, light brown, almost blond...States he just saw subject's face from profile, side view, and does not recall seeing a front view. States there was nothing unusual about his face, other than it appeared to be large. Michael stated the subject did not have a mustache, nor was he wearing glasses or anything. He could not recall anything unusual except that he had a large face. Michael
reemphasized that he really did not get a good look at the subject other than his profile. Also, it was dark out and it was hard to see the subject...Michael states that he could possibly recognize responsible if he had a profile view, as this is the best view he had of the subject. Stated
subject was a white male, approximately 26-30 years. Was unable to judge real well what his age was."
Whether you like it or not, that description does not match Allen.
That description DOES NOT MATCH Allen? That's misleading. Certain elements don't match. Other do.
Again, was Allen 5'8"? No. If you stopped there, Allen can't be Zodiac. The fact that others described him as such also would tend to exclude Allen. But others described him as taller. One was with him for quite some time and another was a trained professional. Hartnell (who, granted, did say he was not a good judge of height) put him at "6 foot or better." That the kids judgment of height (who I assume were all together when questioned and had no experience in judging height from an elevated position over fifty feet away) is thrown out in acceptance of a trained police office, who for years has estimated height on an hourly basis, is not surprising. I know nothing about Foukes changing his story about Zodiac's height. So I can't dispute you there.
Was Allen real beefy? 195-200 or maybe even larger? Yes.
Did he have short hair? Yes. Curly? Mmmm. Not really. I'll give you that. Light brown, possibly blond? Yes. Could Allen have worn a toupee? Yes.
Did Allen have a large face? Yes.
Was Allen 26-30? Nope. But you already included Mageau's problem with that. So Allen might fit there.
Allen matches on several fronts. Did I dispute the facts? No. Again, I disagreed with your statement that Allen "does not match" the Zodiac description given by witnesses. Does this mean Allen did it? No. Can Allen be excluded based on witness descriptions? No.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (106.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:26 am:|
It's somewhat discomfiting, however, that both Mageau and Hartnell went back on their descriptions of Zodiac as being heavyset. That tells me something, namely, that there was sufficient ambiguity concerning the Zodiac's actual build that the two victims could never be quite certain in their own minds just how large he actually was.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac952f57.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 10:34 am:|
Something else to consider is that Meageau, like Hartnell, was very tall.
According to law enforcement, it's not easy for people to be accurate with descriptions. I would think if a witness were larger or smaller than average it would only compound the problem.
|By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (pool-22.214.171.124.phnx.grid.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 03:08 pm:|
According to all of the investigators I've spoken to, a victim's first account is usually the most accurate.
That's very interesting, Tom. So I guess that solves the Mageau ID once and for all, eh? His "original" remarks about what he saw would have been the most reliable, and *not* 23 years after the fact. Would you agree or disagree? Please explain your answer.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-ta051.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 03:34 pm:|
Mageau said that the shooter was 5'8", heavy set, with brown curly hair, and approximately 26-30 years old.
You wrote: That description DOES NOT MATCH Allen? That's misleading. Certain elements don't match. Other do.
There's nothing misleading about it. You are disputing a fact, and you are arguing the validity of the description. I am not. You're saying that certain points do match Allen. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not he matches the description, and he does not. That is a fact. You are trying to argue that some points do match Allen, but I am not arguing the validity of the description, rather simply citing a fact.
No matter how you want to argue the validity of the description, the description does not match Allen. It's that simple. That was my point. Please don't get upset with me, but you're getting confused here, and you are arguing your opinion of whether or not the description is reliable, and whether certain points match Allen. I am not. I am simply pointing out that the description -as given my Mageau- does not match Allen, and it doesn't. That was my point, and that is a fact.
You are saying that the description may match Allen on some points, and that he could be wearing a toupee, and so on. You are once again arguing the validity of the description, and disputing the facts.
Allen was not 5'8". He did not have curly hair. He was not 26-30 years old. These are the facts. Does that mean Allen couldn't be the shooter? Does that mean that Mageau couldn't be mistaken? No. You are arguing those points, I am not. I simply stated a fact - the description does not match Allen. You can't disagree with a fact.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-ta051.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 04:06 pm:|
Sorry about that, Edward. Mageau didn't say the shooter had brown hair. Forgive me - the witness (meaning me) was mistaken
|By Dave (Dave) (lsanca1-ar14-248-191.dsl.gtei.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 08:56 pm:|
Somewhere out there there is a copy of Allen's Calif Driver's licence dated a year or
less before the first Vallejo killings. Allen is clearly balding and he is definitly Fat,
not Beefy, Fat.(and he also seems pretty "Old" for 35)
Mageau's 1969 decriptions proves nothing but It seems to undermine rather than support Allen as Z.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-72.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 11:04 pm:|
I assure you, I'm not confused here. Again we seem to be at an impasse, and it is here you and I usually resort to rancor. Glad to see we are not.
I say I was arguing over your rendition of things, you say I'm arguing facts. Let's clear the air. True, Mageau said Zodiac was white, 5'8", heavy set, had curly hair, and was maybe 26-30 years old. Neither of us dispute that. If we use that description as a rubber stamp, then to say Allen doesn't fit that description is correct. But if we are to use Mageau's description to say Allen doesn't fit, without exploring the possibility of certain aspects which may have had an effect on Mageau's ability to give an accurate description, then we do a disservice to readers just as surely as you contend Tom does in his presentation of Allen elsewhere on the board. Berkowitz did not resemble most of the suspect sketches circulated and witnesses gave conflicting descriptions of him as well. We can't live in a rubber stamp world. If a police officer gets a description from a frightened, agitated witness who's been shot, that the man who shot him and just robbed his liquor store may be 5'8", was big, and definitely wore a white shirt, well that cuts a fairly wide swath toward the suspects he's going to be looking for. A lot of men are going to fit into that category. If he passes someone who is white, 6', heavy set, and wearing no shirt, does he discount him as a suspect and drive on or does he at least stop and question him? He questions him. Because he knows that height estimation in this situation can be wrong, he knows his weight and race fit the bill, and he knows the guy could have taken off the white shirt to confuse him. You see where I'm going with this.
I know you don't dismiss Allen as a suspect based on Mageau's or other descriptions. And I know you mean well with these smiley face things, but they drive me nuts. More later. Take care.
|By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tj082.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 01:23 am:|
I didn't say you were confused about the facts: I think you're confused about the
point I was making, and, your own comments prove it.
I am not saying that Mageau's description is a rubber stamp, or that police shouldn't question anyone who doesn't fit that description exactly, or anything like that at all. Here's what you wrote: "But if we are to use Mageau's description to say Allen doesn't fit, without exploring the possibility of certain aspects which may have had an effect on Mageau's ability to give an accurate description..."
I said that Allen did not match the description. That is an indisputable fact. Does that mean that I don't think there's a reason to doubt Mageau, or that we shouldn't address those issues? NO. I said he did not match the description, and he doesn't. That is ALL I was saying. THAT is what I mean when I said that I was simply stating a fact, and that you can't disagree with a fact.
I am more than willing to debate the validity of that description, to address the reasons why the witness may be mistaken on certain counts, or to admit that police should not use the description as if it was set in stone. But I will not act as if there is any room to debate *my statement*, because there isn't. He doesn't match the description. That's it. There's nothing to debate in that regard. That is what I meant when I said that I think you are confused. You seemed to think I was making some argument regarding the validity of that description, the accuracy of the witness, or how that description should be valued when applied to Allen. I was not. I simply stated a fact. So, I don't think we disagree at all - I think you just didn't realize that I was only pointing out the fact, and NOT addressing any of the issues you raised.
Again, I think my other original point is lost here as well (but not on you, obviously). The descriptions are not rubber stamps, and any number of elements of those descriptions may be inaccurate. Yet, when it comes to Allen, anything which does match Allen is touted as if it were fixed in stone, and accurate. When the elements do not match Allen, they are discarded as unreliable.
The comparison to Berkowitz is not really appropriate, as there is good reason to believe that some of those witnesses actually saw someone other than Berkowitz committing some of those crimes. Before someone attacks me and accuses me of spreading Maury Terry's nonsense, let me assure the readers that I believe 90% of his theories to be absurd and not supported by the known facts. However, there is good evidence to indicate that Berkowitz did not commit all of those crimes, and that others were involved. So, the issue of descriptions in that case is really not appropriate for our purposes.
I'm sorry that the smiley faces drive you nuts, but they don't bother me at all, and I won't apologize for using them. If you really don't like them, I guess you'll have to live with it, as we are all free to express ourselves as we please here. That said, I will try not to use them when addressing you, and I would add one at the end of this note in order to let you know that I am not upset by your comments, and not trying to be rude when I say I won't apologize for using them, but, well, that would just drive you nuts...
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
|By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8a44e4.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 08:55 am:|
"Somewhere out there there is a copy of Allen's Calif Driver's licence dated a year or less before the first Vallejo killings. Allen
is clearly balding and he is definitly Fat, not Beefy, Fat.(and he also seems pretty "Old" for 35)
Mageau's 1969 decriptions proves nothing but It seems to undermine rather than support Allen as Z."
Nobody on this planet is going to resemble all of the descriptions or composites of Zodiac. How could they?
By the way, after I appeared on THC's "Perfect crimes?" I lost about 35 pounds in just a few months. Allen's driver's license pic was taken almost two years before the BRS shootings.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p53.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 09:27 am:|
Personally,for what it's worth,I would be inclined
towards Mageau's initial assessment on the height.
As Tom pointed out "according to law enforcement a
victims first account is usually the most accurate".But perhaps more significantly,Mageau,I
believe,had the advantage of "measuring" Zodiac
against the height of his car.
|By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-72-71.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:27 am:|
You may be right. However, in order to aim at both victims from his vantage point and at such close range, Zodiac (unless he was far shorter than 5'8") almost certainly had to duck down to fire at them. To get a clear shot, a shooter standing next to the car has to put his eye-line on a level at least even with the window frame. If anyone's ever seen COPS, you know what I mean.
If Mageau was able to use the height of the car as an accurate measuring tool, when and how do you propose he would have done that?
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p84.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 06:20 am:|
I read ,somewhere on this site,I think,that Mageau
said Zodiac was about a head or so taller than the car.I will try to find it again to get the actual quote
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, December 25, 2000 - 09:08 pm:|
I was one of the people who quoted Mike as saying that. I also said, the first time I saw L.k. standing at a distance, I thought he was at least 6ft tall! When I saw him standing next to me he was about 5ft 8in. The reason for this is, he has long legs for a short body. He is built like a tall person so am I, I am 5ft tall.Most people think I look taller, even the "cops" I date. And like Berkowitz,(son of Sam)I believe more than one person is connected to Zodiac, that it is part of a sick cult that Darlene herself knew about,and was killed for it. The others killed were to cover her killing up, so it would look random. After all it did work out that way, didn't it?
|By Howard (Howard) (1cust25.tnt10.sfo3.da.uu.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, January 01, 2001 - 03:02 pm:|
Edward- I wrote a lengthy reply to your Deer Lodge statement being a possibility, but as you can guess I'm not a computer person-I'm teaching myself as I go so I mess up!Sorry.I will just quote a signed Harnell interview :"...I (Z)escaped from Deer Lodge Prison in Montana,Deer Lodge (Note the repeat of Lodge)..." Bryan ;"What was the name of that prison?" Note that hes asking AGAIN to get it straight for the police.Z (no reply) B: "No really ,what did you say the name of it was I'm just curious."Asking again!Z: (begrudgingly-to get him on the ground I will reapeat it!?)Z Ans. "DEER LODGE IN MONTANA".(emp. mine). I found one other Deer Lodge in the U.S.and that was in TN.,very close to where my suspect Bruce Davis grew up and hunted in the forests there-I was quite surprised!For me -was this name in the back of his mind and he put it together with the state prison at Montana?FYI
|By Alanc (Alanc) (spider-wj073.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 08:50 am:|
Despite the old adage that "three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead", I tend to lean toward the idea that there was more than one person involved in these crimes.
|By Howard (Howard) (dialup-188.8.131.52.losangeles1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 12:46 am:|
Alanc-I'm sure with you on that one!I think there are some good reasons to believe what you have asserted here ,starting with that Plymouth Valiant/couple incident and the fact some in the Family-including Manson- were staying very close to the LHR area at that time 12/20/68'and moved back to Southern CA just after the 12/20/68' 87'.Bruce Davis flew to London and did not come back until the following year.
|By Howard (Howard) (dialup-220.127.116.11.losangeles1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 02:42 am:|
Deer Lodge again! The report ;Hartnell:"And he Z , says,'Nah..time's[always time]running short ,'he says,''cause I just got out of ...'-some prison in MONTANA[EMP mine],I[Hartnell] don't know what the name of it[the PRISON-not the state] is.Feathers?[H]Do you[the interviewer!]know what the name of it [the prison]is?I'll[H] see if it sounds familiar.Fern or Feathers?[H not officer].It's some DOUBLE[EMP mine]name,like Fern (DEER?)Lock(Lodge?or something...J.R.[officer] It's Lodge..B.H.Oh yeah,yeah, Lodge.At least we're together on that.(!)J.R.Mountain Lodge Prison,or something of that nature...(he did not even get the name right!).I will let the interview speak for itself or should we let Hartnell do that?Who was 'leading' who?
|By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0045.cvx26-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 05:48 pm:|
Metaphorically speaking, why the blind leading the naked, of course!
The Big O.
p.s. Ask Tom about "leading'.
|By Howard (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 06:31 pm:|
Oscar-And ,I say this to you respectfully ,that I have no intention to cajole Tom in any way-it is his right,especially, since he is the WEBMASTER to say and approach any subject as he sees fit.He lets me and the others do the same. After all, he could simply delete any post he wishes that disagrees or violates his personal views and this he does NOT do. You can find more on HIS site that is negative concerning him-and guess who allows it?There also has been much praise over time concerning his dedication and work. This site alone is a marvel. Not perfect-well what is?See my post today about Tom's fine work. Lets just recognize not everything is perfect ,but instead let's FOCUS on the case. You guys could easily slap my chops and be right;so let's show respect for each other. Well, 'Tom or thus and so doesn't.' You know that's not our affair-stay at the case and forget personalities. You have shown insight in your posts in the past ;keep up the effort-I'm ready for the next Oscar jewel.There are so many insightful people here .I enjoy reading their ideas and opinions! www.zodiacmurders.com
|By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0326.cvx37-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 08:28 pm:|
I respect your opinion, but I know for a fact that Tom does delete posts that he doesn't like or finds offensive. How do I know this? Well, I've had it happen to me at least three times, which p#ssed me off to know end. But, you are right, I kno
|By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0326.cvx37-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 08:36 pm:|
I think I got nailed in a rolling blackout, or this Genessee Cream Ale has got more of a bite than I previously expected (which would account for why I keep waking up in the neighbor's garden wearing frogman gear, screaming like a nutured banshee..). Anyways, Tom 'led' his latest interviewee, but, and in all fairness to anyone trying to recover thirty-plus year old memories from someone, this is bound to be difficult, especially if the interviewer has no proper training.
I enjoy your posts, as you are obviously informed, intelligent, and at times can be rather droll. However, lighten up!
|By Howard (Howard) (dialup-220.127.116.11.losangeles1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 01:25 am:|
Oscar-Well taken-pass that cream ale!
|By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0108.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 02:39 am:|
You want the cream ale? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE CREAM ALE!!
Whew! Seriously, will you e-mail me off the board so that I can ask you a few questions? Don't worry, I do not bite.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dialup-126.96.36.199.losangeles1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 02:49 am:|
After reviewing all the testimonies,both in the papers and PD reports icluding TV transcripts ,I feel that when Hartnell told White that when the hooded man told him he was from Colorado it was a correct statement of rememberance. Hartnell was losing consciousness periodically and was in severe pain(he later says "I was in shock") as was Shepard,so he could not either remember the FULL details of the Z conversation and/or he just didn't have the strength to render the full details. When he was more comfortable with a lot less pain,etc.in the hospital, he remembered that he asked Z twice (see my posts above)what prison he escaped from-not what state he was from-he was told Deer Lodge!I think that Z told them that he was from Colorado and that he (later) escaped from prison at Deer Lodge(Montana).I feel that this is a non forced reconciliation of the Deer Lodge controversy.
|By Dragonov (Dragonov) (56k-295.maxtnt4.pdq.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 05:42 pm:|
Food for thought, what would Z. have to lose by lying to his next victims? And is this where he picked up his stealth knowledge?