Wingwalkers


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell: Wingwalkers

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lderc.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.187.108) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:36 pm:

Judy wrote:

"Again, like the fingerprints, even though they were pretty sure it was a print of Zodiac's shoe, it still ranks as a piece of evidence that, until caught, cannot not be positively attributed to Z."

What exactly are the police going to determine if they catch Zodiac that will enable them to positively attribute the boot prints to Z (that they don't already know)? Is Zodiac going to have to personally confess to being on the peninsula first?

Sylvie wrote:

"The pro Allen Forces cannot have it both ways. If noone can be eliminated on the basis of fingerprints then certainly noone can be eliminated on the basis of bootprints."

As always, the value of the evidence in question lies in the details surrounding it. With the fingerprints, we have high confidence about some of them being Z prints; the Exorcist letter print, the pay phone receiver print, and the "bloody" cab print. The Exorcist letter palm prints are in the writing position, and the phone receiver was off the hook. Although this is strong evidence they are Zodiac prints, I still question these prints on the basis of our lack of complete knowledge about exactly how and when they were placed because there might still be some conceivable way they are not. The teenage witnesses, on the other hand, saw Z touch the cab in the area the bloody print was found. That makes this print extremely likely to be Zodiac print. Any doubt which remains is due only to the fact that we have here a taxi which many people have touched.

The bootprints, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. We have a surviving witness who described exactly what happened, how Zodiac approached in a remote area, where he stood, and a good description of his clothing which included boots. Not only do we have a trail of prints going directly to the attack site, we have a trail of the same prints leaving the area of the attack and approaching the Karman Ghia where the lettering was done. These prints were made by a man of a weight consistent with Hartnell's description of the suspect. So Sylvie, how does the trail of prints, if it was placed earlier, just happen to terminate both at the parked car and the blanket? And more importantly, if these are not Zodiac's footprints, then where are Zodiac's footprints? They should be right there along side of these prints, right? In short, it can be said with certainty that these are the bootprints of Zodiac because there is no rational explanation as to how they could not be. We cannot address wear patterns for a match to a specific pair of boots unless we have them in our posession obviously, but we can certainly rule out anyone who did not wear a boot size in the men's 10 to 11 size range.

In other words, fingerprints and bootprints, in this case, must be treated differently as to what they mean, not only because we have different information available as to how they were created, but because they are intrinsically different types of evidence to begin with. You can't really "size" a fingerprint the way you can a bootprint. The same characteristics which determine a fingerprint's uniqueness also determine it's size. Conversely, these characteristics are seperately identifiable in the case of footwear.

Ray

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta081.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.56) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 02:33 am:

Hooyah!

By Judy (Judy) (waf-dc27-56.rasserver.net - 206.215.11.56) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 05:05 am:

Ray, I did not write that quote you attributed to me. You are confusing me with someone else.

Judy

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wg063.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.48) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 08:08 am:

Okay Ray, that's good but we still could have a size 8 1/2 in a 10 1/2 boot.
Pretty easy yet effective disguise.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-tq014.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.49) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 09:50 am:

This'll teach me to post without looking at the rest of the threads. Ya got me -- ouch!

--Jake

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldc75.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.176.229) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 09:53 am:

Sorry about that, Judy. The quote was made by Linda.

Sylvie:

Hey, isn't that the kind of logic the Allenistas are so often accused of offering? Maybe he was wearing molded latex prints on his fingers at PH, too? A big, tall, 200+ pound man with small feet like that would be almost an anomoly. I find that about as likely as LHR being a staged scene. Still, you have a point. Just remember, the sand around here is as deep as one needs it to be.

Ray

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ta081.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.81) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:30 pm:

The best ways to throw off investigators are often the simplest. Bruce Davis left a pair of glasses at Sharon Tate's home, and many hours and much tax money was wasted on those things. Ted K used to pick up strands of hair at bus stations to drop in Unabomber letters. No doubt alot of time was squandered on that.
But Ray, just where do you get "big, tall 200+ man". I do not recall that being Hartnell's description. Are you sure you are not confusing Zodiac with Allen?

By Judy (Judy) (waf-dc26-249.rasserver.net - 206.214.2.249) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:41 pm:

No problem, Ray. Just wanted to keep the record
straight...

Judy

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (199.251.68.84) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:53 pm:

As a matter of fact, Hartnell backed off his original description even before publication of Graysmith's first book (see his remarks in the appendix to "Zodiac.") And I understand he's made some fairly recent statements to the same effect.

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfng.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.190.240) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 08:49 pm:

Maybe I'm just confusing him with the suspect described by Hartnell. I can't be held accountable for what others don't remember. What Hartnell described was a big, tall guy and the footprint depth supported the estimated weight. Maybe someone can explain why we should place more faith in what someone says 30 years later than what they said right after it happened. Did Hartnell go through some kind of regression therapy or is it possible his memory about the events may not be as crystal clear as it once was? Why can't Zodiac be a big guy? Does that interfere with someone's subterrainian view?

Ray

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 09:45 pm:

Anyone who has read Hartnell's interview from right after the attack already knows he thought Zodiac to be a big, heavy guy. Doesn't mean he was right, but that's what he thought.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 03:18 pm:

Tom is correct when he uses the word "thought."In a NPD report BH says when asked about Zs size"Well,I can't say 'cause he wasn't wearing those type of clothes[form fitting].They were sloppy clothes,you know.And he just had on this old pair of pleated pants.I don't know...Well, like I say,he was dressed kind of sloppily,you know.His pants real tight up here and his stomach kind of pouched a bit,you know.I don't know...it's hard to say 'cause I can't judge you being in a suit and all,you know,and him not being professional looking and all.He could be about the same.It's hard to say.He was so sloppily dressed."
In another report BH says"suspect was 5'8'to 6',225-250lbs.[in another report he says as low as 160 lbs. and age could have been as low as 25 based on voice concept- Dispatcher Slaight said "early twenties"].
So Tom is right in expressing that BH is saying 'this is what I think Z looked like-it's the best I can do!'This is what Bryan was trying to tell his interviewers.
Remember Z had a COSTUME on repleat with a HOOD and BOOTS that would elevate him and to top that off he said Z was wearing 'baggy, sloppy or loose' fitting clothing ,so it was hard to do a weight analysis (no scales out on the lake-or tape measure!)so he guessed, based on the strangers APPEARANCE with LOOSE clothing on!
At times,according to the reports, BH was on the ground either kneeling or prostrate,so his height representations could be distorted due to line of sight or angle.Plus,couple all of that with the emotion, pain and trauma he went through ...I think he needs a break!

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 03:25 pm:

In the same report I quoted from first,BH says"I don't know how tall he[the attacker]was.Maybe 5-8 or maybe 5-10,6 feet,somewhere in there[!]...his hair looked dark brown."Sorry I missed that in my last post as I am at work.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 03:37 pm:

Sorry again,but BH said,in another report Zs age could have been"... 20-30 years of age by voice concept."I stated as low as 25!

By Mike_D (Mike_D) (spider-mtc-td011.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.104.151) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 08:08 pm:

I've always wondered if Z carried things under his clothing...extra guns,ammo clips,rope,etc.
The kind of things some criminals call their "rape kits"to be used in crimes.
Even a bulletproof vest wouldn't be impossible for this nut.
I've also considered if Zodiac sometimes carried around his black hood for fetishtic puposes,tucked up under his regular shirt.It might have some magical or sexual significance to him.(Ted Bundy often carried masks around w/him for instance.)
This would explain why some people describe a heavyset man others only a huskey one.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc2eb80.ipt.aol.com - 172.194.235.128) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 08:27 pm:

Mike: what's the difference between "heavyset" and "husky"? To me, they sound like different words to describe the same thing: a big man.

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldc7l.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.176.245) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 10:06 pm:

The bulk of this thread is hilarious. Here we are debating on what is arguably the most overlooked evidence in the case: footwear combined with the witness description. Any detective will tell you that footwear latents are a phenomenal source of information, right up there with hair and fibers. However, for those whose personal theories require that we bury the truth, they maneuver vigorously around this evidence. Look at some of the excuses given, little feet in big shoes, Hartnell can't make up his mind (regardless that the depth of the impressions jibed with his initial description), etc. This is the kind of tunnel vision so often attributed to Allen proponents. The bottom line is, some people don't want it to be a big guy, because their suspect isn't a big guy. It's amusing watching those who claim to be objective about the evidence go scurrying around grasping at straws when we discuss this seldom visited topic.

Ray

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (148.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.148) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 11:18 pm:

Ray, footwear latents probably are a phenomenal source of information, as regards the type of footwear someone is liable to be using. I'm not so sure, though, about the accuracy of "compaction tests."

So far as Hartnell's first impression, we must weigh it against the following:

Mageau impression: stocky, 160 lbs.

First newspaper report of PH incident: 170 lbs.

Hartnell: He had to be fairly lightweight (without puffed-up jacket). All the guys the police had me look at were really fairly husky guys. (Graysmith)

Riverside (if this is a true Zodiac incident): 7-inch wrist.

Johns (if this is a true Zodiac incident): 166 lbs.

To top it off, a little guy can dress himself up to make it look like he's big. A big guy can't do the opposite.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-50.linkline.com - 64.30.217.50) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:17 am:

Ray N.,
Someone has to present the opposite view to show all possibilities whether they are trying to 'protect 'their suspect or not.All evidence must be challenged.I wear a size ten shoe and a 10 1/2 for a boot.I wear thick socks when I wear boots so they fit.I want the wider sole for hiking,etc.I am NOT a "big" guy.The only thing we have is the depth of those prints and there is MUCH to say about that.How a person walks and distributes his weight makes a difference in ground pattern compaction.Some people have dense muscle tissue with enormous tendon and ligament reactive prolapsis/contraction strength even though they are not considered large ,so their downward thrust while walking is powerful and capable of in depth soil impressions.We are talking BOOTS here and they make a darned good impression depending on soil conditions.Ed mentioned in a past post that when he was at LB(looking for couples!)he made pretty deep impressions in the soil and he is not a big man.I don't think he had boots on either!I will stand corrected on this one.A few hours can make a difference in ground moisture which can change in ratio to solids.I spoke to people who study soil,etc.
As far as BH goes-I clearly presented from reports his explaination as to why he couldn't be sure as to Zs height,weight and age.The only sure thing he could affirm was that Z had dark brown greasy hair!Speaking for myself I am not worried about making Z smaller or bigger to make my guy fit the profile.In describing him they say he was "husky","thick set","muscular" etc.and yes, a park ranger that saw him up close ('about three to four feet away')told me that he had a "potbelly."Our first witness who saw Z right next to him in a small compact said that he was "short about 5'8"(my guys normal height).The next report as to low height was by BH who said 5'8."Next we have the three teens who said 5'8."If we accept Johns then she said about 5'9" tops.I know she is in dispute as a Z witness,but there is a possibility so I include her.i personally believe she was abducted by Zodiac just as he wrote.We go up with officer Fouks at around 5'11.".We can even give some feed on his view that night.He was driving at night with fog ,and,of course, the car is in motion and he's under mental/emotional pressure and focused on driving and glancing at a man who is in motion under the shadows of trees with fog with his mind set on spotting a black man.There are several distractions here!I am not saying this to belittle him.I can accept that height and I have indicated that anti detection books say how to raise ones height easily with lifts,etc.No prob'.'I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing the rest of the time I look entirely different.'Maybe or yes or 50/50 ?This is what makes the Zodiac case what it is!I don't see anything "hilarious" about this as you indicated in your opinion of this thread.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-50.linkline.com - 64.30.217.50) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:22 am:

Good post Doug.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbf2cd7.ipt.aol.com - 172.191.44.215) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:29 am:

Re: compaction tests: When Tom and I were at Zodiac Island last year, I actually jumped up and down several times by the spot where Hartnell and Shepard were stabbed, and I couldn't even leave an impression in the hard-packed dirt! On the spit of sand that lead from the mainland to the island, I was able to leave shallow impressions, and they looked to be about as deep as Z's. So, I have to wonder just how accurate the tests were...

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbf2cd7.ipt.aol.com - 172.191.44.215) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:43 am:

The only place I left impressions that were deep was right by the water of that little bay where it was muddy...

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wo053.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.43) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 08:52 am:

Ray wrote: Any detective will tell you the footprint latents are a phenomenal source of information..". Well sure if you can prove they were Bruno Magli's and the suspect was known to wear them. And hey, even that didn't work. On top of that OJ wore a size 12, much less common than the 10 - 10 1/2. Just off hand I can think of 5 men that size (my Dad, my brother, 2 past husbands and my neighbor). Real good phenomenal evidence!
Ray wrote: "we certainly can rule out anyone who did not wear a boot size in the men's 10-11 size range".
Man, you'll fall for anything.
Ray wrote: "a big, tall, 200+ man"...
I stand by my assertion that you seriously misquoted Bryan Hartnell.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (141.philadelphia04rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.23.141) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 09:17 am:

I think we might look askance from anyone whose shoe size was around 12 or over. Anything less than a 10-1/2 can be filled out with a good, thick pair of socks. A size 11 might work with a good squeeze, or a shoehorn. But there comes a point at which you can't force a big foot into a small boot.

Sylvie, speaking of misquoting Bryan Hartnell, I don't think that's too hard to do. He has a very "scattered" way of speaking, very atypical of a lawyer.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (90.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.31.90) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:30 am:

Just for comparative purposes I got my 17-year-old son to pose for a before-and-after sequence. See http://home.att.net/~mignarda/stocky.jpg. For reference, he's 6-1 and weighs 175 pounds, which probably translates into the same body build as somone 5-8 or 5-9 and between 140 and 160 lbs. In the right-hand frame he's wearing a pair of sweatpants and a sweatshirt underneath his own extra-large windbreaker and a pair of my own size 40 pants, tucked into boots.

I can't say that the transition makes him look especially fat, but with the added clothing it's impossible to tell (if you don't know) that he's got a trim, athletic build. Given the sloppiness of the effect, I think one would be inclined to think he was overweight and/or dumpy. I'm also thinking that this was what Hartnell meant when he gave his description of Zodiac as being a slob.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-tl071.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.107.181) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:39 am:

Exactly, and so it is folly to even attempt to paraphrase what he was "really" trying to say. The guy is all over the board. I guess we could exclude a man as tall as Bill Walton or as short as Danny Devito but in between is anyone's guess.
One really cannot give Hartnell terribly high marks for astute observance anyway, from start to finish.
Back to the bootprints, for me they're just another one of those Z non-sequiturs.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (157.philadelphia04rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.23.157) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:45 am:

Forgive my ignorance, but where is Allen's possession of the Wingwalkers documented?

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td082.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.187) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:55 am:

Ray wrote, "It's amusing watching those who claim to be objective about the evidence go scurrying around grasping at straws when we discuss this seldom visited topic."

LOL . . . it sure is my friend! In fact, it's so amusing that I haven't even felt the need to chime in with my two cents!

However, just one thing; as to the whole "7 1/2 inch wrist" thing; I actually had my wife measure my wrist today. It measured exactly 7 3/4 inches. Now, given the fact that I am 6'10" and weigh 290lbs. what are we to make of this comparison? Perhaps that it is possible for a "big guy" to have "smaller" wrists?

Anyway, continue on people. This thread is absolutely hilarious!

Scott

By Ray N (Ray_N) (pool-63.49.75.231.tmpa.grid.net - 63.49.75.231) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:26 pm:

Howard and Doug:

It's nice to see you guys doing the investigation right. Ed shows what on-scene presence can teach you. It seems you have some evidence which gives you pause about what the bootprint evidence means. I can't fault you for that, in fact I applaud it. You both make some very good points. I love the photos, Doug. I could call him anywhere from 165 to 195 based on muscle/fat under the clothes. Great stuff.

As far as I know, any reports that Allen owned Wingwalkers were hearsay. I don't think the police ever put him in a pair for sure. I could be wrong on this, I'm not sure. I never could figure out though, since he was so fond of jacking with the police, why Allen didn't rush out and buy a brand new pair of them to wear during his interviews. That would have been a hoot for him to see the steam coming out of Toschi's ears.

Still, regardless of Hartnell's recollections, we have independent evidence which supports a heavy man. Since the soil compaction test was done right away, it seems pretty straightforward to me. I will admit, in this instance, to be applying "Occam's Principle of Limited Imagination".

Ray

By Ray N (Ray_N) (pool-63.49.86.247.tmpa.grid.net - 63.49.86.247) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 01:33 pm:

Scott, please e-mail me.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tk043.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.107.38) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 03:30 pm:

Ray wrote:
"The bottom line is, some people don't want it to be a big guy, because their suspect isn't a big guy."

No beer gut? No problem! Just add a diver's weight belt! No physical evidence? Maybe it's at the bottom of a lake!

Free blinders with every order!

--Jake

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-tj023.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.106.28) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 04:50 pm:

Scott,
I think you are forgetting Sharon, a certified good friend of Allens who assured the entire board that Allen did NOT have a 7" wrist. No way, she said. What more do you want?

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (140.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.30.140) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 04:58 pm:

Scott, there's an entire world of difference between a 7-inch wrist (indicated at Riverside) and a 7-3/4 inch wrist. It's a three to four hole difference on a standard watch band. Three quarters of an inch doesn't seem like much, but in terms of wrist sizes it's highly significant.

By Esau (Esau) (12-246-187-137.client.attbi.com - 12.246.187.137) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 06:45 pm:

I notice that the hole I use to fasten my watch band changes when my weight flucuates. Howerever, my diving belt still fits the same.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta081.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.56) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 07:34 pm:

Oh yeah, I forgot about how Sharon told us that Allen didn't have a 7" wrist. That's right, she went to great lengths to make sure that her observation was correct, didn't she? Give me a break.

I had absolutely no idea how big around my wrist was until today, absolutely none. And I've lived with my wrists all of my life. Now, how in the world could Sharon have known the size of Allen's wrists? I just love how everyone who doesn't believe that Allen was the Z will go to whatever lengths necessary to discredit testimony (Mageau, Cheney, Hartnell) but when testimony plays in their favor (Allen's friend Sharon) it's adhered to like gospel.

Unbelievable.

Besides, it should be noted that I don't think that the Zodiac killed Cheri Jo Bates so, to me, the entire watch scenario doesn't mean jack.

Scott

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta044.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.39) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 07:51 pm:

Scott,
first of all mellow. Listen, Sharon who had been around Allen a good deal was just being reasonable. Of course she didn't measure his wrist, she didn't need to, but as an intelligent
woman she knew a big man with a 7' wrist would be an anomoly, and that would have been something she would have noticed. Get it? It is not that complicated.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 09:16 pm:

Jake wrote, "Free blinders with every order!"

Exactly, Jake.

Don't get me wrong, folks, I'm pretty adamant about Allen's guilt. On the other hand, however, it disturbs me to think of the number of people who will read this book and think, "Hey, case solved." In other words, I believe ALA was the Zodiac but will readily admit that I don't know that ALA was the Zodiac. Know what I mean?

I'm fully aware of the differences between "faith" and "knowledge." Take, for example, this statement: "I believe in the existence of God." Just as I can't show physical evidence to prove the existence of God, those who don't believe in God cannot prove me wrong. Is this a paradox?

For me, much of the Zodiac case can be argued using the same philosophical template. We all have our beliefs and tons of circumstantial evidence to substantiate our claims, but when we really get down to it, and are required to provide solid evidence, we're left holding nothing but a handful of genitalia. Where is the physical evidence that makes one person's theory shine out above the rest? That's the thing; it doesn't exist, does it?

Sylvie, you wouldn't even begin to understand how mellow I am right now, and was when I posted previously. However, ". . . as an intelligent woman she knew a big man with a 7' wrist would be an anomoly (sic) . . ."

Sylvie, that's utterly ridiculous and I'm surprised that a woman of your intelligence fails to understand why. Hell, if you don't believe me, perform a blind experiment in your own home and it should become obvious.

Scott

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 09:55 pm:

Regarding Allen's alleged wearing of Wing Walkers, I don't have any documentation. However, I read a report at SFPD a couple of years ago which mentioned he owned a pair.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tg021.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.156) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:00 pm:

Scott wrote:
"Just as I can't show physical evidence to prove the existence of God, those who don't believe in God cannot prove me wrong."

To use an appropriate metaphor, the Shroud of Turin was alleged to have been used to wrap the body of Christ for his burial 2000 years ago. This was a matter of faith for millions of people, myself among them when I was a kid.

In the late 1980s, radiocarbon dating showed that the Shroud was no older than 700 years old. Science had weighed in, and I bought it. My grandmother didn't give in so easily, though: the results were trumped up, the technique was rigged, it was God testing us -- she would give various reasons for why science, not her faith, was wrong.

This isn't to venture near the question of the existence of God, but rather to point out that faith can be a stumbling block in a pursuit of the truth.

--Jake

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:03 pm:

Holy cow, Tom! Are you sure about that? I mean, you're (possibly) talking physical evidence here! Come on, isn't it imperative that said "document" be followed up on?

By Tony (Mahalo) (hnllhi1-ar1-4-63-132-167.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net - 4.63.132.167) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:05 pm:

I grew up a navy brat and had a military I.D. till I was 21. After my pop retired we'd still drive to Hamilton AFB (35 mi. from S. Rosa) to shop 'cause you could'nt beat the prices. IMHO Zodiac had a military I.D. So did Allen.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:25 pm:

Scott, I read a report while visiting SFPD that stated at one time Allen was in possession of a pair of size 10.5 Wing Walkers. (It was one of the few occasions I wasn't allowed to copy a report.)

Still doesn't mean he was Zodiac, but I'd love documentation...

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:43 pm:

Jake, with all do respect, you aren't fully grasping my sense of logic. To be honest with you, I've never believed that the Shroud of Turin belonged to Christ and, furthermore, though I acknowledge that Christ did in fact walk on this planet, I, personally, doubt that he had any more "power" than does Charles Manson, David Copperfield, or Marilyn Manson.

JC was a kind man, a wise man, a passionate man, but I honestly believe that his power owes more to charisma than to actual godliness. Am I an atheist? No. But I do not acknowledge JC as being the Son of God. I hope I'm not being too personal?

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, with regards to the Zodiac case, it doesn't have to be a matter of smoke and mirrors, because it is not. Again, I'm just wondering when circumstance becomes something more meaningful than coincidence? I'm saying that I believe ALA was the Zodiac because nobody, or no other theory, has as much circumstantial evidence pointing to them/it as ALA does. Therefore, I guess, in my simplistic mind, believing in my heart that this case is not influenced by otherworldly powers, my educated opinion is that ALA was the Zodiac. Why? Because I see nothing which would point my decision in any other direction. Therefore, for lack of a better analogy, let's just say that ALA wouldn't want me to be the deciding vote if I were a juror in his conviction as the Z.

Scott

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:11 pm:

Tom,

Would you be willing to go to SFPD again to relocate that document? If so, how hard would it be to snap a photo of it? Seriously man, to me that would be more damaging to ALA than anything Graysmith has ever produced.

Scott

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:20 pm:

That sounds like a job for Col. Hogan!

By Spencer (Spencer) (acc3a208.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.162.8) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:38 pm:

I think I've seen this episode before.

"A Klink, A Bomb and a Short Fuse" 11/4/66

The prisoners have stolen Klink's code book from his safe, photographed the contents and returned it to Klink. Mission accomplished? It would be if Carter hadn't forgotten to put film in the camera!

http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/set/6405/pguide.htm

Boys, just remember to put film in the camera.

Spencer

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbe244e.ipt.aol.com - 172.190.36.78) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:54 pm:

Jake wrote:

To use an appropriate metaphor, the Shroud of Turin was alleged to have been used to wrap the body of Christ for his burial 2000 years ago. This was a matter of faith for millions of people, myself among them when I was a kid.

In the late 1980s, radiocarbon dating showed that the Shroud was no older than 700 years old. Science had weighed in, and I bought it. My grandmother didn't give in so easily, though: the results were trumped up, the technique was rigged, it was God testing us -- she would give various reasons for why science, not her faith, was wrong.

This isn't to venture near the question of the existence of God, but rather to point out that faith can be a stumbling block in a pursuit of the truth.


As a matter of fact, those who tested the Shroud samples conveniently neglected to consider the fire of December 4th, 1532, in which the Shroud was nearly destroyed (that's where all the holes and the dirty water stains came from). Linen apparently absorbs carbon like a sponge, and so, during that fire, soaked up quite a bit of regular C-12 and obviously extra C-14 as well. That will throw off any and all test results and make the object appear to be younger than it actually is. Some time after the original test, a Russian scientist of all things (as I recall) adjusted the results by taking into account the extra C-14 the Shroud would have absorbed, and guess what? It turns out that it's about 2,000 years old after all and not a 14th Century hoax. Fancy that. Why wasn't it reported in the papers? It was, but it was not front-page news. Gee, I wonder why...

That's not to say that it is the actual burial shroud of Christ, but, if anything could be it, then the Shroud's got my vote.

The point of this is, once a mistake is made, especially by the media, they rarely, if ever, print a retraction, because they basically don't care. When scientists have made up their minds to discredit something (especially if it has something to do with religion), then, by golly, they always find a way! Sometimes, bad science and biased reporting can be a stumbling block in a pursuit of the truth. And that holds true with the Z case as much as anything else.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 11:56 pm:

Spencer,

I absolutely love your wit and charm! Hell, I'd go to SFPD but (yeah, yeah, I know) I'm not in the neighborhood and I have absolutely no (good or bad) rapport. You have to admit, that document seems somewhat relevant, right?

Scott

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.54) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 12:04 am:

Ed: Very keen, my friend. Point taken.

By Spencer (Spencer) (acc3a208.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.162.8) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 12:04 am:

"You have to admit, that document seems somewhat relevant, right?"

Indeed. Ideally, I'd like to see all the files and evidence against any and all suspects released. While many suspects are still alive, this is impossible. However, with Allen dead for over a decade, one would think that every document and piece of evidence against him could be released (What are they saving it for? In case they arrest him?), as his FBI file already has.

Spencer

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfpr.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.191.59) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 12:40 am:

Scott:

I don't know about the significance of any Wingwalkers of Allen's. If he did have a pair, it really wouldn't mean anything necessarily. Not anymore than against any other 200+ pound men in Northern CA who had a pair of 'em and no alibi for Sept. 27.

It would be interesting to see the report, but I don't think it would be all that spectacular. I'd still like to have seen him shine up a pair and put them up on Toschi's desk. What fun!

Ray

PS Please email me.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (11.philadelphia05rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.25.11) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 08:04 am:

For those of you interested in the Shroud of Turin, you might want to read a reply I wrote to a poster on alt.turin-shroud suggesting an alternative theory of image formation that's based on the historical documentation. http://home.att.net/~mignarda/keramion.txt.

If the Shroud were a painting and we could identify a recognizable pigment media as being responsible for the image, I'd be content to accept the carbon dating and write it off as a work of medieval art. But the fact is incontrovertible that the image is the result of the dehydration of the outermost fibrils of the linen threads of which the cloth is composed.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tc013.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.153) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 01:49 pm:

To all: My Shroud post was just to make a point regarding faith in the face of contradictory evidence, and wasn't intended to bring in an additional layer of controversy and emotion. As has been pointed out in just a few hours, even that evidence is open to debate. It's matter of where you want to draw the line.

Peace be with youse,
Jake

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb082.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.187) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 04:44 pm:

Ray, I've e-mailed you twice and haven't received a response. What's up?

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta044.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.39) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 10:12 pm:

Homer: ooh, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Flanders: Well, everything is always about Jesus.

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldesa.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.187.138) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 11:07 pm:

Scott, please re-check the address as towbat@yahoo.com. I haven't received anything.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc144f3.ipt.aol.com - 172.193.68.243) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 12:07 am:

Jake: no offense taken at all, I know what you were getting at. However, it appeared you hadn't heard about the adjusted results of the three tests (most haven't), so I had to mention it, and it seemed ironic that it worked the other way too.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) (ip68-98-108-6.ph.ph.cox.net - 68.98.108.6) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 12:08 am:

Wing walkers, aka "boondockers". Like everyone else, I used to wear those when I was in the Navy. Yeah, you could get em' at the surplus store, I've heard that before. The fact is, I don't know anyone who would want to. I could see someone who was in the service continue wearing them once they were out (or were kicked out), but I honestly can not see a civilian going out and buying a pair of those things on purpose. I threw mine in the closet the day I got out and never put them back on again. To this day, some 18 years later, I can honestly say I've never once seen any other person wearing them on the street. So, does anyone suppose that Z had a miltary connection? Like, it's almost a sure thing.

By the way, wingwalkers were uncomfortable enough as they were, I highly doubt anyone would wear a larger size on purpose.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ta043.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.63) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 07:37 am:

Couldn't be any less comfortable than that bizarre boxtop. Somehow I doubt if comfort was high on Z's list.
But I do agree, the guy is either Navy or Navy-wannabe, at least that is the impression I've always had.

By Jake (Jake) (020-sm-rm02.acad-supp.umb.edu - 158.121.119.185) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 08:32 am:

Ed N. wrote:
"...it seemed ironic that it worked the other way too."

And, thus, doubly appropriate to the Z case. Thanks for the tip, I'll pass it on to Nana.

--Jake

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfpu.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.191.62) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 12:05 pm:

Outstanding input, Kevin.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta033.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.33) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 02:30 pm:

Kevin,

Thanks for your post! Excellent observations that are even more poignant because they are derived from experience rather than theory. Perhaps now people will understand what I mean when I make the assertion that Wingwalkers were rare and that such a connection to a major suspect is, IMO, more than mere coincidence.

To me, if you can place a pair of 10.5 Wingwalkers in Allen's possession (perhaps he wore a pair that belonged to his father?), knowing the likelihood that the Z wore a 10.5 Wingwalker at LB, well, what can I say, that could very well be the single piece of physical evidence everyone has been looking for. Granted, it's pure speculation until the boots could be thoroughly examined. Nevertheless, it's a step well worth taking at the very minimum, even if all we end up discovering is that Allen bought the boots to mess with the police and bring suspicion upon himself.

Scott

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (87.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.17.87) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 03:59 pm:

I guess a pair of dark-rimmed eyeglasses would be the icing on the cake.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.31) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 05:33 pm:

Doug,

Let me ask you, seriously, what would you do with the boots if they were found among ALA's personal items? Granted, it wouldn't necessarily mean a thing, but wouldn't you want to, at the minimum, rule that out as a possibility?

Scott

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.31) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 05:51 pm:

For the Love of the Game

A meaningless narrative by S. Bullock


"Hey, what's that stuff on them there boots, Al?"

"Ah, that ain't nothin' but some chicken blood that I went and sprayed on myself awhile back."

"Was that the same day that you mentioned earlier? The day that coincided with that attack out at Lake Berryessa?"

"Yes sir, one in the same."

"Hey, Al. Got the time on ya'?"

ALA extends his arm out so that the investigator can see his watch for himself. A sardonic smile emerges on Leigh's sloppy and sweaty bean.

"Thanks Al. Well, sorry to have bothered ya' big boy. It's all a friggin' mistake."

"No problem, sir. I wish I were the Zodiac so that all of this mess would be over if I were ever caught."

"Me too, Al. Me too . . ."

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (209.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.209) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 06:28 pm:

If I were the police, and I found the boots, I'd have them tested for traces of blood and soil, and compare them with the casts taken at LB. Then I'd hide them carefully away so that no one knew I had them.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) (ip68-98-108-6.ph.ph.cox.net - 68.98.108.6) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 11:21 pm:

Allen was in the Navy, but I'm not sure if he was in when the wingwalker was out. Gosh, I bet his service record would be an interesting read.

The interesting thing about this case are the number of "unique" clues. By that, I mean those that point to someone very out of the ordinary. Not talking about the crimes, we all know how different those were.

Any one of them alone may not mean much, but added together they should point to someone who would have a very hard time explaining all the coincidences. For example: 10 1/2 wingwalkers are a very "unique" clue. The fact is, your average Joe isn't wearing them. I never have been able to determine if the CJB letter was actually written teletype paper, but if true, that is about as "unique" clue as they come. The bomb diagram, with it's correct use of a "jumper" (where one wire crosses another, but where they do not actually make contact) is a "unique" clue, in that is shows that the person had knowledge of proper schematic diagram standards. Again, your average Joe wouldn't really know to do this. That would also tie in well with a radio operator who just might use teletype paper. Page numbering on letters is very military. If you add it all up, the military angle is hard to ignore. So instead of focusing on why someone with a size 9 foot may have went out and bought 10 1/2 shoes, maybe it might be a better idea to be realistic and assume he wore a 10 1/2 shoe because he had a 10 1/2 foot, and then focus on WHO wears a military wingwalker shoe, has a rudementary knowledge of electronics, and numbers his pages in a military manner?

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-tj022.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.106.27) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 07:33 am:

Ever heard of "fake clews"?

By Jake (Jake) (spider-ta054.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.69) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 04:56 pm:

Kevin wrote:
"The bomb diagram, with it's correct use of a "jumper" (where one wire crosses another, but where they do not actually make contact) is a "unique" clue, in that is shows that the person had knowledge of proper schematic diagram standards. Again, your average Joe wouldn't really know to do this."

Which diagram does this appear in? I've just checked both of the diagrams, and the wires cross each other with no break or semi-circular bridge that one sees in schematics. Moreover, these diagrams seem the result of someone who thinks about bombs but has never actually built one; they seem theoretical but impractical in real-world situations.

So much about Z -- overweight, bespectacled, having obvious problems with authority -- seems to suggest a military wannabe rather than a real serviceman. I worked for years at a large Army-Navy store (disclosure: this was my only military experience), and these were the guys who came in and bought combat boots, BDUs, blousing garters, and gun magazines. Ditto with knife freaks: the real pros carried small ones, and the kooks wanted the biggest ones they could buy.

The factors indicating Z's military training are, to my mind, entirely debatable. Anyone can get a crewcut, and every shipper-reciever worth his salt paginates his packing lists with the number and total of pages. "Knowledge of code" is such a vague and general term that it applies to just about anyone who was ever 10 years old. Has anyone here ever actually worked with a teletype machine? Is there even such a thing as "teletype paper," or is it just spooled pulp? All of this seems to me to be blown out of proportion.

--Jake

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (166.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.166) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 05:24 pm:

Zodiac sounds to me like the type of person who would be uncomfortable in any kind of social situation or milieu involving cooperation with other people. To my mind, the military connection is one of the softest of the lot. Had he proven himself to be a sexual sadist, I might think otherwise.

By Jake (Jake) (ac91d311.ipt.aol.com - 172.145.211.17) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 06:58 pm:

From a reader:

"If it was a 7" watch band, then that is a woman's size that would only fit an extremely slight man. I verified this by taking the picture of the watch to a watchmaker. He repairs watches in an exclusive jewelry store where my wife works. He was trained in Switzerland by Rolex and knows his business. He stated that 7 inches of watch plus band is a woman’s size ... He said that brand of Timex watch has a face of 1.25”. (The rest of the dimensions can be extrapolated from that measurement.)"

--Jake

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldfjg.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.190.112) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 07:32 pm:

Sylvie:

Honestly, I'm curious. Exactly what size are the feet of your suspect? I assume they are smaller than size 10.5? What would your argument be if the bootprints were exactly the same size as your suspects? Would you still be struggling to explain how simple it is to make fake clues with wrong-sized boots, or would you instead be saying, "It can't be Allen because his feet are too big!"

"Squaaaaawwwwk! You can't have it both ways, you can't have it both ways! Whistle! Gimme a cracker!"

Ray

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc022.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.27) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 09:35 pm:

"If it was a 7" watch band, then that is a woman's size that would only fit an extremely slight man."

Gee, I guess CJB must have been murdered by a woman then, eh? How big around is your wrist, Jake? Doug?

By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) (user-33qs1jt.dialup.mindspring.com - 199.174.6.125) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 10:41 pm:

Frail wraith that I am, my wrist measures almost exactly 7", however the total length of the watch band is 9.5". There are 10 holes in the band, and it fits snugly with the thingie in the 3th hole from the watchface. BTW it's a Timex. A 7" watchband would fit similarly snugly on a 5" wrist.

OK, how big was the watchband, really? Going to
www.zodiacspeaking.com, and measuring the picture of the watch as displayed on my laptop screen, I get a watch face diameter of 7/8", a long part of band at 2 5/8", short part of band at 2", adding up to 5.5" The overlap of band parts is about 1.25", giving 4.25".Extrapolating from the statement in Jake's post that the watchface had a diameter of 1.25", we get a estimated wrist measurement of about 6". It's obviously bent a bent, so maybe if straightened out it would be about 6.5", tops.

Oh wait, that wasn't my watch I measured....

Roger

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tg061.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.176) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 10:52 pm:

Hell, by that definition, I'm a little girl. I think you get the point, though.

Mr. Allen, stop touching me there!
--Jake

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wm022.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.199.157) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 11:23 pm:

Ray,
I don't really have a favorite suspect. Oh, I know who I think it is not, but the way the system works, it isn't my job to prove innocence, it goes the other way.
I don't think you're really comprehending the point of the boot size.
It all started when Linda inquired as to Allen's shoe size. So Scott replies with an emphatic "Both Allen and Z wore a men's size 10.5".
Whoa... just a little too dogmatic for me. Now how the heck would one know that for a fact?
So I mentioned down the stream a little that Zodiac didn't necessarily have to be a perfect men's 10.5. It is possible he could have worn larger sized boots as a fake clue, or because he got them as hand me downs, or for all we know the last pair the surplus store had was a size too big. I mean, I, like Howard will always buy my hiking boots a size larger than I usually wear so that I can put on heavy socks. So if someone tracks my bootprints they will say this person definitely wore a ladie's size 10, when actually I wear a 9?
Do you understand now? It would be ridiculous to say "Z wore a 10.5, that's a fact". Maybe he did (like a kazillion other guys) but it is not a surety, by any means.
Scott, where on earth do you get the logic that "an extremely slight man" must be a woman.
You need to revisit Logic 101.
Guys, the key word here is reason.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (32.philadelphia05rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.24.32) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 01:20 am:

I've got a photographic reproduction of the watch that I purchased from the Riverside Press-Enterprise, and its entire length, including the watch face, measures seven inches. See the photo at Jake's website, http://hometown.aol.com/Jakewark/Watch.html. Since that's the circumference given by the Riverside PD, I'm assuming that this photo was shot at 100 percent of original.

I happen to have seven inch wrists, and I can assure you that this is a very small wrist measurement for a man. It makes me look a bit ungainly in a short-sleeved shirt because from midway past the forearm up I'm normal-sized.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p150.as1.clonmel1.eircom.net - 159.134.150.150) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 07:56 am:

It seems illogical that Zodiac, intent on hiking around LB, would wear a pair of boots that were to big for him.The problem here appears to be that the argument,on the size of the boots, goes more to breaking the Allen connection,tenuous as that connection is.The point raised in connection to buying bigger boots for hiking really does not apply as Zodiac could have done exactly the same thing.If there was to be a fake clue here,which I doubt,it's more likely to have been the type of boot!.As far as the connection to Allen goes it's really very far down the list.I see nothing to be gained here unless there was an exact match and/or
there was some forensic evidence find.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td014.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.154) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 09:48 am:

"Scott, where on earth do you get the logic that "an extremely slight man" must be a woman.
You need to revisit Logic 101."

Coming from anyone but you, Sylvie, I might have actually been offended by that remark. However, considering the source, and also the fact that I was being facetious . . .

I believe the point I'm trying to make is that maybe the darn watch belonged to a woman that may or may not have been CJB. We don't know with 100% certainty that the watch belonged to CJB or her killer, do we? Therefore, it seems to me, that the watch holds even less evidentiary value than the boot impressions found at Lake Berryessa.

Furthermore, it also seems to me that the watch is being used to discredit the assertions concerning the Zodiac's size; assertions made because of a culmination of things that emerged following LB. Well, to counter that entire maneuver, what I'm saying is (are you paying attention, Sylvie?) that, if we don't know with certainty that the watch belonged to CJB's killer, then why is the watch being used as evidence that the Zodiac wasn't a "big guy," especially when there's ample enough reason to question whether or not the Zodiac and CJB's killer are even one and the same?

Scott

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-tj073.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.106.53) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 10:55 am:

Scott,
I'd be willing to compare credentials anyday, anytime with you. You know I'd come out way on top. I still think you are quite misogynistic, which usually goes hand in hand with being obsessed with guns. Big guns, little zee zee.
Occasionally you have a decent post though.
Quick note: it is "all due respect", not "all do respect", you have made that mistake many times. As a prof., it's starting to annoy me.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc1d133.ipt.aol.com - 172.193.209.51) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 11:31 am:

My wrists are 7", and anyone who's seen me would hardly describe me as being slight. Short, maybe, at 5'6", but hardly slight. But I don't wear size 10.5 shoes... usually around 9 to 9.5, although my feet are more like size 7.5. Why, you might ask? Because I have wide feet, and it's easier for me to get bigger shoes for the width than to get proper sized ones extra wide. Maybe Z didn't leave a "fake clew" in the usual sense at LB, maybe he had small but wide feet...

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (199.251.68.84) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 11:37 am:

Ed, I'm not slight either, though my wrists are 7 inches. I think the point was, however, that Allen's wrists were too big for the watch.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 12:07 pm:

Doug:
"Allen's wrists were too big for the watch."

How do we know this?

By Jake (Jake) (termserv.lib.umb.edu - 158.121.102.242) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 12:58 pm:

This is getting ridiculous.

CJB was a pretty coed with her eyes set on a future in a traditionally female occupation. This was a fact in the 1960s and not a sexist remark. It follows that she would wear a women's watch, not a men's watch with a small band. This is opinion, but I think it's reasonable. It's supported by the fact that the watch was never ID'd as CJB's.

Her attacker had a hard time subduing her -- thus the "plowed field" crime scene. A big guy would not have trouble subduing a woman of slight build. A big guy could probably take her out with one or two blows. A big guy would not have small wrists.

The logical explanation for the watch's presence is that it was torn from the attacker's wrist. This is bolstered by all of the above. There is nothing to contradict this assumption unless we want to make up theories about planted wristwatches and red-herring wristbands.

--Jake

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 01:35 pm:

Jake, I may not know Allen's wrist size, but I do know this: big guys can have small wrists. They can also have large wrists, as well as medium wrists.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbec83e.ipt.aol.com - 172.190.200.62) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 01:50 pm:

I guess that means that Penn's theory is out. Aww, shucks...

Now that my bubble has been burst, we must seek another explanation. You are correct, Jake, the watch was almost certainly not CJB's. Now, if the watch was found lying upon the churned up ground, it must therefore belong to the killer. If it was found in an undisturbed area, then it could have been anybody's except CJB's.

However, I think you are proceeding from a false premise. Just because a guy is big it doesn't therefore prove he must have big wrists, and vice versa. Billy the Kid was slight (if what is presumed to be the only picture of him is in fact him), and he had very large wrists. They were so big, in fact, that when he was handcuffed, he'd wait for an opportune moment, and he'd slip the cuffs right off, a feat impossible for most because their wrists are much narrower than their hands. If a small guy can have fat wrists, then why not a big guy have small wrists? While unlikely, I am not willing to rule out a big guy as her killer just because his presumed watch had a band set for a 7" circumference. Chances are, it could have been a small killer, but there is also the possibility that he was not.

As far as taking her out with one or two blows, that might be true, but that's assuming that's what he wanted to do. Maybe he enjoyed the struggle and while, if a big guy, he could have dispatched her in a second or two, he just let her churn up the ground first before killing her. Not for the purpose of leaving "fake clews," but because he liked it.

Now, your scenario is quite likely, but logical assumptions are just that: assumptions, although not necessarily unreasonable. Without some other form of evidence, I'm not certain I'd want to rule out the possibility of a big killer.

What does this have to do with Wingwalkers anyway?

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc024.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.29) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 02:25 pm:

"The logical explanation for the watch's presence is that it was torn from the attacker's wrist."

Even so, which I still doubt, it doesn't mean said attacker was the Zodiac.

"I'd be willing to compare credentials anyday (sic), anytime with you. You know I'd come out way on top."

I know nothing of the kind, Sylvie. At any rate, it's very pretentious of you to think that you are smarter than anyone on this board; I don't care what your credentials are.

"I still think you are quite misogynistic, which usually goes hand in hand with being obsessed with guns. Big guns, little zee zee."

Misogynistic? You're out of your friggin' mind you know that, Sylvie? It doesn't require a misogynist to recognize a bi*ch anymore than it requires a dyke to recognize an a*shole. As for the size of my member (p*nis isn't allowed on the board, apparently), fantasize all you want, you'll never (thankfully) know for sure despite how much you'd love too.

"Occasionally you have a decent post though."

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of you. Why Tom allows you to waste bandwidth is beyond me.

"As a prof., it's starting to annoy me."

Well, let us have a look at one of your latest posts, just in this thread:

"So if someone tracks my bootprints (sic) they will say this person definitely wore a ladie's (sic) size 10, when actually I wear a 9?"

Well, prof., I see at least 2, maybe 3, problems with this sentence. Do you see them also, or do I have to point them out to you?

Finally, you know what annoys me about you, Sylvie? The fact that you are one obtuse, narrow-minded, illogical, and long-winded bi*ch. Again, why Tom has chosen not to 86 your ass from this board is a complete mystery. It has nothing to do with me hating women, I just hate you. So don't turn it into some greater issue that generalizes and attempts to undermine the fairer sex, okay?

Scott

By Linda (Linda) (208-59-124-3.s3.tnt1.frdr.md.dialup.rcn.com - 208.59.124.3) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 03:13 pm:

Although there is still no hard proof that CJB was a "Zodiac" victim, I would think there would be one way to tell if the watch definitely belonged to CJB's killer (whoever he may end up being)... Did anyone check to see if CJB's prints were on any part of the watch and/or band. If the struggle with her killer did indeed result in the ripping of the watch off his wrist, surely some part of her fingerprint/s would be somewhere on this piece of evidence.

What do you think?

Maybe it's been noted somewhere that this was already done - maybe that's why the police are pretty positive this came from her killer...if so, I apologize for being uninformed on this part of the CJB case).

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-186-54.client.attbi.com - 12.224.186.54) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 03:24 pm:

This is WAY off topic...

By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldeb1.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.86.185.97) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 03:31 pm:

A common technique for someone who is at a loss to defend their thoughts with logic, reason, and evidence is to launch a personal attack on the other person. It can apparently be quite effective, as this technique is often employed even by persons with impressive credentials, who one might think could better assert their views in a more constructive manner. Just a thought.

Ray

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta071.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.51) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 09:42 pm:

Linda,
yes, I believe that has been ascertained.
Kelleher does have an interesting section on CJB where he goes into all this.
BTW, Kelleher and his people were right!

By Kevin (Kevinrm) (ip68-98-108-6.ph.ph.cox.net - 68.98.108.6) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 10:07 pm:

Jake,

First, the bomb diagram I am refering to is the November 9th, 1969 diagram. Notice the actual bombs are wired in paralell, and they are correctly jumpered with a semi-circle. (Sylvie, you may want to leave the liberal arts building and head over to the engineering building, I'm sure someone there could explain wiring in parallel. Next, go to the student health building and ask about 'blisters' on your feet, especially in relation to shoe size. Ask them if they might be distracting when you are trying to concentrate on something. I bet they will say 'yes')

Next, you can take it as gospel from me that there really is a special teletype paper, because I was a radio officer in the Merchant Marine for over 10 years, I used it, I ordered it, and it's different. I would be happy to provide proof of my credentials, should you have any doubts. It comes in a roll and is usually 2-ply, with the undercopy acting as a carbon. They use this stuff in the Navy, and at radio stations like KGO for news. I have personally used teletype machines on many occasions.

Regarding the military, it has gone through numerous phases, depending which war we were in or just got out of. At certain times, it was were you went if you were to avoid a jail sentence, and at other times they wouldn't touch you if you didn't have a high school deploma at least. Depends on the branch as well. All I can say is, the Navy sure did have its share of losers. They usually do not last for the whole enlistment, but they can usually make it through boot camp. When I first went in in 1980, drugs were rampant. By the time I got out in 1984, Regan had cleaned it up, and zillions of s**t bums were kicked out. So my take on Z is that he was someone who was in and who was probably kicked out, still had his "wingwalkers" in the closet, and wore them. So, Allen very well could have had them, but Marshall was the radio operator. Was he in the military?

By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-th034.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.34) on Thursday, May 02, 2002 - 04:17 pm:

Kevin, I look at that diagram and see wavy, wobbly lines, but I'll plead ignorance and defer to you on that count and the teletype paper.

Roger that, over and out.

--Jake