Feedback on Zodiackiller.com/Tom Voigt


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Feedback on Zodiackiller.com/Tom Voigt

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac956c06.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.108.6) on Monday, December 11, 2000 - 08:23 pm:

In the interest of making this site as user friendly (and interesting) as possible, I'd like to hear any thoughts on how to improve Zodiackiller.com.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-73-253.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.73.253) on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 10:04 pm:

Get Bruce, Michael, and Dave to start their own sites, where we can visit and berate them with our own brand of knee-jerk, fuzzy logic.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tf054.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.199) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 07:53 am:

Ooooo, A big old interview with Lawrence Kane would be nice. Someone should definately interview him about him being labeled a Zodiac suspect and his connections, if any with other Zodiac suspects and victims and what he knows about these individuals, if anything.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 12:56 pm:

Edward,
Get Bruce, Michael, and Dave to start their own sites, where we can visit and berate them with our own brand of knee-jerk, fuzzy logic.

BRUCE:
If you are going to make assertions like this, Edward, then I suggest you provide examples--I for one will acknowledge it if indeed I have displayed flawed logic on any particular point (Claston, for example, has given me cause to reevaluate some things). But until such time that such fallacies can be shown in my observations about Tom's presentation on Allen (vs other suspects), then I believe my reasoning is right on the mark, and there are many people who have recognized that, and commented on it, not just me.

Now, Edward, I will ask you the same question I keep asking Tom: Is it REASONABLE to ask that evidence be presented comparably for all suspects (for whom compelling evidence is available), and for that evidence to be presented in an unbiased manner where absolute FACTS are separated from WILD SPECULATION, and most importantly, that NEGATIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST suspects also be presented with just as much fervor, rather than down-played or not mentioned at all? (and in a case that is 30+ years old and *still* unresolved) If not, why not?

Also, I never once said Tom has NOT done much good work here (to the contrary I have commended him on his work on several occasions--he's done enough, in fact, to get national attention), but that doesn't mean it's perfect (or impartial or even fair) and if pointing these areas out to him (and citing example after example when he refuses to acknowledge the fact) is considered "berat[ing]" him, then that only serves to make my point. And if you want to get down-and-dirty on the issue, Edward, I will post a whole list of direct quotes from poor "berated" Tom where he throws temper tantrums and "BERATES" others (be they amateur investigators, police departments, and even victims) with snotty remarks and flagrant ad hominem attacks.

If you really want to contend against "fuzzy logic" then why don't you start with the "Arthur Leigh Allen File" because there is plenty there to be critical about in terms of gross generalizations, presuppositional conclusions, unsupported conjecture, and wishful thinking (all things Tom has been very critical of against "other" investigators and their evidence for "other" suspects, but seems to have a different standard by which pro-Allen material is judged).

To use one of Tom's favorite phrases: "GET IT!"

Good Day,

Bruce Monson

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-35.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.197.35) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 03:28 pm:

Bruce,

One man's reason is another man's folly.
Tom has presented information on Allen's link to Zodiac as requested by Mike. You and Mike continue to insist on debating the speculative aspects of this case (BTW, do you two know each other?) and take umbrage with Tom's presentation of it. You have a very fine mind, use it. Several people have already provided you with what you've asked for. Look elsewhere on the board.

By Curt Rowlett (Curt) (63.174.96.60) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:13 am:

Tom wrote, "In the interest of making this site as user friendly (and interesting) as possible, I'd like to hear any thoughts on how to improve Zodiackiller.com."

I think the site is already user friendly. It works well on my computer; loads fast and with no errors.

My few suggestons for possible additions to Zodiackiller.com:

1. How about posting a few sample video clips (Quick Time/Real Player clips) from the compilation video that you have advertised;

2. More in-depth articles;

3. In-depth discussions of all of the "major" suspects.

Just my two cents.

Curt Rowlett

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac890e2f.ipt.aol.com - 172.137.14.47) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:33 am:

Curt,
1) I thought about the video clips, but haven't found anyone who can cheaply convert VHS into the proper files. Besides, since I started advertising the video I've been swamped with orders...

2) Don't know what you mean by "in-depth articles."

3) Discussion on all of the suspects can be found right here on the board.
As far as giving more attention to other suspects (besides Allen) on my site, here's what I say:
If someone can come up with a reason Kane, for example, could be Zodiac, it might be worth focusing on. Until then, I don't see much point.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn023.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.53) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 12:33 pm:

Edward,

I'm not looking to pick a fight with you anymore, but I wish you'd be accurate in your criticisms. I have been pointing out the fact that Tom has neglected to mention very pertinent information while attempting to form these so-called "connections" between Allen and Zodiac. It is clear that these "connections" are not quite as compelling when all the relevant information is presented, and, in my opinion, it is not responsible to present only that information which makes Allen look guilty. If Tom wishes to present a list of reasons why Allen may have been the Zodiac, that is fine with me, but readers deserve to know all the relevant information regarding these so-called "connections" when assessing that presentation. To only present information which makes Allen look guilty is not responsible reporting, and no one asked Tom to present a one-sided, biased and incomplete list of reasons why Allen was the Zodiac.

I have no problem with people arguing Allen as a suspect, I have no problem debating that issue, and I have no problem accepting or addressing your criticisms. I just think it's best to present all the relevant information when attempting to inform readers, and that a failure to do so is indicative of the fact that those who present the reasons why Allen may have been the Zodiac are aware that a complete and unbiased presentation of the case against Allen is not as convincing as telling only half the story.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-197-51.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.197.51) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:39 pm:

Here's my problem, Greg. Tom presented a list of reasons linking Allen to Zodiac, that were exclusive to Allen. He called it "the Allen-Zodiac connection." These were connections that had to do with facts. It is by no means a complete list of everything pro and con about Allen, but the title told us that already. In other words, it's not a list of reasons for Allen not being Zodiac, and as such, was not made with any exculpatory purpose in mind (such as whether or not a witness had a motive to lie, etc). Douglas does the same thing on his site, only exclusive to Kaczynski. The difference here is that in addition to Allen, Tom provides a list of the other suspects and the scant reasons for their inclusion as suspects, as well as this board, which you have used to present info you believe Tom excluded from his presentation. It is a pleasure to read a post from you not filled with venom. People do read your posts, and taken in conjunction with Tom's presentation, can make up their own minds about Allen's worth as a suspect.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.71) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 03:12 pm:

I agree with your comments, but here's my problem:

Tom tells his readers that Allen used Philip's Corvair. Is that a fact? No. What Tom does not mention is that the witness first told police that Allen did NOT use the car. Sometime later, Philip apparently told police otherwise. Now, is it fair to say that Allen used the car? No. Is it a statement based on fact? No. It's a statement based on a selective, and self-serving ommission of half of the story.

It would be much more responsible, let alone accurate, to say that Allen may have used the car, but that the only person who said that Allen used the car had previously told police otherwise. In that instance, the readers would be able to assess the value of the information. Omitting such a conflicting bit of information leaves the reader at the mercy of the motives of those who make such presentations. If Tom wanted to give his readers the facts, he would trust them to decide for themselves. Instead, Tom is deciding for those readers, and misleading them regarding the true value of these "connections."

Tom took the time to tell his readers that Mageau had described the car. He took the time to tell his readers that the car was parked at the gas station, and that Allen had worked at that gas station. Tom did not tell his readers that Allen had been fired from this job months before the shooting at Blue Rock Springs Park and months before the car was parked at the station. He did not tell his readers that Philip changed his story, let alone that Philip had originally told police that Allen had not used the car. These are VERY important facts which should be included in ANY discussion of these issues. These facts were left out of Tom's presentation simply because they tend to diminish the idea of the "connection" between Allen and that Corvair. Since Tom wants his readers to believe that Allen may have been the Zodiac and did use that Corvair, any information which conflicts with that theory has been excluded from his presentation.

A credible presentation should be able to deal with these conflicts, and the failure to present the WHOLE story regarding the very facts which Tom uses to establish these so-called "connections" indicates that the person making the presentation is not concerned with the facts, but how certain facts can be selectively used to give the reader the false impression that the connection is solid when it clearly is not.

Readers shouldn't be forced to sort through all these messages in order to get the real facts about Philip's statements, let alone get an objective and factual accounting of those so-called "connections." If Tom chooses not to mention all the problems with the witnesses, he is choosing to ignore the facts and mislead his readers. I'm not asking that Tom present every single piece of information, but I hardly think it is too much to ask that his presentation is not slanted in such a way as to mislead his readers regarding the credibility of these so-called "connections."

Tom omitted Philip's original statement which is documented in Mulanax's report and made just a few years after the murders, in favor of a statement which was made later, and has no available documentation other than Bawart mentioning that Philip said he used the car. To omit the first statement in favor of the second is no less than deceptive.

This is no different than me saying that Allen can't be the Zodiac because his fingerprints don't match those found on Stine's cab. Although it is clear that police have considered these prints to be of use in excluding suspects, I would be misleading readers if I led them to believe that the fingerprints must be the Zodiac's, and that Allen can't be the Zodiac because his prints don't match those prints. A credible presentation would mention that Allen's prints do not match those found in the cab, but that there is some reason to believe that the prints may not belong to the Zodiac. If I had my own website, and made such a slanted statement, I have no doubt that those who accuse Allen would be chastising me for omitting such an important bit of information.

As for my venomless posts, I would like to apologize for contributing to the atmosphere of hostility on this board (for what it's worth). However, I would like to make one point here: I did not start the tone of that discussion. I had asked that readers provide their thoughts, and correct any errors I may have made. That was a polite request. It was met with hostility, and personal attacks questioning my motives, my knowledge of the case, and my intelligence. I was accused of condoning Penn's behavior when nothing could be further from the truth. I was insulted, called "Sherlock" in a condescending tone, and given "the finger." While I am not attempting to minimize my part in that exchange, I think the facts prove that the entire exchange would have been much more polite had my polite request for debate and discussion been answered with polite responses. It was not.

In closing, I'd like to mention that, in making my "radian" presentation, I offered information which conflicted with my own theory. I told readers that the sites did not form an exact radian. Had I been using Tom's methods, I would simply have quoted Penn by saying they did. I chose to give the readers the pertinent information, and let them decide for themselves.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Edward. I hope we can continue to discuss these issues in a friendly and polite manner. Please keep that in mind, as I will soon be posting a response at the "Chasing the Radian" thread, in which I will attempt to answer my critics, and the many criticisms of my presentation. I am not looking for a fight, or to be insulted. I simply wish to discuss and debate the issues. I am perfectly capable of doing so without resorting to personal attacks, and without offering my own assumptions as if they were fact. I believe you are just as capable of doing so. I'm not so sure about others, but I am willing to try, and to listen to and address any responses. So, shall we?

By Curt Rowlett (Curt) (63.174.96.60) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 03:44 pm:

Tom Voigt wrote:

"1) I thought about the video clips, but haven't found anyone who can cheaply convert VHS into the proper files. Besides, since I started advertising the video I've been swamped with orders..."

Yeah, I have a need to convert some VHS video footage into digital form myself and know that it's not cheap. (The only way to avoid such a coversion is to shoot only digital footage, but that wouldn't be of much help to the matter here). My reason for suggesting this was not necessarily as a means to promote your video (which sounds like it is selling well on its own) but rather as one suggestion to add enhancements to your site content.

"2) Don't know what you mean by "in-depth articles."

Well, articles that run to say, 5000+ words and which dissect different aspects of the Zodiac case in minute detail. I realize that a lot of this information is already archived on the message boards, but as a websurfer, I personally prefer reading a long article from an easily accessible archive of similar articles rather than wading through a message board.

"3) Discussion on all of the suspects can be found right here on the board. As far as giving more attention to other suspects (besides Allen) on my site, here's what I say: If someone can come up with a reason Kane, for example, could be Zodiac, it might be worth focusing on. Until then, I don't see much point."

Well, the point would be that discussing other suspects would be a possible addition to enhance your website. I'm not suggesting this as any sort of challenge to any suspect's viability, but simply to offer up suggestions as you requested above. I made the suggestion to discuss other suspects in depth becuase I felt that it would be nice to see as much space given to discussing the pros and the cons of other major suspects in as much detail as Allen is here, along with references to information sources, pictures, etc. In this way, people who want to compare the viability of one suspect over another would have good reference points other than the Graysmith book, etc. (There really isn't a whole lot of information out there in essay or article length form, that I am aware of). It might also help to clear up some of the common misconceptions about all of the suspects. In my opinion, this would make your site the most detailed one on the 'net.

Those are my suggestions.

Curt Rowlett

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-wo062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.47) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 05:30 pm:

I think Kane is a very interesting character even if he is or isn't the Zodiac. Just to repeat the above, I'd want to know his impressions on everyone and everything involved. He's simply been mentioned, I'd like to see what he knows.

By Kevinrm (Kevinrm) (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:46 pm:

Tom,

Personally, I think you need to update the Marshall info a bit. It's a little off. He wasn't in Riverside in 1966, for example. He was in San Jose. It has been said that his main problem is lack of a violent past. To that I would say "that we know of". Seems like there is a lot about this dude that no one knows about. Like, was he in the Navy or not? There must have been some reason that the guy changed his name. I don't know if it's still the case, but I understand that several investigators really liked him much better than Allen. That alone seems to warrant a little more attention. Anyway, besides Allen, wouldn't you agree that he is "up there"?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8413e7.ipt.aol.com - 172.132.19.231) on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:52 pm:

Kevin, as you know, Marshall really had my interest for a while there. Unfortunately, I discovered a few things that really sank his chances. For example:
I tracked down "Wallace Penny" from that yellow book. He confirmed that Marshall did NOT show him bomb diagrams of any kind, let alone Z-type diagrams before they were published in the papers.

Narlow was the only investigator I know of that was interested in Marshall.

Marshall has e-mailed me a few times with corrections. He never mentioned Riverside was an error.

By Juno (Juno) (ip-209-215-165-204.browardlibrary.org - 209.215.165.204) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:42 am:

Tom, I was wondering if you might know how much of the Marshall (andrews)/Penny section of Graysmith's book was "artistic license?" As I recall, Penny seemed rather convinced that Marshall (andrews) was Z, at least according to the book. Did Penny have anything to say about those chapters of the book?

thanks

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac952f57.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.47.87) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 10:26 am:

Most of that chapter in the yellow book was exaggerated, unfortunately.

By Kevinrm (Kevinrm) (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:16 pm:

Tom, I do have to admit, after seeing the interview of Marshall on your video, something said to me "no way". It was interesting how he was in total agreement with how many things matched up, and readily admitted to it. He seemed as mystified about it as anyone else. By the way, that video is indeed excellent.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p97.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.97) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 04:18 am:

Tom,
I would like to comment on the Monson/Gregory VERSUS Tom argument in relation to ALA on this board.First of all let me say,I have no wish to get into a fight with anyone.Neither do I wish to discuss the merits of either side of the argument,
only to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to express such opinion.The problem I have,is that now this discussion is "up and down" every section of this board.Most,if not all of us other "insignificants"
have long since made up our minds or/and have the capacity to apply our own logic to the ALA connections.It would be desirable at this stage to be able to connect to the other sections of this board and actually discuss the topics one would expect to find under such headings.You were asked to supply the ALA connection which you did.You have given those with reservations the opportunity to reply.You and others have advised such people on how to start their own websites and you have provided an ALA section and this site feedback section.The rest of us would like to be extended the same courtesy even if we do not quite reach the level of the "more respected"
posters.
Regards.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac95247a.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.36.122) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:23 am:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
"The rest of us would like to be extended the same courtesy even if we do not quite reach the level of the more respected posters."

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wo031.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.31) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:44 pm:

Me neither, but Lapumo, by all means, weigh right on in whenever you'd like.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p84.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.84) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 05:12 am:

Yeah,I shouldn't have left that "hanging there" when I addressed the post to Tom. I was in fact alluding to a recent post by MONSON (oh,by the way, I use MONSON the same way he uses VOIGHT)where,in his pursuit of "truth",he felt the need to quote from the "more respected" members of the board,in order to push home his points.It,s an unfortunate characteristic displayed by a minority on this site.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 09:56 am:

LAPUMO:
he felt the need to quote from the "more respected" members of the board,in order to push home his points.It,s an unfortunate characteristic displayed by a minority on this site.

BRUCE:
If I used "quotes" of any person in a context that was different from that that they intended, then that would be one thing, but using accurate "quotes" from other people on this list to strengthen my point in a discussion with an individual who either cannot or will not heed a view that is, as it turns out, more common than he might like to admit, is quite appropriate.

The implication you give, however, in citing my use of "the more respected" members, was out of context. The intent is not to denegrade anyone (disagreement is not the same as denegration, but calling someone an "idiot" or a "drug addict" ARE denegrations!), or imply that their views ARE NOT "respected"; rather, it is only saying that there are people on this list who, by the frequency and nature of their posts, have obtained an acknowledged level of respect. For example, if I make a direct and contextually correct quote from Jake Wark (a well-informed Zodiac investigator), or Glen Claston, or many others with developed reputations on this site, it carrys more weight (by history) in the minds of others than quoting someone for whom we know nothing about, or someone who is less informed, or someone with a negative reputation.

Quick quiz: On a scale of 1-5 with five being highest respect and 1 being lowest respect, score the following names based on your own assessments [Jake Wark, Robert Graysmith, Glen Claston, Gareth Penn]

Far from being an "unfortunate characteristic displayed by a minority on this site," it [citation] is a standard of practice that you will find in all levels of academia, including this site! People quote one another all the time here and I am no different in this regard.

Bruce Monson

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 10:09 am:

Woops! In my last post I meant to write, "The intent is not to denegra[T]e" not "denegra[D]e"--a minor mistake, but it was bugging me.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p184.as1.virginia1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.184) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 11:26 am:

Bruce,
You are right,I did take quote out of context.I hope you can accept my unreserved apology.
Regards.

By Peterh (Peterh) (adsl-141-154-74-188.bostma.adsl.bellatlantic.net - 141.154.74.188) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 08:12 am:

Tom: A little actual site feedback for the Site Feedback thread:

1.It doesn't appear that due appreciation has been shown on this site in general for your posting of the Berryessa police report. Thank you, and happy holidays to you, too. The report is rich with detail and background that clarifies much of what has been lost about LB in translation, in particular the physical description of the responsible. Makes one wonder a couple of things about the Napa composite, particularly (1)why it is of such poor quality and refinement of detail compared to the SFPD composite (after all, it is the result of numerous separate but consistent eyewitness descriptions); (2) why it isn't as well circulated and famous as the SFPD composite and (3) why there isn't more serious discussion of the stark differences between the Napa and SFPD composites. After all, the generally accepted description of Z appears to be the Napa/Hartnell description which doesn't seem to match the SFPD composite at all. I mean, come on, the guy in the SFPD pic is definitely not "beefy" or any of the other accepted descriptions, particularly from Hartnell or Mageau. Has this discrepancy ever benn addressed to your satisfaction?

2. Would it be possible to add a "Return to Zodiackiller.com" link (or even a complete menu)to every message board page? After following a thread for a while, posting comments and picking up a thread again, it sometimes take a lot of clicks to get back to square one.

Thanks

PeterH

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac906831.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.104.49) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 11:19 am:

Thanks for the kind words. I am still shocked at apparently how few people have even noticed the LB report has been published.

The SFPD composite situation is a mess, always has been. I have little confidence in that drawing, mainly because the two officers that apparently saw Zodiac up close did not contribute in any way to the drawing.

The quickest way to get back to the main site from wherever you are on the message board is to click "Topics" at the bottom of each page. Once there, I have placed a link to the main page as well as the News Center.
I don't know if the other MB pages support external links...

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tk062.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.206.202) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 07:58 pm:

Yes Tom. Thanks for posting the LB report. It's practically a novel in itself.

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 08:31 pm:

I finally read the entire Lake B report. Good job Tom for getting it. I don't understand how on the video Bryan Hartnell says something to the effect that the Stine composite resembles the suspect if the only time he saw the suspect the suspect was wearing the hood.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac87142b.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.20.43) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 08:56 pm:

Sometimes it's dangerously easy to make a fool out of yourself on camera.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p69.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.69) on Sunday, June 17, 2001 - 05:55 am:

Douglas/Scott,
On my comment in the "titwillo" thread...I was not arguing I was only making a point.There was a second Titwillo thread started because the first was getting too long.One has now deteriorated into WrestleMania and the other into Allen's status as a suspect.
We do already have.
1 Reasons for not being Allen
2 ALA continued
3 Allen??
4 Allen's status as a suspect
5 Allen status continued
6 Allens status continued yet again
7 How did allen become a suspect
8 The case against Allen

All more appropriate,I would suggest,for discussing Allen's status as a suspect.
Now for those that have a problem with Tom's approach we have
1 Critique of some biases on Zodiackiller
2 Critique of some biases on zodiac killer cont.
3.Site feedback
4.Private E-Mail.
When I referred to the same"s&%t" as before.I was
referring to the approach adopted by Gregorpraxass
whereby not being content with making a point a couple of times,resorted to attacking Tom and Allen status at every opportunity.The result was the hijacking of legitimate discussion on different threads up and down the board,that had nothing to do with either.Now we have Bruce M adopting that strategy.
I am not saying that they did not have a point from time to time but rather buried it in a mountain of s&%t that does little credit to their cause.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wf041.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.195.163) on Sunday, June 17, 2001 - 12:28 pm:

Lapumo: Point well taken. However, it seems that some people simply ignore older threads, unlike what I am doing here. I, for example, posted some thoughts in the "Z's Familiarity with Weapons" thread some time ago and nobody has bothered to respond. Is that because it was a thread that hadn't been posted on in months, or because my post was insignificant? Whatever; it doesn't really matter. All I'm trying to say is that it is sometimes easier to respond to or address a particular post/poster within the context of the thread in which it was posted.

Scott

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 10:34 am:

It would be nice if your search tool could search the entire site instead of just the message board.

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 10:42 am:

The spell checker rarely comes up, when it does, it is not fun and easy to use. It seems like such a bother to have to type the message in say, WORD and then spell check it there and cut and paste just to get an accurate message on the board. I can really understand why some people just post "as is". If you can comprehend what the poster is saying, it should not be that big of an issue - I get angry every time I think that someone is going catch an er on one of my posts and then the attention gets drawn to that instead of where it's supposed to be and it turns into an ignorant, waste of time, "bashing" thread!

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 10:47 am:

Maybe you can keep those unrelated conversations out completely or at least to a minimum by having a system in place where, if the poster doesn't mention the word/s that is found in the actual title of the thread at least once, the post will be rejected! This might help keep people on track.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-ntc-td01.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.137) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 01:39 pm:

Terri, those are good ideas.

1) I've thought about installing a site search. It's a big project, but maybe I can find the time to get it done.

2) Forget the spellcheck tool. Spend a few bucks on a pocket dictionary and keep it by your computer. That's what I do, although when the beer kicks in I still make mistakes.

3) I do my best to keep threads on-topic. (Except for threads started by fools like Kenny.)

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 03:47 pm:

Maybe you can make it easier to search for recent posts. I like to go back after a while and see if I've gotten anyone to respond. It would be helpful to keep the threads in alphabetical order for one thing. It would also be great if all the posts for the current month were different somehow so you could easily go straight to current "stuff". Maybe bold them or have a color scheme to follow. A different color for each month of the year. I don't know if it would make it any easier for you but I think little changes like this might help us.

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 03:51 pm:

The "Threadboard" actually might be a bit too colorful if you use that color scheme idea but maybe if you would just make all of the current month's threads bolded or something since you already have the blue + red thing going on to decorate. ;)

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-ntc-tc01.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.13) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 04:25 pm:

Terri, use the "New Messages" button on the navigation bar at the bottom of each page.

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 06:58 pm:

Ooooh, nice!

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:29 pm:

Okay, I have another one. What about putting the links to the rest of the site at the bottom of the message board so that we can access the rest of the site without having to keep hitting the "BACK" button on our browser tool bar?

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-ntc-td01.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.137) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:38 pm:

The board can't be configured that way.

However, no matter where you are in the message board, just click on the "Topics" link located in the navigation bar at the bottom of each page. That will take you to the main message board page, which features a link to the News Center, as well as a link to the main page of Zodiackiller.com. (The link to the News Center is near the top of the page and says "Zodiackiller.com last upated on...").

By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 65.24.48.76) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:46 pm:

In under "Suspects", you have the composites blinking. Can you please first of all line them up beside the suspects? Also, since they are both different sketches, it would be helpful to see them beside one another as well instead of blinking. It makes it very difficult to study moving pictures. :)
Maybe you could put a composite on each side of the suspect's picture since the composites are not both the same.
If you don't want to change this on your site, then maybe you can make it to where us users have the ability to do it ourselves.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-ntc-td01.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.137) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:50 pm:

Click "Stop" on your browser.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d141-193-74.home.cgocable.net - 24.141.193.74) on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 09:10 pm:

I just started reading these messages a little while ago. I notice a lot of short forms LB, BRS, etc. I know what those are but I just saw in here Car Door the short form PH. What is this? I'm thinking Presidio Heights.

Maybe for new people reading, have the definitions of all these short forms.

By Ed N (Ed_N) (ac95a0ed.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.160.237) on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 09:33 pm:

Ryan: you are correct, PH stands for Presidio Heights.

By Valentine Smith (Valentinesmith) (spider-tq013.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.48) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 01:28 pm:

Perhaps the time is right for a link to some more plausible Zodiac crimes, like the Santa Barbara shooting in 63? (see, my 2nd day on the board, and I've been doing my homework) A couple of photos and police reports would do wonders I think.

Of course I understand that alot of it would be fairly subjective, but a few of the most glaring ones would be anice touch.

By Valentine Smith (Valentinesmith) (adsl-157-145-191.gnv.bellsouth.net - 66.157.145.191) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 06:41 pm:

Whoops...seek and ye shall find. I just found the report about Santa Barbara. Sorry 'bout that! This site truly is a wealth of information!!!

By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 216.174.197.132) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

All compliments, Tom. The site has all the important details of the case, and is laid out in a manner in which everything is easily accessible! Also, I've always thought that the site is very pleasing to the eye as well (and that means alot coming from an artist).

By Mike (Oklahoma_Mike) (66.138.8.76) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 09:56 pm:

I thoroughly enjoy the site and think overall it is first rate. Among the various sites on this subject the only other one which gives you real competition is Jake's ("This is the Zodiac Speaking")but with the message board I
have to give this site the edge. Not to insult all the other sites, but the other ones beside this and Jake's either push a specific suspect exslusively or are very poorly done (or both).
You do a very good job of riding herd on this board, no small achievement with all the emotion
involved in this topic.
I guess my only real complaint is nitpicky: The site, and your opinion, obviously lean toward ALA as the likely suspect and sometimes you don't seem to want to admit that. Understand me, it is your
site and you may post any opinion or leaning one way or the other, just be a litle more open about it.
That's my take. Keep up the overall excellent work. Even when I don't post this board is a source of great intetrest to me.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 10:21 pm:

Mike, even if I had a crystal ball and knew for a fact Allen wasn't involved, I wouldn't change a thing. The fact is, he's the best-known suspect and people are always going to be curious about him and the circumstances that brought him into the case.

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming! Pull no punches!

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-141-151-89-113.phil.east.verizon.net - 141.151.89.113) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 11:16 pm:

Tom, I like to contrast your site with what goes on at an unmoderated forum, such as alt.true-crime. There, within a day or so, every thread deteriorates into a free-for-all of petty name-calling, vulgarity and spite. Back here in the East there's a company called Perdue, which mass-produces some of the finest chicken products in the world. Their slogan is "it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken." Need I say more?

By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (12-210-225-42.client.attbi.com - 12.210.225.42) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 09:19 am:

Hi Tom:

Couldn't resist a small comment. This "no-delete" section of the MB hasn't done a lot for the overall worthiness of the site unless, like me, one enjoys a perverse forum for the usual Internet whackos that have little or no life. For that kind of behavior, one can log on to any MB or chatroom and get a daily dose. If possible, I'd like to see you expand the site (or create another) that deals with one or more of the other unsolved cases of which we spoken over the years. The way you construct a site and ferret out information has helped the Z case and it could do the same for other unsolved cases.

As to the MB, I, for one, liked it better the other way.

Mike

By Valentine Smith (Valentinesmith) (29.p1.dialup.gru.net - 198.190.223.29) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 04:10 pm:

Tom, if I hadn't discovered this site, then Graysmith's z-book woulda been my ONLY source of information on the subject. For this ALONE I thank you...

Site looks great, is well laid out. Personally I prefer the EZBoard system of Message Boards. Very easy on the eye, very sensible stuff. Check 'em out if you haven't...

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

Mike Kelleher wrote:
"I'd like to see you expand the site (or create another) that deals with one or more of the other unsolved cases of which we spoken over the years"

I've been considering such an endeavor for a few years, as I'm fascinated with California's unsolved murders of the 1960s and 1970s. When I get in a better place financially, such a project is likely.

Thanks everyone. Keep it coming!

By Alex M. (ottawa-hse-ppp254394.sympatico.ca - 64.230.3.191) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:09 am:

A few comments from a new "lurker":

1) In the Message Boards, when you show a list of threads, you really need to add the year as well as the month/day/time after the thread's name. Some of these discussions are several years old now, and when a "newbie" like myself tries to get caught up it's very frustrating not to be able to judge how old the thread is.

2) Another good idea would be a "files" section for people trying to crack the unsolved ciphers where one could, e.g., download an Excel spreadsheet with the cipher characters coded in some form (e.g. numbered). I'm sure others have already done this work in the past, and would be willing to contribute their efforts in order for anyone else just starting out to get a head start. I'm tempted to beat on it somewhat myself but I know it will take me several hours just to reproduce what's already been done, i.e. transcribe the symbols into a numerical code, do frequency lists, horizontal/vertical repetition counts, and pulling out any repeated two and three symbol sequences. A well organized spreadsheet or at least a Word doc would save others many hours or even days of effort. That way more of everyone's time would be spent on actually trying to crack the code instead of just getting organized. Ray's unsolved(?) rock and roll cipher could also be made available there.

3) Lastly, you really need to write up some sort of commentary on what you can & can't *now* say about the two "new letters" you've received in the past few months, and why this is so. Of course I'm skeptical about their authenticity, but it's pretty frustrating having this potentially enormous development couched in such unexplained secrecy. I think one of the points of this web site is to share information freely so that we can use the enormous power of the "Collective Detective" to try and advance this case. Having chosen to publicly post these letters, I think you have some obligation for a follow-up, summary, and some analysis.

For example, what's your personal feeling as to their authenticity and why or why not? Why were certain sections withheld? Can you say more about them now? What form were the DNA samples in? Have they been analyzed? Have they or will they be compared to the old Zodiac stamp DNA samples? Have the new stamps been checked for DNA? I assume you've been in contact with the appropriate authorities about this, but are they taking this seriously at all? And what was in the "To Zodiac" msg you posted last November - the link is now bad. Something about Landrum Bolling?

My apologies if any of this is already available and I've missed it. I obviously haven't read every post in the msg boards (yet!) :-)

Other than all that, great site, keep it going!

Alex M. (unregistered)

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:12 am:

Alex, I appreciate your comments...however, if you and others would follow the instructions I posted in the introductory thread, you would know how to easily search for new messages.

By Alex M (ottawa-hse-ppp254394.sympatico.ca - 64.230.3.191) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:38 am:

>>if you and others would follow the instructions I posted in the introductory thread, you would know how to easily search for new messages.

You misunderstand, I know how to find new messages, it's just that when reviewing older threads, some that go back many years you can't tell if it's this year's, last year's or 3 years old!

Example. Under "Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Theories", first thing I see is:

"THE RADIAN THEORY" IS IT CONSIDERED VALID? 11/11 11:57pm

Ok. great, Nov 11, but what year? I have to look inside to find out (first msg is August 20, 2000, last November 11, 2002).

What makes this even more confusing is that the threads are apparently sorted in order of the timestamp FIRST msg posted in them, but then you show the timestamp of the LAST msg in them... I realize this makes some sense, but it's not very clear.

Alex

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:42 am:

I see. Unfortunately, the program won't allow for the year to display.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) (ip68-98-108-6.ph.ph.cox.net - 68.98.108.6) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 01:49 am:

Tom,

Good site. As you know, I've been a follower since the beginning, although I seldom post. I also happen to know that you have gone back and forth between Marshall & Allen at times, so I can vouch to all that you have not always been a total, complete Allenite that people assume, nor am I sure that you are one now.

Criticism - I can absolutely prove that Marshall was not in Riverside in '66, and I think my proof is more solid than what you have been told. It was hard to nail down, but it's solid. So, I thought you were somewhat stubborn when it came to changing that small detail. Also, some of your info on him is rather out of date I think, and you don't mention his name change. You could expand that section easily if you wanted to. If you're going to continue to have the greatest Z site in the universe, all of the details must be up to date and correct. I guess that's not a lot of criticism for 5 years.

Kevin

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 01:55 am:

Thanks Kevin.

Marshall could have easily lived in two cities during 1966. I have an old audio recording of Marshall's Riverside landlord commenting on him, so that's pretty good proof. Regarding Marshall's alleged alias, I have neither proof nor the correct spelling.

Ok, back to feedback!

By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (adsl-63-195-44-210.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net - 63.195.44.210) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 09:11 am:

Tom wrote: "I've been considering such an endeavor for a few years, as I'm fascinated with California's unsolved murders of the 1960s and 1970s. When I get in a better place financially, such a project is likely."

Good news, Tom. As you know, I'll be up your way soon (and permanently), so maybe we can get together on this kind of a project. It might be fun and very interesting.

Mike

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 11:41 am:

Now that would be cool...

By Delete_Me (pool822.ntrl.net - 194.12.251.54) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 01:35 pm:

Hey voigt, let me ask you something - what's the point of the "feedback" thread if you delete all the posts which contain REAL criticism? Maybe you only want to be praised???

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 01:45 pm:

"Stromjunkie," "Mario Ferec", "Kolev," "Maria," or whoever you are this week, trust me: if you and yours can manage to put together a coherent post, I won't delete it. However, if it contains the usual gibberish and inside jokes that only you and your bong understand, say bye.

By Question (pool822.ntrl.net - 194.12.251.54) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 02:01 pm:

Okay, answer this if you have the guts(and beware, because I will e-mail the whole page to many people around this case if you're going to be too smart):

How you was not even a bit ashamed to put that cynical cardoor advertisement(representing Hartnell's cardoor) before Christmas?

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 02:05 pm:

Why should I be ashamed? It apparently didn't bother Bryan Hartnell or Cecelia Shepard's family, so why should it concern you?

Besides, this site has been online for over five years and has been extremely proactive. I would think it impossible to not offend someone at least once.

That wasn't much of a critique.

By TheKidIsHotTonite (cpe-66-169-55-087.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.169.55.87) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 07:58 pm:

Tom, I'd like to point out, for the record, how easy it is to not receive any criticism, when anyone who would tear into you, has already been deleted or banned. You've reduced your little club here into what is mostly a yes-man Allenite crowd that is over-qualified and eager to kiss your butt repeatedly. Since I'm tired of this charade, do me a favor? Have some class for once and let a critical post stand without any of your "latent" editing and I'll hit the road. Ok, Void? P.S. Meanwhile the partial DNA print does match TK. HA HA HA. Sorry about that Eggites.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

"anyone who would tear into you, has already been deleted or banned"

Hence the Public Zodiac Discussion section; anyone can post, even without an account. In other words, it doesn't matter if someone has been banned. After all, Zander, you have managed to post, right?

Regarding criticism, I'm all for it...unless, of course, the poster is simply out to rant and offers no substantiation for their opinion.

So, Zander, what have you come up with? We're waiting.

By TheKid (cpe-66-169-55-087.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.169.55.87) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 08:20 pm:

Tom, I criticize you for the way you treated Curt. He was a decent guy who provided some sweet links. I read a lot of stuff about GRK that I wouldn't have otherwise read because I'm not all that computer savvy and don't wanna be(before you tell me how easy it is). But anyway, you had to drive him away, like you've done with a lot of people around here. Come on Tom, this is a big joke isn't it? I'm sitting here right now reading a post that I wrote that you altered that makes me say that I think Scott is "pretty", and you have the nerve to request criticism in a manner that suggests that none exists. You're starting to remind me of a sociopath that is oblivious to his own piss-poor behavoir. EVERYONE: HURRY UP and read this before it vanishes!

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

I'm not deleting your post, Zander. Despite yourself, you manage to raise a couple interesting points.

First let me say that I did, in fact, alter your post. Why? Well, I could spend half of my day deleting the moronic posts of you, Kolev, Jane, Stromjunkie and others, but I've decided to try another method of discipline instead. But not to fear! Once you (and the other children) grow up and start behaving like everyone else, the problem will go away.

Second, let's deal with the issue of Curt Rowlett. Curt was a guy I never, ever had a problem with. In fact, against my better judgement, I even added a link to his site because he seemed like a nice guy. To make a long story short, he erupted on the message board one day, all because of a problem I was having with another poster. Did Curt e-mail me and ask for my side of the issue? Nope! He just went off. Whatever. I don't have time for people who jump to conclusions, especially when I am so easily accessible.

By LeavingForLinville (cpe-66-169-55-087.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.169.55.87) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 09:50 pm:

That's cool. I'll give you credit for having so much Zodiac stuff to read but honestly I have to criticise you for poor people skills at times. That's an honest opinion. In fact, right now with a user account, I could be explaining how the Kaczynski code works. But anyway, I don't remember Curt erupting as you describe. My memory was that you told Bruce "Go F*** Yourself". Curt, took offense to that and said something like((("I have been involved in some really heated debates but have never heard someone resort to telling another person to go F himself. This is not a debate forum but a cult of personality and I will not be part of this anymore")))(Tom: "Good, and you can take Bruce with you") Not the exact wording, of course, but my memory's pretty dam good, ain't it? Because, if I'm not mistaken, that exchange is long gone. Anyway, there's credit to go with criticism, but I also believe there may be some Allenites here or otherwise loyal types holding their tongues without the balls to be honest. Oh well, this is my last post, I'm off to Linville like right now and won't be back for a month. If the public section's still up then maybe I'll write again.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 09:55 pm:

That's exactly what I told Bruce, and IMHO, he deserved it. If Curt didn't understand why I reacted to Bruce in that manner, he should have asked before freaking out.

"Allenite?" That's a silly phrase. As I've stated many times, the man will always be a part of this site, just as he'll always a part of the case in general.

By the way, before you judge my "people skills", try launching a high-profile website with an active message board.

By Eduard Versluijs (iproxy1.kennisnet.nl - 212.178.7.52) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 03:22 am:

Zander,

Good to see you are back!!!!

Eduard
"The Cheri Jo Bates Murder"

By Eduard Versluijs (iproxy1.kennisnet.nl - 212.178.7.52) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 05:44 am:

This thread is about giving some feedback to Tom about his website. So here is my turn:

1. Nothing about the results in the News section about ABC's prime Time's DNA research?

2. Maybe a feature about DNA research and other related forensic research.

3. Good overview pictures of the various crimescenes are needed to understand details in this case.
The pictures on Tom's site do not show the big picture.

4. The links section on Tom's site doesn't feature a link to the "Cheri Jo Bates Murder" website.
Click here
Cheri's murder is talked about in connection with the Z-case so I believe the link fits perfectly in a Zodiac related links-page.

5. A scan of the parking ticket ALA got at Lake B. ? :)

6. Maybe a feature with profiles on the private researchers in this case with pictures and theories they have come up with?. This would be of great help for newbies on this case.

7. A scan of the 13 hole card is missing in the "Zodiac letters" section.

8. No new update about the letters to Tom send by someone claiming to be the Zodiac? What are the authorities doing with this?

9. Nowhere mensioned that the murder of Bob Lord in New Orleans turned out to be a case of suicide?

10. Where is the scan of Zodiac's Halloween (skeleton) card with the pumpkin removed from it?

Eduard

P.S. This website still is considered the #1 source for Z-buffs.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) (65-70-66-92.ded.swbell.net - 65.70.66.92) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 09:50 am:

Ok. First, this site has kept me considering, and reconsidering, and re-re-considering the case ever since I became interested in '98 after reading Graysmith's Zodiac. It's very informative and I feel I can always trust the validity of the information.

Second, Tom, I feel you are very respectful of the victims and their families. I imagine it's difficult to balance that respect with distribution of information regarding the cases. You do it well.

My gripes: First, I think the "Etc." category got way too political and boring. I'm glad to see some other subject matter on there now. For a while, it seemed that everyone just wanted to rant and no one actually supported his statements or listened to anyone else's. It turned into a back-and-forth that went nowhere.

Second, I love the fact that you have a forum for those without accounts, but a select few seem to be ruining it for those who legitimately want to post anonymously. It really annoys me to read through posts which consist of nothing but petty name-calling.

By Ed_N (acc34ee5.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.78.229) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:06 pm:

Eduard wrote:

5. A scan of the parking ticket ALA got at Lake B. ?

I looked for that ticket, and was told that old tickets were destroyed after 5 to 10 years. So, if it existed, it was destroyed by 1979. If I'm not mistaken, Graysmith is the only source for that information, so that makes it suspect to begin with...

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:45 pm:

Eduard wrote:

"Nothing about the results in the News section about ABC's prime Time's DNA research?"

Millions of people watched the ABC show, plus there was extensive discussion at the message board. Updating the News Center would have been redundant.

"Maybe a feature about DNA research and other related forensic research"

If there's new DNA/forensics info relating to the Zodiac case I'll post it, however anything else wouldn't be a fit for this site.

"Good overview pictures of the various crimescenes are needed to understand details in this case. The pictures on Tom's site do not show the big picture."

How can I be faulted for not having more crime-scene photos? You can't exactly buy them at K-Mart, you know!

"The links section on Tom's site doesn't feature a link to the "Cheri Jo Bates Murder" website."

Not this again...

"A scan of the parking ticket ALA got at Lake B. ?"

The only person on this planet who still believes Allen received such a ticket is a certain author who shall remain nameless. I was duped by him many times, but no more; I've learned my lesson. By the way, I actively investigated his claim, and as soon as I found reason to believe it was bs, I removed the reference from this website.

"Maybe a feature with profiles on the private researchers in this case with pictures and theories they have come up with?. This would be of great help for newbies on this case"

Newbies have enough to worry about...

"A scan of the 13 hole card is missing in the "Zodiac letters" section"

It's not an authenticated Zodiac communication.

"No new update about the letters to Tom send by someone claiming to be the Zodiac? What are the authorities doing with this?"

The matter is being handled in a way that wouldn't benefit from public discussion.

"Nowhere mensioned that the murder of Bob Lord in New Orleans turned out to be a case of suicide"

Suicide? That's news to me. Anyway, the letter found with his body is still of interest to Zodiac buffs, suicide or not.

"Where is the scan of Zodiac's Halloween (skeleton) card with the pumpkin removed from it"

The two published images of that letter are all I have.

Good comments! Keep 'em coming, people! (Especially the criticism...as long as you can back it up with specifics.)

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

Muskogee wrote:

"My gripes: First, I think the "Etc." category got way too political and boring. I'm glad to see some other subject matter on there now. For a while, it seemed that everyone just wanted to rant and no one actually supported his statements or listened to anyone else's. It turned into a back-and-forth that went nowhere."

Keep in mind, any registered user is welcome to start whatever thread of discussion they'd like in the Etc. topic. If politics isn't your game (me neither), feel free to introduce something else.

"Second, I love the fact that you have a forum for those without accounts, but a select few seem to be ruining it for those who legitimately want to post anonymously. It really annoys me to read through posts which consist of nothing but petty name-calling"

Yes, I sometimes feel like a substitute teacher at one of those "special" schools. However, I asked for it, so I guess I can't complain too much.

By Eduard Versluijs (iproxy5.kennisnet.nl - 212.178.7.56) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:30 am:

Tom,

Another critism is the fact that I need to make two messages out of this because my message is too long for fitting in one message! :)

Tom wrote:

Millions of people watched the ABC show, plus there was extensive discussion at the message board. Updating the News Center would have been redundant.

E: There are people living abroad (in the Netherlands for example) that saw the show only weeks after it was shown on American TV)

If there's new DNA/forensics info relating to the Zodiac case I'll post it, however anything else wouldn't be a fit for this site.

E: Why not? If the public knew what kind of forensic research can be done on the evidence in this case, the public would also know what the cops aren't doing!

How can I be faulted for not having more crime-scene photos? You can't exactly buy them at K-Mart, you know!

E: I wasn't talking about police pictures I was talking about "overview photo's" as in satelite view pictures.

Not this again...

E: Just being the usual pain in the butt (I am good at that!) :)

Eduard

To be continued..

By Eduard Versluijs (iproxy5.kennisnet.nl - 212.178.7.56) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:43 am:

continued..

Tom wrote:

The only person on this planet who still believes Allen received such a ticket is a certain author who shall remain nameless. I actively investigated his claim, and as soon as I found reason to believe it was bs, I removed the reference from this website.

E: I was just joking about this little gem,hahaha. Please do not be so serious!

Newbies have enough to worry about...

E: They could read a profile of the people they encounter on your MB. Imagine...The profile of Stromjunkie...Hmmm, better skip that idea! :)

It's not an authenticated Zodiac communication.

E: I have reason to believe it actually is.
Furthermore, The card was shown in the ABC-show as well. They showed the footage of a cop with safety glasses on (was the card boobytrapped with explosives? :) ) handling this card.
If the SF police thought it was a fraud why would they approve the show depicting it?

The matter is being handled in a way that wouldn't benefit from public discussion.

E: If that was the fact in the first place why even show scans of them on your website and start a discussion about it as well?
Oh, well you would have your motives for this, I think.

Suicide? That's news to me. Anyway, the letter found with his body is still of interest to Zodiac buffs, suicide or not.

E: He killed himself because his girl broke up with him. He had a picture of the girl with him to take revenge on her. Remember, She was the one who had to identify his death body!
(read it in a Dutch book about crime..)

The two published images of that letter are all I have.

E: I can remember a very sharp scan of it without the pumpkin on it. Oh, well probably the Easterbunny took back some of his Eastereggs :)

Good comments!

E: You're welcome!

Eduard Versluijs
"The Cheri Jo Bates Murder"

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

Eduard wrote:
"There are people living abroad (in the Netherlands for example) that saw the show only weeks after it was shown on American TV)"

If that's the case, why didn't you update your site with the news? Besides, as I stated, if they can find the News Center they can find the message board. Or, they could have e-mailed me if so curious.

"If the public knew what kind of forensic research can be done on the evidence in this case, the public would also know what the cops aren't doing!"

Why would I want to burn bridges with the SFPD? That would be foolish. Besides, even if the department wanted to focus on the Zodiac case even more, budget problems and volume of fresh cases would prevent it.

"I wasn't talking about police pictures I was talking about "overview photo's" as in satelite view pictures."

Ok, I'll hop into my private plane with Ed and we'll go take some pics!

"The card was shown in the ABC-show as well. They showed the footage of a cop with safety glasses on (was the card boobytrapped with explosives?) handling this card. If the SF police thought it was a fraud why would they approve the show depicting it?"

This isn't Nazi Germany, Eduard...the police didn't have to "approve" anything. What you saw was probably archival footage. I mean, the ABC reporter referred to Betty Lou as "Mary Lou"; does that mean Mary Lou was her real name?

By Scream187 (hse-quebeccity-ppp3498847.sympatico.ca - 65.92.233.2) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:01 pm:

I think the site is very well done, you keep it simple but efficient. A lot of information instead of a flashy look.

What else can I say... the board software isnt that great but it does the job. The content can be very interesting sometimes but other times its irrelevent and helps differ false information because people dont pay enough attention. Not much you can do about it I guess.

That public forum is a great idea and may help get a new perspective on things from new posters with fresh ideas.

I got to say that I do think you are an ass from time to time but its understandable since you've put so much effort into this site and the case in general. Also you pay for the site so you can do whatever you want.

One thing I'd like to see added to the site but maybe you dont have it is the 3 part cipher without the answers.

Overall I think this website is great and that it's the best Zodiac related one. Thanks for the time and effort!


PS: keep the updates coming!

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:15 pm:

Thanks for the feedback, Scream...and for making an effort to figure the board out before posting. (Newbies, notice how Scream started a new thread to discuss something instead of interrupting an existing thread? If not, see "About that recording?" Hint hint...)

As I've stated, I don't mind criticism as long as it is substantiated. With that in mind, perhaps you could give me an example of being "an ass?" Not that it's not true, but I always prefer specifics.

Regarding the message board, I've seen many others but still prefer this one. (If more people would learn how to use the links on the navigation bar at the bottom of each page, they might agree!) Besides, the idea of starting over -or attempting to transfer all these messages to a new board- sounds like too much unnecessary brain damage to me.

By Eduard Versluijs (iproxy1.kennisnet.nl - 212.178.7.52) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 12:44 am:

Hi Tom,

You wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you update your site with the news?

E: You haven't read my website for a while I see, I actually updated my website about the SFPD discovery of the hair under the stamp two months ago. Hey, I thought this thread was about your website not mine! :)
Besides that the main topic of my website is the murder of Cheri Jo Bates (zodiac is part of it).

Besides, as I stated, if they can find the News Center they can find the message board. Or, they could have e-mailed me if so curious.

E: You are right in this! Hey, it was just a question. Please do not be so cruel against me! :)

Why would I want to burn bridges with the SFPD?

E: Ah, afraid for the SFPD, I see!

That would be foolish.

E: Or brave?

Besides, even if the department wanted to focus on the Zodiac case even more, budget problems and volume of fresh cases would prevent it.

E: Why are we talking about this case then? If the SFPD will never have time or the money to do forensic research on the evidence or possible suspects this will mean that the case will never be solved.
We as private researchers can try to solve the case with theories but to convict someone for the crimes you need forensic evidence.
So why are private citizens spending their precious time on this case when the cops aren't?

Ok, I'll hop into my private plane with Ed and we'll go take some pics!

E: Using a private plane to make a satelitepicture sounds a bit stupid, a plane can't come up that high :)

This isn't Nazi Germany, Eduard...the police didn't have to "approve" anything. What you saw was probably archival footage.

E: You raise a good point here. I also didn't find this show the unltimate Z-related TV-show (remember my talk about the forensics shown in that show, ugh!). Maybe it was better to forget this show a.q.a.p.

Tom,
What about the Zodiac letters sent to you, you never replied on my question about those letters?
Same with the skeleton card question.

Eduard

By Lorien (Lorien) (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.208.167) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 03:30 am:

I have been a lurker on this site for several years now, and a message board reader. This is my first post. I have tried to read everything I can find on the Zodiac case since the late sixties and first read about the killings in a feature article in the newspaper. I was only 9-10 years old at the time, but the case gripped me then and never let go. Thanks to Tom's site, more information than I could have ever dreamed finding exists in one place that can be accessed 24 hours a day. Thanks to Tom for an informative site which is organized and visually appealing.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 11:21 am:

Eduard, I already answered your question about the "new Zodiac" letters: the matter is being handled in a way that wouldn't benefit from public discussion.

Regarding the Halloween card, yesterday I found a scan of the card, minus pumpkin over the skeleton. So? I don't understand why you are so focused on this. Already I feature two images of the card. Besides, the pumpkin was removed by the police, therefore it is rather insignificant.

By Lambért (sf6-019.du.bitex.com - 195.34.103.19) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 11:34 am:

I am pretty much like Lorien. I prefer to read than to write - in this way I can learn more.

I think that this website has an exellent design, it has much info on it and therefore it is good that it exists.

I think that Tom is a honest man - not perfect, but honest. When I criticized him, he showed that he is openminded and created this thread. But it caused him headaches, I guess - here I saw some posts which had nothing to do with the topics.

By Judy (Judy) (1cust203.tnt24.dca5.da.uu.net - 65.235.2.203) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 03:35 pm:

Zodiackiller.com RULES!-- no doubt about it. There is no other site where one can find the wealth of information contained here-and very efficiently organized as well.

My only beef regards people (like myself) who
enjoy posting- but are lightyears behind the
veterans of the Zodiac saga. Unfortunately, our
lack of knowledge and experience with all the
information regarding this case, often causes our posts to be dismissed or ignored.

So, even though I remain the invisible poster,
this website- no doubt- is awesome.

Judy

By Judy (Judy) (1cust203.tnt24.dca5.da.uu.net - 65.235.2.203) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 03:45 pm:

Alex, I think you have a point about having the
year listed for the threads. However, I have read
all of the meassage board-and the old posts-- many
times have been very informative and interesting.
They also provide a great background to the unfolding of the Zodiac story as it is told on this website.


I think reading all of the threads-old and new-
provide the best insight to all of the different
and fascinating facets of this drama.

Judy

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 03:46 pm:

Thanks Judy.

Often when a post or thread seems ignored at the message board, it's either because discussion has already taken place at some point in recent history, or because there's simply nothing to add.

There is a lot to digest here, no doubt. Usually, though, particular questions can be answered by either looking in the most likely spot, or simply performing a search.

If you still can't find what you're looking for, just e-mail me and ask!

By Jens T. (h219n2fls31o829.telia.com - 213.66.192.219) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 03:57 pm:

I am a swedish dude and I enjoy this site very much. You do a very good work Tom, keep it up.

A question: will the Zodiac video be avaliable on DVD in the future???

/ Jens

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 04:11 pm:

"...will the Zodiac video be avaliable on DVD in the future???"

Nope...

Thanks for the comments everyone. Keep 'em coming!

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:41 am:

Lambert, I appreciate your thoughts.

It's too bad that my most outspoken and aggressive enemies, Mario "Stromjunkie" Ferec and Dennis "Kenny Kilgore" Kaufman, can't put down their bongs long enough to show their true superiority by pointing out my many shortcomings.

Guys, all you have to do is type coherently and nothing will be deleted.

Well?

By Judy (Judy) (1cust114.tnt24.dca5.da.uu.net - 65.235.2.114) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 06:33 am:

Tom, I understand what you are saying. However,
many of my posts have been questions that I have
not been able to ascertain from the message board-
past and present.

Besides, the concept of the message board-in my
opinion- is to be able to establish a discussion.
Often, I just don't have the time to go back and
research a particular question or idea I have.
In essence, I have seen this happen to other posters as well. For people that are not up to date on all that has been said about the case, their posts are virtually ignored. This is the way the message board has always been- and I accept it. I still enjoy the site, and all that it has to offer.

By Mark Z (165.189.4.6) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 01:21 pm:

Tom,

I like the website and am a frequent visitor to see what people are thinking on this fascinating case. The issue about the years on threads is the only problem I have with the site. I understand that the software doesn't allow you to include the year, but might it permit you to sort by date of last post instead of first post? That would help make it clear what areas have received action lately (and yes, I use the messages last day and last week buttons)

M

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 01:52 pm:

If you use the "New Messages" feature, you will be shown only messages from the time frame you stipulate.

Hmmm...maybe I'm not understanding you, Mark.

By MarkZ (165.189.4.6) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 07:54 am:

What I meant was having the threads listing sort by the last post, instead of the first post. Not a big deal, though.

Taking a cue from another thread, I think a page listing and debunking Graysmith's misrepresentations would be useful to those of us not old Zodiac hands.

By Amy (ool-18bbf6ed.dyn.optonline.net - 24.187.246.237) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 04:16 pm:

Amen, Mark!

By Jennifer Adams (user16.net758.nc.sprint-hsd.net - 65.41.179.16) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 04:15 am:

Judy -

Tom is incredibly assistive via email, if you can't find something or have a question about anything. I found this out recently. :)

By Bookworm (Bookworm) (12-206-173-245.client.attbi.com - 12.206.173.245) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 10:57 am:

"...use the links on the navigation bar at the bottom of each page..."

Tom,
How do you get to the "Home Page" from the message board? I've been using the "Back" arrow button all the time. I know I must be doing something wrong.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 02:49 pm:

"How do you get to the "Home Page" from the message board?"

Well, if you're at the main message board page, you can click on the News Center link at the top of the page. Or, if you're in one of the various topics, you can click on the link that says "Return to Zodiackiller.com".

By Judy (Judy) (1cust245.tnt22.dca5.da.uu.net - 65.235.0.245) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 03:13 pm:

Thanks, Jennifer. I know how accessible Tom is.
However, I did email him to ask what IMHO stands
for- I am so clueless!!!- and did not hear back...

And, as I said earlier, some of my questions have
been for discussion sake, not just to be answered
directly by Tom. But, I realize as a novice, much
of what I say is old hat, and not really very
thought provoking. However, Tom and his site RULE!

Judy

By Bargle (pcp03606092pcs.shrpsr01.tn.comcast.net - 68.47.254.140) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

IMHO is a common message board acronym (not just this board) standing for In My Humble Opinion.
Another one is IIRC, If I Remember Correctly.
There's probably a list of these somewhere on the 'net but I don't know where. Once I understood the idea, I was usually able to figure them out.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 05:12 pm:

Judy, sorry I didn't e-mail you back...I don't recall receiving it. There was a time when I didn't know what IMHO stood for either until someone helped me out, so I would have done the same with you.

By Judy (Judy) (1cust22.tnt19.dca5.da.uu.net - 67.249.204.22) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 08:45 am:

Thank you, Bargle. I appreciate your response.

Tom, not to worry. It was in the email I sent you
on 4-14-03. But, I know you have more important
things to be concerned about, than my lack of
knowledge on internet jargon.

Judy

By Bargle (pcp03606092pcs.shrpsr01.tn.comcast.net - 68.47.254.140) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 02:44 pm:

Your welcome, Judy. There's always a first time on this stuff for everyone, me included.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 03:01 pm:

Anyone else have some feedback?

By Amy (ool-18bbf6ed.dyn.optonline.net - 24.187.246.237) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 04:03 pm:

Among the "Suspects" page, perhaps you could include information about Mike Rodelli's suspect, since he's apparently been taken seriously by certain law enforcement agencies. I realize the suspect can't be named, but some of the relevant information on him might be made available. The story of how Mike arrived at his suspect is rather intriguing and easily missed on the message boards unless you're specifically looking for it. Just a thought.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 04:13 pm:

Amy, in the past I've attempted to circumvent crucial info about yet-unnamed supects at my website. It doesn't work very well and I don't like changing (or ignoring) crucial details.

In this case, the suspect in incredibly wealthy and I don't need the potential hassles.

Mike Rodelli has included his e-mail address with his latest posts and perhaps he'd be willing to answer your questions in private: DT3mfc@aol.com

By Amy (ool-18bbf6ed.dyn.optonline.net - 24.187.246.237) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 05:41 pm:

Thanks, Tom. I e-mailed him a few days ago, and hope to hear from him when he has a chance to read it.

By Ed_N (acc6d390.ipt.aol.com - 172.198.211.144) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 07:02 pm:

Amy, Rodelli will probably conveniently and conspicuously neglect to mention that I was the one who discovered "Citizen Q," not he. Beyond what has already been mentioned here on the board, I'm not certain what else could possibly be said without giving everything away. The last thing anyone needs is to be slapped with a lawsuit by this guy, which he has promised if his name were made public.

The other thing is, to the best of my knowledge, no one has seriously considered "Citizen Q" as a potential suspect. Rodelli and I met with Lt. Bruton of SFPD in 1999 as well as NSD in 2000, and neither were particularly impressed at all. Rodelli's presumably carried on investigating him, and may have forwarded his report to other authorities, but considering the guy's a megamillionaire, I doubt anyone in law enforcement really cares anyway.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (206.191.69.149) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

Let's also inform anyone who did not see the ABC special that Citizen Q graciously gave his DNA to be tested which did not match. Not that a no-match 100% rules someone out, but CQ laughed at the idea that is was him and did not pack his bags and leave the country fearing a match.

By Ed_N (acc6d390.ipt.aol.com - 172.198.211.144) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 12:32 am:

If he was Z, he would have known that DNA could possibly ID him, and so would have told them they needed a warrant to get his DNA. The fact that he freely volunteered it, rather than his DNA not matching, tells me he's innocent and not Z.

Meanwhile, back to the feedback...

By Area51 (12.149.96.246) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 04:17 am:

I have been a long time lurker..this is the best Zodiac site out there. I think that Tom handles the board and topic extremly well and tries to guide things back to where they are supposed to be. Kudos to Tom.

By staciejaye (asiu46lsy55oj.ab.hsia.telus.net - 66.222.137.63) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:32 pm:

i have some feedback for you tom.
this is the first time i've been to this website, i had seen you in an interview on tv and that was the first i heard of it. upon first inspection the site seems very well organized and informative. i clicked on a link to a message board with the Bullitt theory (i know, it's old now) and i was not happy about the way you spoke to someone named peter. you mentioned a theory (seems to be a silly one at that) about z's escape from the cabbies murder being a Z on the map, and he replied that all simple routes on a grid are z's or l's. you seemed really annoyed that he mentioned that and asked him to take a break from messaging. why are you so defensive?? you don't seem to take criticism well, and yet you ask ppl for it...
he was obviously disagreeing with your theory...does everyone have to agree with your pet theories on the subject??

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

"he was obviously disagreeing with your theory"

Re-read the thread, Staciejaye: I reacted the way I did to Peter because of his condescending comments, not because he disagreed with my theory.

I presented the whole Bullitt deal because I felt it would be interesting to people who visit this site, not necessarily because I believe it myself. I still feel it's interesting.

By staciejaye (asiu46lsy55oj.ab.hsia.telus.net - 66.222.137.63) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 06:03 pm:

ok, i understand...

"i reacted the way i did to peter because of his condescending comments..."

you are sometimes condescending yourself, no? but if ppl get upset with you for your comments, you are above it.

i see now...

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 06:06 pm:

I'm glad you get the point...that way I don't have to explain it again.

By staciejaye (asiu46lsy55oj.ab.hsia.telus.net - 66.222.137.63) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 06:10 pm:

hmmm...maybe i like you after all...

By Scream187 (hse-quebeccity-ppp3497223.sympatico.ca - 65.92.226.156) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 07:44 pm:

Tom, you said you would like to know why i think sometime you can be an ass, well beeing an ass might not be the right word. "Harsh" would be better.

You speak your mind in a very direct way which sometimes can offend some people. Some people like brutal honesty some not too much, just be careful with that in life hehe.

I dont have problems with you personaly, I'm just saying what I think from how you react with others.

PS: please ban zander's ip or something... such a waste of time/space...

Good job on the site once again.

PPS: I saw you on tv hehe, that tlc show. It means you're doing something right with the site.

By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (12-210-225-42.client.attbi.com - 12.210.225.42) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 04:46 am:

Hi Tom:

Geez. I've just been looking over the board. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your open-door policy? It sure attracts some . . .

Mike

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 04:48 am:

Mike, I figure I'm doing society a favor by keeping the loons busy. Sure, the ratings for Springer might decrease, but that's the price we pay...

By Tom Voigt (Admin) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 11:39 am:

Anyone else with feedback?

By AmberDawn (wnpgmb0127w-cc01-v981.mts.net - 142.161.0.91) on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 03:37 pm:

Tom,
I would just like to comment on your speedy and friendly email replies. I have always found you reply promptly to any emails and are very friendly and helpful with any questions. Also I found you very helpful and patient when I've ordered items from Canada (especially when one didn't arrive and you quickly sent it to me again). Keep up the good work and keep those updates comin'!

By AmberDawn (wnpgmb0127w-cc01-v981.mts.net - 142.161.0.91) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 06:14 pm:

I forgot to mention however that it would be nice to see the MB return to mainly zodiac discussion(as it was before) instead of some certain morons posting useless personal attacks on you and other posters. That being said in order for the MB to return to how it was before you would probably have to get rid of the public posting and innocent ppl would loose their chance to post because of some ppl with too much time on their hands. But if there was a way you could get rid of the "certain somebodies" only that would be an improvement IMHO.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 06:21 pm:

"But if there was a way you could get rid of the "certain somebodies" only that would be an improvement IMHO."

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for your feedback, Amber.

By Richard Pearce (144.139.107.88) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 04:12 am:

G'Day Tom, Ive sent you a few emails over the last 8-9 months (Beltway Sniper-New DNA Technique) from Australia. Before I comment on your site, I'll tell you why I'm here, and why I have visited your site for nearly 2 years. I got involved in a SK case in 1997 in Oz, and are still involved today.
Early 1998, my wife came home with a small book called World Famous Unsolved Murders, in which the latest and last dated case in the book was the Zodiac. Now dont regurgitate, but it covered an overview of TIMES 17 and Gareth Penn. To cut a long story short, I have gained a lot of knowledge about SK cases from the above and your site. One of my sisters managed to order Times 17 and had it sent to me as a b'day gift. I had to read it twice to make more sense of it! Then I found your site and realised there were a few more facts to learn about the Zodiac case. I look at it every second day and must say I admire the time, effort and organisation you put in to it. I would like to have an opinion now and then, so thaks for the oppotunity to do so. On the down side, you sometimes come across as the school principal caning all the students, but they can handle it!!!

By thechaos (cpe00e0988b9aca-cm014200016952.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com - 24.157.182.92) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 01:24 am:

Tom. Just briefly went through the entire site (about 2 hours now). I've actually been here twice in the past few years out of curiousity. Its become something of a collusus now hasn't it though? All I can say is I enjoyed the read. I'll be back.

By rick Miller (proxy.ia3.marketscore.com - 66.119.33.135) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 04:29 pm:

Tom,

Just wanted to say that I enjoy your site immensely and appreciate the opportunity to contribute from time to time. Keep up the good work(I especially like the update board!)

Thanks,

Rick

By George In MD (cache-rp06.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.253.38) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:58 pm:

The board is superb. I believe there is more information available at this site than anywhere on the 'Net. Or in book stores.

The threads on the board for the registered are usually fairly strictly monitored by Tom. I don't
(now) see any other way the board could be run: As has been stated, a loosely run board would quickly become a nest of cutesy Internet expressions and topic titles such as "Hey! My neighbor just had her tenth child! Let's all say "Hello!" The board would be cheapened if this were the case.

As long as the space is there, keeping up old posts is a * great * thing to do. Many professionals have posted information which remains valuable.

By ZK (cpe-66-191-53-066.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.191.53.66) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

I would like to compliment the site and also announce my retirement, not only from the case, but from computers. It's time to move on. When someone says a dud-bomb is a lie cause it didn't explode, I'll admit that that influences me to not want to participate, but there are still a lot of positives to the site, such as reading the letters etc. At any rate, good luck with all your futures. Zerlock/Zander Kolumbo/Kite

By Howard Davis (Howard) (64.30.222.112.lcinet.net - 64.30.222.109) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:11 pm:

I have said it so many times,but I will say it again- this is the foremost site on the Zodiac case.Everything about this excellent site merits praise.No one knows the hard work that went into its development except Tom Voigt-but its fine presentation is apparent to all,both friend and foe alike and can be,at least partially, summed up by the following:
If we can advance propositions both true and new,these are our own by right of discovery:and if can repeat what is old ,more briefly and brightly than others,this also becomes our own,by right of conquest.
Colton

By George In MD (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.208.167) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 03:47 am:

Judy wrote My only beef regards people (like myself) who
enjoy posting- but are lightyears behind the
veterans of the Zodiac saga. Unfortunately, our
lack of knowledge and experience with all the
information regarding this case, often causes our posts to be dismissed or ignored.


This hit home with me but it's human nature and brainpower. There are perhaps a dozen names I read
frequently, people who write so well (thus evincing their intelligence) that I am awe-struck
and intimidated at the same time. Many have come here (Public Discussion) and demonstrated a lot of patience with new and newer Zodiac enthusiasts. It is becoming and does them credit.

I collect old sheet music and, technically, since I was paid all of $30 per article in what I'll pretentiously call a "trade magazine" from 1994-1996 I'm a "professional" writer. Don't know about "professional" but I am advanced as a collector. The comparison is that frequently I'll be on the phone
with someone new or nearly new and throw out terms they don't understand, speak of advanced collectors they have not heard of and so forth. I tend to forget that they are new and when I realize I'm speaking with a tyro I finally slow down and answer some questions. However, much like those advanced Zodiac researchers, it's also nice to keep up to date with my advanced collector
freinds. This all sounds like a boatload of treacle but I'm serious.

One final thing about the site. It's a labor of love, and it shows.

By Oddball (Oddball) (pcp02495070pcs.flrnc01.al.comcast.net - 68.62.174.172) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 04:29 pm:

Fantastic site, Tom. I've enjoyed it immensely over the last four years.

By jeffrey (c-67-164-217-194.client.comcast.net - 67.164.217.194) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 12:11 am:

Ok, I just read through this entire thread and I do have a few things to say-

First- Tom, your site is wonderful, I first discovered it about two years ago and spent a few months absorbing all the info(at the time I didn't even notice the message board!)-it's completely obvious the love you have for this case and ALL the information that resides with it. Thank you for your hard work (time/money) in bringing this info to all.

Second, if the public post didn't exist, I and probably hundreds of others with a true love for this case, wouldn't be able to comment. First, and foremost, this is Tom's site- if he wants to edit posts it's his right(my first post ever was on subject matter off the original thread- Tom responded(asked me to start a new thread)-and then he deleted my original post-I was not offended). I, for one, thank God for the public post-and Tom, to you I say, edit and delete on the public post as you see fit-but please keep it active and alive!

Once again, thanks Tom, for all that you have done to keep this case in the public eye, I have nothing but kudo's to say to you.

jeff

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) (netcache-2002.public.lawson.webtv.net - 209.240.198.61) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 02:04 am:

Victor here...
To Jefferey; I totally agree. As I've said before, "Tom's ZODIACKILLER.COM site is the coolest site on the net!"
And that's saying alot!

By Rio (line07a5.kdt.de - 195.8.255.165) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 06:09 am:

I agree very much, this site is FANTASTIC.

]8~)

By scott (dialup-67.73.16.74.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.16.74) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 03:10 pm:

Tom, I should add my two cents worth-- this site is great and you've really done a service to our culture by maintaining it (hopefully at not much peril to your financial health).

I think our sense of history is being eaten alive by the current media/cultural climate in which nothing more than a few weeks old is worthy of any study. Your site keeps alive a fascinating and shocking series of events that force us to reckon with themes barely heard of much less known about. Like: what exactly was the Miss Firecracker contest in Vallejo that Darlene Ferrin ushered her sister to the night she was killed? The meaning behind such a contest would be lost without someone who decides that history is worth the trouble of picking apart and studying. Never mind your fight to get some sort of justice for the people Zodiac murdered.

The one thing I really love is the way the site is organized and the graphics you have assembled. They blow other theme-based sites away.

By Nick W (dsc01-oav-ca-5-182.rasserver.net - 207.94.108.182) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 06:41 pm:

I would agree that zodiackiller.com is the best site on this subject, however, it's been dead and stagnant for quite some time. There just has not been any revelations about the case to sink one's teeth into for too too long. We all owe a debt to Tom Voigt for bringing us this far. Thank You!

By Lambért (sf6-095.du.bitex.com - 195.34.103.95) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 01:10 pm:

zodiackiller.com is a great site I agree.

By N Sync (206.117.236.226) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

This website needs to be run in an uncensored manner otherwise a lot of good ideas get lost. No wonder there is a lot of grumbling. If you don't like the postings by certain people relegate them to one title but don't delete them its a waste of the audience's time and yours. Hard copy rules ideas are gained only by looking at data not trying to divine it from the ether. It may look like a mish mash but the pieces start to fall into place only if the atmosphere is open to debate it and write about it.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 03:17 pm:

Question: Exactly how would you know the content of the posts I'm deleting, anyway? I'd say you're being a tad presumptuous.

My policy is as follows: If a post is confrontational or has nothing to do with the Zodiac case, it gets deleted. Very simple.

If I were you, instead of questioning the policy I'd be wondering why that handful of individuals who routinely get deleted can't seem to get with this very easy program.

By Jonathan Turbide (modemcable060.198-130-66.que.mc.videotron.ca - 66.130.198.60) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 09:24 am:

This is the best site ever mr Voigt. it's very incrdeible how you have work to give us the most complete site about the Zodiac. i hope you will keep the good work and take care of yourself.
jonathan
lezodiackiller@hotmail.com

By andy cherry (pm587-37.dialip.mich.net - 207.74.111.47) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:09 pm:

Mr. Voigt, I was curious, and this is by no means a slight to you, do you have a family and if so how do they relate to your involvement in this case? I dont necessarily mean a wife and kids, but your siblings or parents. In addition, when i work long hours on a specific subject i have dreams or i obsess, does this happen to you and do you have a job that is more conventional? This is my first post and if it is too personal in content i will understand, but I just dont quite understand what you "get" out of all the inherent problems that arise out of committing oneself to a project such as this. If you feel this line of questioning is out of line feel free to let me know and i wont approach the subject again.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:17 pm:

I don't understand why you are posting personal questions for me in a feedback thread. If you have questions for me, please e-mail them.

By andy cherry (pm678-12.dialip.mich.net - 207.74.112.70) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:39 pm:

I apologize tom, the feedback on your site should go without saying. You allow people to speak their mind, as well as comment on things you know to be ridiculous. Im not trying to kiss your ass or anything, i just give credit where it is due. You should be proud at what you are trying to accomplish-- your site facilitates free thought, theories, and ideas. I know of no better medium at the present that will, in time, facilitate a definate answer to the identity of this killer.

By Gregusjay (Gregusjay) (12-234-233-242.client.attbi.com - 12.234.233.242) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:57 pm:

I could have sworn I posted positive feedback here...Maybe it was a different thread..
But thanks to Tom for all the info..and keeping the Z info fresh and in people's minds..

By John Pruitt (206.15.40.222) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 07:29 am:

Tom..This is the best website ive ever come along by far. Being up to date with facts and discussions keeps me glued to the site at least 3 times a day. Ive followed this site for almost 2 yrs now and am finally voicing opinion on the message board. Please dont bog this site up with other unsolved cases like someone suggested. Please keep your eye on the prize and lets solve this thing.

By Donald R. (sdn-ap-014caburbp0174.dialsprint.net - 63.191.8.174) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 06:44 pm:

I'll keep my comments short and to the point.
I really like the site, especially for the wealth of photos and documents on the case, which really help to bring the individuals and events involved to life.
Also, one short question and an apology:Mr.Voigt, what do you think of the likelihood of Lawrence Kane being the Zodiac Killer? The reason I ask is, having read the report on Kane, it certainly seems that there may be a strong possibility that he was Z.
Continued Good Luck With the Site.
Donald Rilea@bakuninmeow@hotmail.com.

By Rev (24.64.144.190) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 09:18 am:

Kudos Mr.Voigt......someday you'll crack this case.....and this is a good way to go about it....

By Julia (Julia) (user-2ivfmdu.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.247.217.190) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 06:43 pm:

I think zodiackiller.com is one of the finest websites I've ever encountered. From the overall design and structure to the visual style and layout, it is superbly done. Everything is easily understandable and navigable, and I've never encountered even a single bug or functional problem.

If you really study this website, you'll know as much about the Zodiac case as it may be possible to know without an active investigative agenda (and you'd find people to get that going with too, I daresay.)

The message board is fascinating. What a remarkable and eclectic group of people post here! This is a thinking person's website, as George humorously observed above, and I'm grateful for it.

Now, I know some folks have criticized Tom for his people skills, but I disagree. Seems to me he handles a sometimes unruly or downright loony element with an appropriately sharp tongue. If you act like an obnoxious brat, expect to be treated as such.

In any case, it's his website, and I offer the analogy of visiting someone's house: be yourself, express your views freely where it's appropriate to do so, but observe the stated rules, customs, etc. Not to mention common courtesy!

Such a tremendous amount of hard work and passionate commitment has gone into this enterprise. I am very impressed, and I think if this case ever IS solved, it'll be through zodiackiller.com in some way or other.

Julia