Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Eyewitnesses?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wf052.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 01:17 pm:|
Did anybody see Dateline NBC on April 16th, 2001?
Not that it dealt with Zodiac DIRECTLY, however the subject dealt with the credibility and usefulness of eyewitness testimony. Viewers were allowed to participate via the web, and the subjects in the experiment were law students.
I was amazed by the results that they found. Apparently eyewitness testimony is ALOT trickier than one would truly think.
At one point in the program, they talked about the King Bank robbery that took place in Denver in the early '90s. The man that FIVE eyewitnesses fingered as the perpetrator was eventually found NOT GUILTY. The defense had demonstrated how EASY it was for all of the eyewitnesses to become confused merely because the real perpetrator had used a simple DISGUISE which consisted of a hat, sunglasses, and a false moustache.
Needless to say, this got me to thinking about our boy Zodiac. He'd used a simple disguise, am I right? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Here are the BASICS of my conclusions based upon this Dateline eyewitness experiment:
1. Unless Mike Mageau knew who the killer was, there's NO WAY he could have given an accurate description of Zodiac. At night, a light being shined in his face, Z in disguise and "doing his thing," a brief glimpse of Z as he entered his own car to leave the scene. Sorry folks, IMPOSSIBLE!
2. As for the cops and teenagers on the night of the Stine murder: Again, dark street, Z in disguise, the police not realizing until LATER that they'd probably spoken to Z. If the two patrolmen had been looking for a black man at the time that they'd talked with Z, then chances are highly unlikely that they'd paid him much attention, despite the fact that they were police officers. In all likelihood, the only thing that would have stood out to the two cops would have been the disguise itself. We don't have composite sketches of the Zodiac, we have composite sketches of his disguise.
3. Kathleen Johns probably spent the most time with Z, so what about her description? Basically, AS ABOVE. The only thing that would have likely registered in her memory is the very thing that was designed to throw her off: Z's disguise.
In the King case mentioned above, all five of the eyewitnesses and the entire jury couldn't identify a picture of HARRISON FORD simply because the defense attorney had altered his image with three simple items. HMMMM.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta014.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 01:57 pm:|
Scott: I once saw a show many years ago not unlike the one you saw, and it was all set
up with a hidden camera, etc. An actor was the "purse snatcher," and when the
"cops" arrived to get statements, the eyewitnesses described the perp as wearing
clothes he was not, and so on. The most fascinating thing was that, even though the
"perp" said nothing at all, many of the eyewitnesses "remembered" that
he said something. The camera, which recorded everything, proved that he did not.
Memory is a very tricky thing anyway, and with a disguise (assuming that Z was wearing one), I don't believe any eyewitness can be relied upon to ID anyone after more than three decades.
We've discussed some aspects of this some months back, specifically, some people thought that Foukes would be a good eyewitness in a possible Z trial. I pointed out the absurdity of it, ie, if Foukes and Zelms actually spoke with Z (which is questionable), and since they only saw him for 10-15 seconds in the fog at night while they were looking for a black man, how can anyone possibly believe Foukes if he ID'd someone as Z 32 years after the fact?
Imagine Foukes on the stand today (assuming that Z spoke to him): "Yes, your honor, I saw him at a distance in the fog at night for several seconds while we were looking for someone else, we stopped and spoke for about ten seconds, and even though it was THIRTY-TWO years ago, I'll never forget the face nor the voice of the man we weren't looking for! That's the man I saw right there!" He'd be laughed off the stand.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wf052.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 03:21 pm:|
The show I saw was very similar to the one you described seeing. A "purse snatcher" entered the classroom, full of law students, made himself visible for a full ten seconds, grabbed the purse and ran out of the room. Later in the show, the students and television viewers were given the chance to identify the perp via a photo line up. Only 12% of the "eyewitnesses" (students and TV viewers) correctly answered that the suspect they saw wasn't in the photos they/we were shown. The other 88% were all quick to finger SOMEBODY within the line up because they ASSUMED that the suspect HAD to be in one of the photographs. Otherwise, they assumed, why would the police be showing the photographs to them in the first place?
And this was within hours of seeing the perp, let alone 32 years later.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wf052.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 03:27 pm:|
Ps. If Z was wearing a disguise, then chances are that he looked NOTHING like ANY of the composite drawings. Hence, my reference to the King bank robbery case. Thanks for the feedback.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (200.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 04:52 pm:|
The beauty of it is that if you wear, say, an extra layer of clothing or two, and a couple of witnesses describe you as "stocky," those witnesses' testimony will be forever suspect when you're captured and turn out to be thin.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-mtc-te024.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 05:48 pm:|
Scott: that's sad, really sad, that only 12% or three people out of twenty-five
would actually take the time to look at a lineup and critically examine the mugshots vs.
their memories. Pathetic, actually. And eyewitness testimony can put someone behind bars?
The show I saw had a "purse snatcher" run through a small group of people and grab a woman's purse outside of what appeared to be a shopping mall. This way, there were a bunch of people who didn't know each other, rather than a bunch of students who did. But the end result was the same.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tf044.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 06:01 pm:|
Doug: Kind of reminds me of Mike Mageau on 7/5/69. What was up with that whole
Ed N: Your right, it was very disheartening. The height descriptions alone varied from 5'7" to 6'2". Can you actually believe that! Scary.
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0822.stbg.splitrock.net - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 08:43 pm:|
....insomuch as your beauty is fading, a timeout really should be called... It seems
as if some consider Arthur Allen to be but a shooting Starr fading into oblivion. However
I consider him a top suspect. One thing I heard regarding Mr. Allens earliest clearing was
that he had substantial facial hair and that was one of the reasons for his dismissol.
Does anyone know about this? If it was after the Lake B incident it wouldn't proove much.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac9c58a2.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 08:57 pm:|
Have you even read The Arthur Leigh Allen File? I have documented Allen's first
encounter with police as a Zodiac suspect, and even show the report. There is no
indication in the report that Allen had abundant facial hair.
You really need to use the "Check Spelling!" function when posting messages.
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0822.stbg.splitrock.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 09:10 pm:|
Sorry about that. I had that info from a friend who's into the case. It was his mistake. I will definitely take your account first. Will check my spelling from now on. Thanks.
|By Kevin (Kevinrm) (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 10:39 pm:|
That being said, the sketch artist Jeanne Boylan has an uncanny ability to get an accurate composite. Her likeness of Polly Klass's kidnapper, among others, was incredible. I wish there was a way to get her to sit down with the teenagers at the Stein scene...
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-td061.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 12:17 am:|
It would be great, but I suspect that too many decades have passed. Too bad she wasn't around in 1969. Either way, I doubt the then teens would be interested in cooperating, even if it meant getting a more accurate composite and possible ID.
|By Mark (Mark) (140-127-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 04:16 am:|
Yes it is really disheartening to see just how unreliable eyewitnesses are, I remember seeing a show on the JFK assassination and how two witnesses saw the shooting of policeman Tippett. Not only did they not agree on one single piece of clothing they had the shooter running away in opposite directions!! Yes I would agree that Mike Mageau did know his attacker and two different detectives said in Tom's Zodiac video that they believed that he wasn't coming across with everything that he knew. It looks very doubtful that eyewitnesses will ever solve this case but hopefully DNA can!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tj014.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 09:15 am:|
I'm almost FULLY convinced that DNA is the ONLY thing that we now have at our disposal
that could ever solve the case of the Zodiac. Composite drawings, after 32 years, and IF Z
were wearing a disguise at the time of the known crimes, would be virtually useless. We've
had composite drawings for three decades, and where has it gotten us? That's why Tom's
update yesterday was, for me at least, so exciting. I also feel confidant in saying that
there is a really good likelihood that Arthur Leigh Allen was the man. Think about it.
He's the ONLY suspect who's ever been issued a search warrant (3 times, to boot) out of a
possible 2500 suspects. The police were breathing down his neck until the time of his
death in 1992, and then their balls-out investigation dwindles following ALA's death.
Seems rather odd to me, unless the police were in essence saying, "We are very
comfortable in our beliefs that Zodiac was Allen. No sense in wasting tax payers dollars
now that he is dead." It just seems very strange to me, and somehow, not very
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-tj034.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 01:00 pm:|
Allen --too tall and too bald is the feeling I hear from most people.
Also think about it --he brutally murders all these people but gently molests little girls, and can confound the public, law enforcement, etc., but cannot get out of a simple molestation charge.
Furthurmore Allen had a B.A., teaching credential,etc. and with all that classroom time would never have made the stupid spelling errors that Z did.
Read Kelleher's profile. As a teacher, I see youth with these errors, they are almost always dyslexic (dys. people are very bright like Zodiac was (is), but hate school and have often been mercilessly teased.) Kelleher got that one right so I think he may be on the right trackand his profile is far from Allen's. (And on a different planet than Ted K's.)
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tc042.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 01:18 pm:|
Handwriting errors can always be made on purpose. As for Kelleher's profile, I have to admit, I'm not familiar with it. I'll read it.
As for Allen's baldness: Could the crew cut hair have been part of his disguise? As for his height, read the post I left entitled "Eyewitnesses?" I think you might find it rather disturbing.
Let me Know.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tc042.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 01:25 pm:|
Sorry Sylvie: I thought I was responding on a different thread. Eyewitness accounts, as far as height goes, is subjective and often misleading. Someone who is 5'10" might appear 6'4" to someone who is 5'2". I apologize for the previous misunderstanding.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac9ba111.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 02:39 pm:|
Sylvie, you really need to do more reading and less posting:
1) Zodiac's spelling errors are universally considered to have been made on purpose.
2) As far as Allen being "too tall" to be Zodiac, that is pure rubbish. Allen was under 6'0". Why reference posts that consider 6'0" to be too tall?
3) Like most peds, Allen probably molested scores of kids. The fact that he only got caught once is a rather impressive display of deviance.
|By Mike (Mike) (ckcfpxy1.att.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 06:39 am:|
Don't let ZK annoy you with his obviously intentional misspellings. I suspect that there are other posts in which he spells those same words correctly. ;)
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0712.stbg.splitrock.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 09:16 am:|
Slvie, you are too quick in dismissing perhaps the 2 strongest suspects in the case,
Allen and Kazcinski. Eyewitness accounts in the Zodiac case were brief or at a distance.
Mr. allen can't be ruled out because he's not a perfect match. That's the reality of
composites. Profiling is a good way not to solve a case. In fact Kazcinski didn't fit the
profile of Unabomber (they were sure Una was 28 in 1978, but he was 36). Ted was on the
Una suspect list and may have been reigned in sooner if not for profiling.
As far as Ted being on another planet as a suspect. Both behaved more like terrorists than conventional serial killers. Both attempted to kill male or female without sexual molestation. Both were into bomb making and letter writing. And if you take off the glasses of the first Stine sketch, Teds eye area seems to match well with the composite.
Mike, I can spell most words- flibbertigibbet.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wq062.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 10:35 am:|
ZK: In your response to Sylvie you said, "Mr. Allen can't be ruled out because
he's not a perfect match. That's the reality of composites." Then, in your second
paragraph, you said, "if you take off the glasses of the first Stine sketch, Teds eye
area seems to match well with the composite." Am I mistaken, or is this a blatant
The reason I started this conversation in the first place was to try to demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is virtually useless unless the investigators of a crime account for all of the complicated variables of such testimony. As I said in an earlier post, eyewitness recollections are typically useless when the suspect is in disguise, as Zodiac probably was on the night of the Stine murder. Do you really think you can conclude ANYTHING when comparing a photograph (Ted K) to a composite drawing of Zodiac who, as previously stated, was in all probability wearing a disguise at the time of Stine's murder?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 11:06 am:|
Regarding Kaczynski, there is one single aspect of the composites that I find
compelling enough to consider. The woman who spied Kaczynski planting a bomb in Salt Lake
City provided a fairly generic composite sketch that actually didn't resemble Kaczynski at
all. A number of years later, one of the more famous composite artists sat down with the
woman, interviewed her extensively, and produced the famous Unabomber composite that was
seen by millions following the 1995 campaign. The only real difference (other than an
underbite) gleaned from that interview was the large, prominent lower jaw that turned out
to have been right on the money.
Whether you believe the police stopped and spoke with Zodiac on the night of the Stine murder, or simply saw him in passing, the fact remains that the single most compelling difference between the first and second composites is the large, heavy lower jaw that is a dead ringer for both the Unabomber composite and Kaczynski. Something precipitated that amendation to the original. I doubt it was simply the artist's caprice.
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0731.stbg.splitrock.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:27 pm:|
Scott, I have seen composites that were very close and some that were not. Zodiac may
have altered his appearance that night, however I think people should consider the
composite to at least be roughly what Z looks like.
And, similar to what Doug has written, I think facial bone structure is the hardest feature to disguise ? I think Ted resembles the composite more than the other suspects (bruce Davis is good also). My main point was composites and eye witness descriptions shouldn't be used to dismiss a suspect if he is reasonably close (which is what Slyvie was doing with Allen).
However I think you err when writing an eye witness account is useless if he is disguised. For example Charles Manson can be virtually dismissed because at 5'1", he's very unlikely. You see my point. Also if police interviewed possible suspects the next day, any suspect with abundant facial hair could be eliminated in this case, as it were.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac93ac20.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:47 pm:|
"Facial bone structure" from a distance of 60 feet? At night? From a
second-story window to the street below?
I have yet to speak with a detective that has felt an accurate, detailed composite could come from such circumstances.
Ed and I were at the scene in February, and a couple of guys walked by. It wasn't even foggy, I wasn't excited or under stress, and yet there was no way I could have noticed specific features...at least not accurately.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 01:38 pm:|
Tom, the fact remains that the SFPD felt compelled to amend the original composite, and one of the most glaring details of the amendment was the large, square jaw. The artist would have had no reason to make such a change unless he had been advised that this was a salient feature of the suspect's countenance. It's too specific to have been made arbitrarily. At least I hope so. It wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in police forensics to think otherwise.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 01:40 pm:|
For direct comparisons, see http://home.att.net/~mignarda/p10.html and http://home.att.net/~mignarda/p11.html
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac87e8f1.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 03:26 pm:|
My information indicates the original composite was amended without help from the
The artist merely attempted to make the suspect appear older and heavier than in the original drawing.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 03:40 pm:|
So, did Foukes or Zelms offer any kind of input at all? Even through an intermediary?
Or was the older/heavier direction suggested by the kids?
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac87e8f1.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 03:46 pm:|
When patrolmen Foukes and Zelms came forward, they prepared a report of their
encounter which was passed along to Toschi and Armstrong. Toschi and Armstrong notified
the composite artist, who used the report of the patrolmen to amend his original sketch.
To give you an idea of how disorganized they were, on the amended poster the estimated height of the suspect was listed as 5'8"!
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 03:56 pm:|
I guess that's the report that Graysmith quotes at the APB site, then -- the one about
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta054.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 09:15 pm:|
I must commend you on a most interesting site, very fascinating.
A few thoughts though. One reason that I have completely discounted TK as a potential Z is that the FBI officially cleared him as a suspect.(Unlike say Allen or Kane). Now I am not saying they cannot be wrong but as I've said before I'd like to have a little faith in Law Enforcement.
Also, I agree that the upgraded sketch resembles TedK much more but it really misses the one feature that I would have noticed--his prominent nose.
I do not understand TK wanting a sex-change surgery if he is not gay.(whatever)
In your site you mention the CJB killing plenty--but what is the evidence that TK had any connection to Riverside?
Note to ZK and Tom: It is uncanny how there are those people that are extremely visual and are very good at noticing details,
my first boyfriend could tell me exactly what I had worn on whichever date months later.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac860505.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 09:59 pm:|
Noticing details? Give me a break.
Those kids would have needed Bruce Lee Vision and total recall.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-52.linkline.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:22 am:|
"I LOOK LIKE the DESCRIPTION passed out[poster]ONLY when I do my thing,the rest
of the time I look ENTIRL[entirely] DIFFERENT. I shall not tell you what my descise
consists of when I kill." 11/9/69 (EMP mine)
Two things here: Zodiac AFFIRMS the S.F.witnesses description[poster] of his person i.e. they got it RIGHT-including height; and they got it wrong-he'looked like'the wanted poster-the same one Kathleen Johns saw and ID'd-in disguise- ONLY when he killed!And the rest of the time he looked like Allen, Grant, Kane, Davis,O'Hare,Crabtree,Ramsey(rh!)OJ and the Unabomber, etc, etc.
Do we see WHY we have one of the greatest unsolved cases of all time?And if Zodiac was so"stupid" why haven't we smart" people convicted him?One(just one -there are plenty!) of the reasons is that he wore a "descise"!
Take note-the experts are still debating what Jack the Ripper'looked like'and that started in 1888!
|By Linda (Linda) (207-172-73-161.s161.tnt1.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 04:30 am:|
Sylvie... I do not think the FBI has "officially" cleared TK as being Z
because I don't think they even "officially" considered him for the part... or,
for that matter, even took time to "start" an investigation of him as a Z
Douglas... how much investigation into Ted being Z has actually been performed... if any...
|By Mark (Mark) (121-125-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 05:06 am:|
Once again Howard has hit the nail on the head, yes I suppose it's interesting to
debate how close certain suspects different features are similar to the posters but in 30
plus years where
has that gotten anybody? This case is complex enough without theorizing on this blind alley, the eyewitnesses won't solve anything only continue to confuse.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tj084.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 07:09 am:|
A guy with short hair can can wear a long-hair wig; Z must have been either bald
wearing a crew-cut wig (a tough one) or had short hair just like in the composite.
Likewise with facial hair: he was probably cleanshaven. He might also have stuffed cotton
balls in his cheeks to appear fatter, but the only feature in the composite that could be
easily added or removed were Z's glasses.
The Cherry St. witnesses described a man with glasses, but Foukes didn't mention such glasses in his report. My guess is that Z's disguise consisted of nothing more elaborate than a pair of dark-rimmed eyeglasses, which he removed upon leaving the scene.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (219.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 07:41 am:|
Don't forget the extra clothing. Loose pants with a pair of sweatpants underneath and
a larger than normal jacket with a sweatshirt underneath would be just the thing, and
forever confound the case.
Sylvie, in answer to your question about Kaczynski's prominent nose, I have to concur with what Howard said above. No one is going to get a conviction in this case with eyewitness descriptions. They might be valid to draw suspicion toward a suspect, or even reinforce a suspicion, but that's about it.
So far as Ted being gay, there's no indication of it anywhere in the corpus of information available regarding his past. All of his failed attempts at romance were directed toward the female sex. I believe he contemplated the sex change because of his frustration over not being able to live up to the masculine ideal. His decision to seek counseling regarding a sex change was precipitated by a one-month period during which he was constantly excited sexually and unable to obtain any relief.
His sex problems must have been particularly galling during his years at Berkeley, during a time when, as you mentioned before, everyone who wanted sex appeared to be getting some.
As for Riverside, while I realize that a lot of doubt has been cast upon Zodiac's participation in the murder, I'm still not convinced that he didn't have a hand in it. Even though it makes the case against Kaczynski much more difficult to substantiate, I think it's necessary to include Riverside in the discussion, until it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the Bates murder wasn't one of Zodiac's.
The frustrating thing is that, although it should be very easy for Kaczynski to provide us with an alibi for the Riverside events, he has failed to respond to my letter asking him for alibis.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wd014.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 09:58 am:|
Read up. Ted K (as according to the FBI crime files) was indeed investigated for the Zodiac crimes and officially cleared of them.An agent I know tells me there is a big difference between not being considered a viable suspect and "officially cleared".
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-wa012.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 10:30 am:|
Sylvie, where'd you find those FBI files? Are they online anywhere?
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (201.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 10:36 am:|
Linda, the FBI never officially investigated Ted K as a suspect in the Zodiac
case--that was done by the SFPD, who complained to me that the FBI dragged their feet on
providing the handwriting and fingerprint samples. Certain FBI agents opined that Ted K
wasn't Zodiac on the basis of the supposedly dissimilar M.O.s and the fact that Kaczynski
lived in Lombard, Illinois, during a number of the Zodiac events.
Beginning in 1996 a certain prolific poster to the newsgroup alt.fan.unabomber, a lawyer named Ross Getman, somewhat arrogantly set out to disprove any connection between Kaczynski and Zodiac. Nearly three years later, in a post to alt.fan.unabomber, he wrote:
Back at the time I was prattling on to Mignarda repeatedly about the absence of any evidence TK was in California for five clusters of events/mailings. (Yikes, it was almost two years ago).
Specifically, the absence of evidence that TK was in California should not be understood as evidence that he was somewhere else.
So far, there is *no* alibi evidence.
Special Agent Ricardo (I forget his last name) could confirm this and give you all the details if you email him. He may teach at Quantico, now, I can't remember.
I haven't been able to find out the identity of "Special Agent Ricardo," but I'm still trying. Getman spent considerable personal time trying to prove me wrong, but his contention that there was sure to be documentary evidence providing alibis for Ted turned out to be simply not the case, which he admitted to me.
|By Linda (Linda) (207-172-73-18.s18.tnt1.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 10:55 am:|
Ditto with Jake: Where are the FBI files that official "clear" TK as a Zodiac suspect?
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 11:03 am:|
Jake,I believe you are right about the wig and glasses. I have seen two of my suspects with shaved heads, and with hair that looked like wigs. The only one of them that constantly takes off his glass's, is Kane. Even DMV has only his face with out his glasses! As far as I know, the only picture of him with glass's, is the one that I took of him in 90. when he saw that I was about to take another picture of him, he took his glass's off. I have both pictures, the second picture was taken further away, about 10 ft. When people see that picture they almost always say: he is a tall guy isn't he? My first report of him following me in the bay area was in 88. I told the police he was at least 6ft tall. Then one day he came into my job and stood in front of me. he was much shorter! I noticed his legs were long but from the waist up, he was stocky and shorter. If he is for sure Z, then that could explain the difference in discriptions. His friend RH is also short, but not as stocky and with out the paunch kane has. The back of Kanes hair has a reddish tint that shows in the first picture I took of him. I saw him just the day before yesterday! He drove past me wearing a cowboy hat, I could see his mustache was not as thin, but a lot more gray. He either didn't see me, or he rather not cause me to go postal.I have had a lot of phone hang ups lately, only one of them, the person stayed on the line for about one minute then hung up. He will leave me something, to let me know he is still around. So far only a hulahoop on top of a tree rose in the back yard.It was windy the night before, so I thought perhaps the wind carried a hulahoop, and it landed on top of a 7ft tree? Sounds a bit crazy, (A lot) but the things that he has done to Pam and I are very strange indeed! Almost child like, maybe he thinks women are immature, so he has to play on what he thinks is their level? It works in his favor as far as the police. Who would believe a grown man, (And I use that word loosely)would do these things? For instance, someone wrote on a car that was once mine, the words fk u 7-4-69 and signed it Z----c. The policeman who saw it said : now why would a man do something like that!The four letters between z and c I couldn't make out, they were in a sloppy cursive style. That was the closest to anyone letting me know they were the z. It was written in a grease pen so the rain wouldn't wash it off.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wb013.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 11:26 am:|
I just read them, I wasn't fabricating anything.
I just have to find the exact site I found it in.
Doug, if Ted K was so desperate and that was seemingly the root of his difficulties, why didn't he just frequent prostitutes??
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wq061.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 12:32 pm:|
Howard, Mark, Jake, and Doug:
Thank you for concurring with me. All I ever set out to do with this conversation in the first place was to demonstrate how messy eyewitness testimony can be. If I'm hearing all of you correctly, we are all in agreement that Z will NEVER be correctly identified using eyewitness testimony, the amended composite sketch, and a photographic line up. The probability of error is far too great, especially at this juncture in the case. As I stated in my first post, we don't have a composite of Zodiac, we have a composite of Zodiac in disguise. Essentially, the amended Z composite is worthless.
ps. I am reading you guys correctly, right?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (140.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 12:54 pm:|
Sylvie, if he didn't frequent prostitutes it might have been for the same reason that
he didn't jump into bed with some hairy man and take it up his behind. Sorry to be so
blunt, but you force me to it. Besides, in order to have sex with a prostitute you have to
find one, solicit one and be in the same room (or alleyway) with one. Kaczynski wasn't up
Then, if you look at his writings, you'll clearly see that he was interested in more than sex. He wanted an enduring relationship that would lead to the happiness of family life.
Despite what you may believe, everything sexual doesn't boil down to mere physical sensation.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta022.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:22 pm:|
I don't think that Jake agreed with you. I think he's saying that Z's basic disguise were the eyeglasses, which I am inclined to agree with.
I still think that the best witness must be Kathleen, if you believe she was indeed a victim.
I do, because I can think of no reason why Zodiac (or anybody) would brag about driving around with a pregnant "woeman" and her baby for a couple of hrs.--whooptidoodah.
To add insult to injury, she gets away from him.
Why would he take care of this minor incident if it never happened?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8a3d94.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:22 pm:|
Doug, while sitting in the Hall of Justice in San Francisco in 1999 for a "task
force meeting," I was told that the FBI had absolutely investigated Ted as the
Zodiac, and they were extremely hopeful that they could nail him.
In fact, they were quite disheartened when they were able to place him in another part of the country of five dates of Zodiac activity.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-90.linkline.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:33 pm:|
Scott-Read is right on my side. But, if Johns did get a ride with the zodaic as Zodiac
claims, then her description of his 'chin traced with scars from a past acne
infection'could be significant.She told me he was not a big person about 160lbs and about
5'8".This is to be taken with Mageau's "short"of stature reference to the
man who shot he and Darlene.
The brown hair she reports is good when we compare Hartnell's brown sweaty hair. Brown sweaty greasy hair would be so with someone's real hair not so much a wig. The wig is a poss'though.
Aside from this I agree with you Scott.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:38 pm:|
I really think that the average person with an I.Q. higher than a houseplant could distinguish a
suspect of 5'10'' from one of 6'4''.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (32.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 01:47 pm:|
Tom, when they say they could "place" him in another part of the country for
those five dates, what they meant is that he was domiciled in another part of the country
at the time. That doesn't amount to a hill of beans, given Kaczynski's peregrinations. He
traveled from his home in Lombard Illinois, out to the west coast (thousands of miles
away) on events corresponding to at least two of the Zodiac clusters.
If the FBI had any documentary evidence, I believe we would have seen it by now, not least in the FOIA documents.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tj053.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:00 pm:|
Sylvie: With all due respect, have you read the first four or five posts on this
A basic synopsis: The subjects in the Dateline experiment (the law students and the TV audience) were all given the opportunity to provide their eyewitness accounts of the "perp" to a genuine composite artist. Additionally, they were all interviewed by a real police detective (law students only, the TV audience was able to contribute via the web). The eyewitness testimony, with regard to the "perp's" height, varied from 5'7" to 6'2".
Additionally, their testimony varied on everything else, as well. Hair color, eye color, clothing, build, etc. And this was within hours of the "crime" for the law students, and within the confines of the one hour program for the TV audience.
I suppose it's POSSIBLE that none of the LAW STUDENTS and none of the TV viewers had an I.Q. higher than that of a house plant . . .
One more thing, I'm 6'10". I'm approached by people EVERY DAY who are curious about my height. As a general rule, I give them the opportunity to guess my height before I tell them. Generally speaking, they almost NEVER get it right. I've had people guess anywhere from 6'3" to 7'4". Given the fact that my height is far above average, you'd think my height would be a very distinguishing feature (unlike Z's height). So how do you account for the various guesses? Typically, the only people that ever come close are athletes, especially football and basketball players. Why do you think that is? (That question was rhetorical.) I guess all of the athletes must have a higher I.Q. than that of an "average" person. I suppose that every college professor that I've ever had who has taken a guess at my height must be, according to your logic, no smarter than a house plant.
One more thing about the Dateline "eyewitness experiment." The guy playing the part of the "criminal" wasn't wearing a disguise. Hmmmm.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8d4e5f.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:14 pm:|
Doug, I think I am capable of understanding what they meant. After all, I was there.
Ted was proven to be in another part of the country on five dates of Zodiac activity. The mere fact that the address on his license read "Illinois" wasn't considered proof.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-ta042.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:22 pm:|
I don't know how good the composite is. One police source who was present that night
indicates that the kids got a good look under good conditions, and could provide info
leading to a good sketch. That sounds promising. Nonetheless, if a suspect with the right
prints and handwriting came forth, I'd blow off the sketch in a minute.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:52 pm:|
the mere fact that thy bother to comment on your height is because it is unusually tall. It is true that most folks aren't very good at specifics, just classifications--tall, medium, short. Someone 6'6''(like Kemper) would naturally go under tall, 5'11(like Bundy) medium and 5'1 (like Manson) short. So getting back to Zodiac, I think we can all ascertain that he was of average height.
But that Dateline segment is depressing, it makes you think that most people are Jerry Springer guests.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (4.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:57 pm:|
Tom, let them show me the documents. They've had six years. Even the SFPD had nothing better than fingerprints and handwriting, which I'm sure you'll agree amount to nothing in this case--yet they had better access to the FBI than even you. Better yet, I'll put in a FOIA request.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-th012.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 05:56 pm:|
That info is presented on several sites, among them The Crime Files, and of course on Tom Voight's
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0707.stbg.splitrock.net - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 06:27 pm:|
I find it to be very interesting when reading a Unabom book, Ted's life is unaccounted
for from June 30th, 1969 to early 1971. He seems to be a shadowey figure during this time.
The idea that Zodiac only dropped into the SF area at times and then got the hell out of
there makes sense. Kaczynski did this as Una and was successful, why not Z. If he's not in
the area, his name may never even surface or otherwise be given low priority.
I guess I like this idea cause i've always felt GRK was driving in from Portland and that's why they never caught him (perhaps Dayton Rogers). Though I entertane all possibilities, I really think the composite and Kaczynski both have an owlish look that matches. If anyone has proof of Ted alibis please present them if possible and i'll happily move on to Mr. Davis.
|By Linda (Linda) (207-172-73-23.s23.tnt1.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 09:13 pm:|
See new thread: "Kaczynski Officially Cleared?" in response to Sylvie's
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wg012.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 09:19 pm:|
As long as you are into ridiculous suspects, why don't you look at Ted Bundy, instead of that other Ted, he is at least as plausible.
He was often in the S.F. area during the Zodiac timeline.(his ex-fiance who had broken his heart had taken off there which would have caused rage every time he was in the area). He is about the right height,could pass facially if disguised, highly intelligent, capable of codes, knowledgable with guns and knives. Plus, we know that certain crimes he was ashamed of (like his child murders) and would not confess too.
I mean as long as you want to get farfetched, then why not??? --
|By Mark (Mark) (75-120-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 05:09 am:|
Bruce-yes you were reading me right, I think all of this discussion about eyewitness testimony and the composites is close to a complete waste of time. So is this Kaczynski rehashing. I agree with Sylvie, might as well theorize about Bundy. There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents and sidebars but what I have a problem with is if that is ALL that is being discussed. I do applaud the people who are doing research and have an interest in wading through "the maze" in order to get useful information out. I'll get off of my soapbox now-sorry!
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0719.stbg.splitrock.net - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 09:14 am:|
Sylvie + Mark, Ted Bundy was never suspected of killing a man. Wasn't known to make bombs. Wasn't known to write letters to authorities. Wasn't known to not sexually abuse victims. Has alibis for attending school during significant Zodiac dates. But i will continue this discussion on a seperate thread. Thanks ZK
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-tr032.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 09:35 am:|
Actually you are wrong on a few of those points--read Ann Rule's book. But back to Z.............
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0719.stbg.splitrock.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 10:23 am:|
Slyvie, adress me on my new thread "why Kaczynski can't be Zodiac" please,if you will. Point out where I'm wrong. PS: I've read Ms. Rule's book as well as "The Deliberate Stranger", "The only living witness", "TB and I hunt for the GRK" and about 25+ other books that include Bundy. ZK
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-th073.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 11:29 am:|
Mark: You wrote, "I think all of this discussion about eyewitness testimony and
the composites is close to a complete waste of time." I'm curious as to why you think
My assertion is that IF Zodiac was wearing a disguise when he committed his crimes, then all of the eyewitness testimony is virtually useless.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing? And why?
|By Zoe Glass (Zoe_Glass) (max1-4.evansinet.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 03:12 pm:|
after 32 years it be hard to believe someone talking about their own mother let alone,
a person they saw for minutes. just this once i agree with Ed N, "he'd be laughed off the stand"
|By Mark (Mark) (247-119-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 09:13 pm:|
Scott-first of all I'd like to apologize for addressing my last post to
"Bruce" when it was meant for you. (Sorry it was late!) Yes I agree
with you as far as the eyewitnesses being a blind alley at this point. Maybe my statement wasn't clear on the being "close to a complete waste of time"-I didn't mean to insinuate that your thread discussing it was, I'm just concerned about how much farther it can be taken. Your point about the disguise is one I've haven't really considerered before and sounds pretty valid to me. Mark
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tf061.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 10:55 am:|
Mark: Thanks for responding. For a moment there, I couldn't tell if I was being
refuted, dismissed, or what.
I find it very interesting that Ted K. made it into this particular thread. His case simply propagates my assertion that the eyewitnesses, the disguise, and the composites, are doing very little to move the investigation of the Zodiac case in a forward direction. The fact that Ted K. had composites made of him while in his disguise, but was finally apprehended because of something completely different, shows the futility of composite sketches.
This is not to say that composite drawings are useless in and of themselves, but rather that they can be rendered virtually useless if the eyewitnesses are describing a suspect who was in disguise at the time of being seen. It would be like trying to develop a composite of Zodiac at Lake Berryessa, or the hooded madman that terrorized Texarkana in the '40s. The only thing that would stand out in the eyewitness testimony would be the disguise itself, not the ACTUAL features of the perpetrator. The fact that Ted K was wearing a disguise rendered his composite sketch useless, did it not? Dido for the aforementioned James King. To my knowledge (I will stand corrected if this is not the case), the perpetrator of the Denver bank robbery has yet to be apprehended. Why? Partially because of the fact that the 5 eyewitnesses helped develop a composite of what the perp looked like while wearing a disguise!
A question: Can anybody cite an instance where a DA was able to get a conviction solely based upon similarities between the defendant and a composite drawing? Or, for that matter, even an arrest? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm just looking for examples.
Additionally, I spent several hours with two retired police officers yesterday, and they both concurred with my assertions. One of them even told me that no two people, who've both witnessed the same crime, will describe exactly the same thing unless they have corroborated with each other. The second police officer relayed this information to me: He had been jumped, overpowered, and shot while trying to issue a simple speeding ticket. It occurred during broad daylight, and there were 2 other witnesses. They all helped a sketch artist to develop a composite drawing, but to this day the 2 culprits have eluded justice because no trace evidence was ever found and they had been driving a stolen vehicle. This was especially disheartening to me because the police officer I'm talking about here was my uncle. This happened early in his career, and he recovered just fine and went on to become a Sergeant, then Lieutenant, and eventually retired as a Captain. But the 2 perps were never apprehended.
It just seems to me, and this is strictly opinion, that those who are trying to match photographs of known Z suspects to that of the composite that was issued 32 years ago, are wasting their time.
Again, this is just my opinion.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 01:33 pm:|
Scott, I recall a case that occurred in Texas (the perp was executed some time last
year) in which eyewitness testimony helped win and sustain the conviction, but that was in
conjunction with quite a bit of corroborating evidence. On the whole, I think the only
really valid use of such evidence is in drawing attention toward a suspect. You publicize
a composite and hope that someone will recognize it and put two and two together. Having
established suspicion you research the suspect a bit more thoroughly, to check on possible
alibis, motives, etc. The suspicion phase of a case is probably the most critical, because
it's the phase wherein you narrow down your list of possible suspects to a manageable few.
In some ways it may be the easiest part of a case (at least for the authorities) because
no particular burden of proof is required to suspect someone.
If I could think of one case where a police composite would have made a difference, it would be the Bundy case. The composite was, in my opinion, a dead ringer for him. That, combined with a few other details, such as the orange VW with the ski rack, led his girlfriend to file a report with the police. It's my understanding that they had worked their way up to her report and were just about to begin investigating it right at the time he was captured in another state for a different crime. But whether a conviction could have been obtained solely on the composite is another story. I doubt it.
|By Mark (Mark) (101-119-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 05:06 pm:|
Scott-glad to see your reply, yes we're on the same page! My concern is the same as yours, moving the investigation of the case in a forward direction and mulling over whether or not Kaczynski looks like composite isn't the way!
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0807.stbg.splitrock.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 05:34 pm:|
If it hoots like an owl and flies like one...... seriuosly there are plenty of cases where composites and eyewitnesses help even with a disguise. One witness identified Bundy while he was wearing a ski mask. This was admissable in court but maybe it shouldn't have been ?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wq054.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 11:26 am:|
Doug: Thanks for the info with regard to the Texas perp you mentioned and the Ted
Bundy case. However, Bundy's composite, which I agree had striking similarities to Bundy,
was of Bundy himself, not of Bundy in disguise. I stand corrected if this is not the case.
Mark: Thanks for the response. If people are convinced that Z's composite STILL has merit after 32 years, then so be it. I, for one, think it's a waste of time, but I suppose you never know.
ZK: You said, "One witness IDENTIFIED Bundy while he was wearing a ski mask." IDENTIFIED? Really? How can someone be identified, with regard to their features, if he'd been wearing a mask? I'm not very familiar with the Bundy case. Could you elaborate as to the nature of this "identification?" (All emphasis is mine.)
|By ZK (Zander_Kite) (a010-0711.stbg.splitrock.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 12:25 pm:|
Yeah I agree with you that a positive ID of someone while wearing a ski mask is
bizarre. But it was used in court along with bite mark evidence to help get a guilty
verdict. She apparently could make out his sharp nose and features thru the mask in the
darkness ?? Only in Florida ??
Bundy was a criminal genius but came within 2 feet of capture just like Zodiac. Incidentally, Seattle let a known killer walk even though they were sure he'd killed a young lady in their state. His name is Harvey Carnignan and he's a strong suspect in the unsolved Sonoma murders posted on this site.
Your argument of not getting too worked up over the composite is strong. But also we don't know the extent of his disguise, should we believe Z when he writes he looks "entirele different" ???
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac889512.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 12:44 pm:|
Even though the sketch resembled Bundy, the witnesses at Lake Sam still made a
they thought Ted had an english accent.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta021.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 04:30 pm:|
Zoe: "just this once" you agree with me? I take it you disagree with
everything else I've said?
Scott: remember that Z was not always truthful, he did lie on occasion. One was by his apparent claim of two victims in August 1969 (Snoozy and Furlong) that were later proven to be murdered by Karl Werner. Another was his claim of shooting "a man sitting in a parked car with a .38," an apparent reference to Richard Radetich, who was shot by someone else. So when he claimed that he looked entirely different when he wasn't doing his thing, can we be certain that he was being truthful? He was almost caught by SFPD, and was seen that night by five known witnesses. What else could he say? As Jake wrote earlier:
The Cherry St. witnesses described a man with glasses, but Foukes didn't mention such glasses in his report. My guess is that Z's disguise consisted of nothing more elaborate than a pair of dark-rimmed eyeglasses, which he removed upon leaving the scene.
I think he's right, and that Z was reaching when he said he wore a disguise. He had to try to make everyone think he didn't look like that every day. He was seen, the teens got a good look at him, and I think that the sketch was good in October 1969. If Z was smart, not only would he have stopped killing, he would have changed his appearance to minimize any chance of identification.
|By Classic (Classic) (spider-mtc-tb084.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 05:26 pm:|
In regards to z having glasses on at the cab and not having them on when Foukes talked
to him there might be another explanation. They might have been covered in blood. I have
shot a deer,that was hit by a car, in the head with a 9mm and I wished I would have had a
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 11:04 am:|
why can't someone do a age progression picture of the old composite , and do some with and with out glasses . Also with and with out hair? Put him with a mustache, and then add a beard. If the composite was close, we can have some idea of how he may look today. We have nothing to loose, and maybe, just maybe we can gain something.It was done on Americas Most Wanted, and the killer was found! I would offer to do it, but I am afraid he would look too much like my number one suspect.As some of you know I tried this already.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tj012.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:58 pm:|
ZK: Your right, that is very bizarre. I was living in Florida at the time that Bundy
was executed, THAT was bizarre! People there acted like they were at a friggin' circus!
As to "the extent of his disguise," there are several possibilities:
1. As Ed mentioned (thanks Ed, I really admire your reasoning and logic), Z may very well have been lying about using a disguise, or maybe it really was nothing more than a simple pair of glasses.
2. He WAS wearing a disguise, but it only consisted of a pair of glasses, or . . .
3. His disguise was more sophisticated than anyone would have thought. As has been mentioned before, maybe he wore additional sets of clothing beneath his parka to appear more "stocky." Maybe he stuffed cotton balls into his cheeks to achieve this appearance, as well. Perhaps he wore inserts in his shoes to make himself appear taller. Or wore a wig to cover his bald head, IF he WAS bald. The possibilities are almost endless.
4. If he was a movie buff, as many believe, or a fan of the theatre, it's possible that he may have admired the talents of make-up artists. Perhaps he devised a disguise, or was inspired to devise a disguise, based upon things he was seeing in the movies. "Charlie Chan at Treasure Island," and "The Most Dangerous Game," immediately come to mind.
Ed: Perhaps you are right, maybe Z was "reaching," and in fact was lying about wearing a disguise. Then again, as we all know, he didn't ALWAYS lie, so the possibility at least exists that he wasn't. As for "If Z was smart, not only would he have stopped killing, he would have changed his appearance to minimize any chance of identification." I really don't believe that Z stopped killing, not to avoid being identified, at any rate. Furthermore, it would have been easier to wear a disguise at the time of the murders than to "change his appearance" for the remainder of his life. Just my opinion.
Sandy: I agree with you that we would have "nothing to lose" by doing the things that you stated above. By the way, I believe that a composite of Z without glasses was done by the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department.
Thanks everybody for your input on this matter.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta023.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 06:25 pm:|
Bill Beeman went so far as to suggest his brother Jack used prosthetics to completely alter his appearance. The only problem was that Jack Beeman had serious emphysema, and he could be heard wheezing half a block away. None of the eyewitnesses ever reported hearing Z wheeze.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 07:55 pm:|
ZK-Harvey was called Harv' the Hammer and I have said in the past that he is a good
suspect(as well as some Manson associates-gas receipts show they were in area during the
same time as the 187's) for the Santa Rosa/ Sonoma murders. He possessed tremendous
strength as was demonstrated by the Santa Rosa perp. There is at least one gas receipt to
show ol' Harv' was in CA.(they all get here sooner or later!)during the murders.
Thank God he has been in custody where he does constant pull ups from the bars in his cell!Guess he is getting in shape for the next round!
|By Zoe Glass (Zoe_Glass) (max1-12.evansinet.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 07:59 am:|
ED N, the implication of my joke was such,,, but actually i agree with most of your post and appreciate the many applicable quotes , on many subjects, that you have offered as well.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta083.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 10:13 am:|
Zoe: thanks. Humor and lots of other things are lost in this medium, with no visual and audial cues to go by... sometimes it's not easy to determine if someone's joking, being sarcastic, etc, etc...
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-wi072.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:12 pm:|
I watched the Justice Files a few nights back, and their topic was a man named
Joseph Cotten (as I recall) who was accused of rape by this one woman. She was absolutely positive
that he was the perp, and he was convicted and jailed based pretty much on her testimony;
he was suspected of another rape, but the victim wasn't certain. He did bear a vague
resemblance to the composite of the perp.
Some years later, Cotten heard rumors that another man, jailed after him, had bragged about committing both rapes, and armed with that new evidence, got a retrial; the other man strongly resembled the composite. The other man denied any culpability, and so the judge ordered that nothing regarding him could be presented as evidence. Cotten was found guilty again, and this time, the other victim had decided absolutely positively that Cotten had raped her also. He went to jail, again, and again protested his innocence.
In the mid 1990's, the case was reopened, and they decided to try DNA profiling. There was DNA of the perp still in storage (they commented that, after 10 years, it had degraded so much that they weren't sure they'd get viable samples. They did), and they profiled it, compared it to Cotten, and, guess what??? NO MATCH.
They then checked it against the other man Cotten suspected, and guess what??? IT MATCHED. Cotten was released immediately, and was later given $100,000 by the state as compensation for rotting for 11 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Needless to say, the first victim who was absolutely positive that it was Cotten was horrified to discover that her eyewitness testimony was so wrong, and that she had completely f*cked this man's life up. It took two more years before she could face him and apologize. He forgave her (he's a better man than most of us), and has gotten on with his life.
It turns out that over 50 people have been freed because of false eyewitness testimony in this manner, and the number is growing.
So, as far as eyewitness testimony goes in the Z case: where does it leave us? Could Foukes or the three (then) teens possibly be relied upon to ID anyone as Z?
And as for the DNA: after 10 years, they weren't sure they'd get anything viable. What about the 27+ years in the Z case?
|By Joe (Joe) (adsl-63-204-74-73.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:21 pm:|
Good points. It was Ronald Cotten.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-wi062.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 12:04 am:|
That's right. I wasn't taking notes as I watched it.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb012.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 12:40 am:|
I watched it too Ed and was thinking after having this man face to face on top of her,
in her place for hours, then "identifying" him that same week, she got the wrong
man, Now who in their right mind could possibly think Mageau's identification of Allen who
he saw in the flash of an instant, decades later, could mean anything at all.
Poor guy was telling them what he thought they wanted to hear so that they would leave him alone.
|By Mark Coombs (Mark) (78-112-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 02:52 am:|
ED N-I've seen that show before and what a story eh?! Yes he certainly is a "better man that most of us" being able to forgive her after 11 years behind bars-I'm amazed he even agreed to meet with her. Thank God he's still got some years left to live a life of freedom. Good question about the eyewitnesses of the Stine shooting and Foulkes. It's been an awfully long time I just don't think they'd be able to ID Z. Maybe if they were hypnotized perhaps but I really wonder about the accuracy of that technique. I know they have used it successfully in testimony in several cases. In general I have a whole lot less faith in eyewitnesses than I used to. Along those same lines Sylvie I think Mageau is a complete lost cause as far as ever being much help to the investigation. The detectives originally on the case thought he wasn't coming forward with all that he knew and I'm inclined to agree. They thought perhaps he had fear of retribution from the Zodiac but if he IDed Allen why wouldn't he come forward sometime since his death? Maybe he just wants to be left alone like you say, Brian Hartnell isn't too eager to reflect on his attack either. Or maybe Z wasn't Allen and he's still paranoid or he's been so addled by the alcohol that he really can't remember who it was. I still think that Darlene knew her killer and that Mageau did at one time(before his memory left the building). I still have hope for the DNA though,if they can use that PCR cloning technique they might be able to have enough for the tests. Lets keep our fingers crossed! -Mark
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tj013.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 02:02 am:|
I wish that I at least knew how Mike Mageau identified ALA. Was he shown a picture of
him an asked, "Is this the man that shot you?" Or, was he able to single-out ALA
from a stack of pictures? If the former is the case, I wouldn't be inclined to give his
testimony much credence. However, if the latter is true, his testimony would have much
more credibility. Especially if the person/s showing him the pictures had said something
along the lines of, "This stack of photos MAY contain a picture of the man who
attacked you. Have a look to see if you recognize anyone." This type of questioning
is much more credible than the former. If Mike Mageau picked out ALA from a STACK of
photos, and was under the ASSUMPTION that his attacker may, or may not, actually be in the
photo line-up, then I would have a certain amount of faith in his testimony.
However, as I'd mentioned in my first post on this thread, I honestly don't believe that Mageau would have been able to see much of anything on the night that he and Darlene were attacked at BRS. I'll briefly restate my points for believing this.
1. BRS is VERY dark at night. I've been there, so I know this to be true. If I remember correctly, there is very little, if any, exterior lighting at BRS.
2. If Zodiac had been shining a light in their faces, his features would have been rendered invisible to Mike and Darlene.
3. Mike Mageau has stated that he saw Zodiac while Z entered his car to leave; his features being discernable because of the car's interior lights. Okay, but for how long? Two seconds? Five seconds? I'm inclined to believe that ten seconds would have been about the maximum amount of time that Mageau saw Z in the light. That's not very much time. Also, two other factors come into play: A) Z was probably in disguise, and B) Mike would have been in a tremendous amount of pain at the time he saw Z getting into his car to leave. I doubt that he was paying much attention to what his attacker looked like.
As my previous posts on this subject indicate, I don't have a lot of faith in eyewitness testimony. Especially in a case that is over thirty years old. If any viable DNA evidence is compared to ALL of the major suspects in the case, and the results come back as a "no match," the likelihood of this case ever being solved is going to drop to less than one percent. A very depressing thought, but probably true, nonetheless.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-th044.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 11:12 am:|
Vallejo PD refutes the claim that Mageau positively ID'd Allen. They won't elaborate on
whether there was any ID, whether the ID took place but was not positive, or whether the
other photos in the lineup were circus clowns in full makeup.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-th044.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 01:45 pm:|
Jake! You're back! Thanks for the information you provided. However, it seems that I
recall, and I could be wrong about this, that Mageau was shown ALA's picture by somebody
other than Vallejo PD. At any rate, I have serious doubts about his testimony.
Good to hear from you!
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-ntc-tc01.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 01:57 pm:|
Jake and Scott, nobody within Vallejo PD today knows what went on in 1991-1992. Very
few were involved in the Zodiac case, plus their roster has changed more than that of the
It was George Bawart who got the i.d. from Mageau. It was a full assortment of photos (of which one was Allen's) displayed to Mageau.
(Wasn't there already a huge thread about this???)
|By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-04-21.sle.du.teleport.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 02:50 pm:|
You're right Tom, but Jake sometimes has selective memory.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tf011.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 05:23 pm:|
Sorry for the oversight. I will locate the thread and read it. I thought I'd read every thread, but maybe I missed one or have forgotten about it.
Thanks for the clarification about Mike Mageau. If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe that it's not, then Mageau's testimony needs to be reexamined because singling-out ALA from "a full assortment of photos" seems more than coincidental. Very interesting indeed.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tf011.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 05:37 pm:|
Ps. Yes, I've said that I don't have a lot of faith in eyewitness testimony and I still don't. However, singling-out a particular suspect from a whole host of pictures at least adds credibility to the testimony. And for those of you who are waiting to tear this post apart, I HAVE NOT changed my mind because Mageau pointed out ALA. My interest would be piqued no matter who Mageau picked out, as long as it was an unbiased photo lineup.
|By Terri H (Terri) (dhcp065-024-048-076.columbus.rr.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:25 pm:|
What good, really, are eyewitness accounts going to be in this case anyway when the suspect was wise enough to use disguises. According to him he never looked or dressed the same way twice. I for one believe him about that. Also, the only time someone could have gotten a day glance at him is at Berryessa in which he wore boots (heels are considerably higher on boots), a black jacket that could have been stuffed to make him appear heavier/bulkier than he actually was, and the hat (I figure) he wore a hat underneath the hood that would make him appear even taller. And don't forget, Brian Hartnell was never standing next to him. From what I gather, the highest he ever was (next to the Zodiac Killer) was when he was on his knees. If that is not true and he was lying down the whole time, with a disguise like that and the mental state the victims were in - it's no wonder he appeared to be a monstrous man. He was in control...think of what kind of mental state you were in when you sat in that chair in which you sunk deep down in while the boss on the other side of the desk was elevated at least a foot or so higher than you! In case you haven't guessed this yet, DISTORTION is a root word in this case. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word distort like this: Distort- 1. To twist out of the true meaning. 2. To twist out of a natural, normal, or original shape or condition. 3. To cause to be perceived unnaturally.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-mtc-tf072.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 07:32 pm:|
"You're right Tom, but Jake sometimes has selective memory."
I don't see anything selective about passing along VPD's opinion in its entirety, with qualifiers. Unpopular, maybe...
|By Bucko (Bucko) (spider-tl062.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 08:25 pm:|
I personally don't feel it all that meaningful that MM identifies ALA as Z so many
years after the fact, especially considering the conditions he was under that night. More
important, perhaps, is the eyewitness descriptions given by multiple witnesses at the
Stine encounter taken on the very night of the occurence. (not 20+ years later) It is
fairly obvious that photos of ALA from the same period do not show the same facial
structure. Not even close. No disguise is going to change that structure from
"full" to a thinner more heart shaped face.
Question is, how accurate can any composite or identification be, given the conditions Z was viewed under at either site? Unless it can be shown that the two officers that saw Z after the Stine shooting got a good look, I believe the answer is obvious. If I had to lend credence to one or the other sighting, it would have to go to that of the multiple witnesses.
I know the one patrolman, Zelms, died shortly after the Stine murder. Is it true that his partner, Foukes, has recently passed away?
|By Bucko (Bucko) (spider-tl062.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 08:32 pm:|
Sorry about the Foukes question, checked my records and noticed Jake did mention the death of Foukes in a prior post.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-td081.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:32 pm:|
I believe it is highly probable that Mike M. already knew Allen's mug before looking at the photos.
|By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-03-41.sle.du.teleport.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 11:23 pm:|
I believe that it may be highly improbable that Mike M. knew Allen's mug before
looking at the photos.
What is nice about opinions is that they are like ARMPITS-we all have them!
|By Mark Coombs (Mark) (49-129-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 04:18 am:|
After 30 years I don't have much faith in eyewitnesses solving this and good point on
the distortion of memory Terri. People in various states of high stress, shock and pain
are going to have a great deal of trouble with clarity in their recall. Of course
different people have higher thresholds of pain, etc. and it would depend on how much they
could see before, during and after the crime occurred.
Scott-I agree, if the DNA doesn't match any of the major suspects it looks like we'll be entering a low percentage situation. I don't know about less than 1%, lets make it am optimistic 4!!
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tc062.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 06:59 am:|
It is an educated guess that Mageau would have known of Allen. In the late sixties
not huge. Later with all the notoriety that Allen was getting as "the Z suspect", Mike had years to have him pointed out to him if he did not know who he was already. But one thing I do KNOW,
that is not speculation is that Mike's i.d. of Allen was refuted. IT WAS REFUTED! He told them what they wanted to hear -- plain and simple so that they'd leave him alone.
This might bug alot of folks who are high on Allen
because silly as it is all those years later, it is the one best piece of legal evidence there is against Allen. But I am telling you if ever a postmortem trial were to be held on Allen, it would never hold up.
|By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-03-27.sle.du.teleport.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 08:52 am:|
I lived in Oakland,Ca 'till 1970 and Concord,Ca from 1970-1999. Then I moved to
Oregon. Vallejo, by my standards, is still small, and you can't believe how the people
living in those cities are so rapped in their own lives that they are really impervious to
what is going on around them. I was in my mid -twenties when the ZODIAC thing was going
on, and me and all my friends were not really impresssed with it at the time-WITH ALL THE
CRIME IN THE BAY AREA-IT WAS JUST ONE MORE THING. Violence in the Bay Area as I was
growing up was as American as apple pie, baseball, and motherhood.
My point-Maybe at the time of Z's crimes, it was big for some-But for many it was just more instance of violence. And contrary to what some may think, Vallejo in the 60's was like a smaller version of Oakland- same with Richmond, El Cerrito, Berkeley,etc. etc.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-th082.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 12:52 pm:|
Tom wrote: "It was George Bawart who got the i.d. from Mageau. It was a full
assortment of photos (of which one was Allen's) displayed to Mageau."
Sylvie wrote: "But one thing I do KNOW,
that is not speculation is that Mike's i.d. of Allen was refuted. IT WAS REFUTED!"
What gives? One thing I KNOW is that both of you can't be right. Sylvie, you leave yourself open to criticism by making claims that "IT WAS REFUTED." There are people who REFUTE the notion that humankind has ever landed on the moon. What exactly are you trying to say? That you are refuting Tom's statement quoted above? I finally found the appropriate threads with regard to Mageau's testimony, so I'll reread them post haste and see if I can come to terms with the apparent "Mageau conundrum/controversy/contradiction" thing. The only thing I can do until then is nod my head in disgrace; not only because of Sylvie and her unsubstantiated claims, but also because of the fact that I, without having done the appropriate homework, had to bring the topic into question to begin with.
Terri H wrote: "What good, really, are eyewitness accounts going to be in this case anyway when the suspect was wise enough to use disguises(?)"
Bucko wrote: "Question is, how accurate can any composite or identification be, given the conditions Z was viewed under at either site?"
Bruce D wrote: "Maybe at the time of Z's crimes, it was big for some-But for many it was just more instance of violence."
Terri, Bucko, Bruce D, I concur with these questions and statements to the letter.
Mark Coombs wrote: "Scott-I agree, if the DNA doesn't match any of the major suspects it looks like we'll be entering a low percentage situation. I don't know about less than 1%, lets make it am optimistic 4!!"
Mark: Would you settle for 1.5%?
Tom: Sorry for the lengthy post, but I couldn't think of a simpler way to say all I needed to say.
|By Mark Coombs (Mark) (65-128-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 01:54 pm:|
Bruce D-for you the Zodiac killings might've been business as usual in the Bay Area,
of course there has always been no shortage of violence there. I lived in Palo Alto at the
time and it was talked about often, especially after the Stine murder and the call to the
PA Times! People were paranoid that he was working his way south.
When I went to Chico State in '74 I met some girls from San Rafael and they were scared to death-extremely worried that he would strike there. I'm not saying that there was mass hysteria but when the bloody pieces of Stines shirt were sent it got our attention on the Peninsula!
Scott-I'll settle for 2% -Mark
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb043.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:31 pm:|
Could you give me you e-mail address?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb062.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:50 am:|
Sylvie: Tried to e-mail you, but your address, like mine, is anonymous, and I'd prefer not to post it on the message board.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (tcache-wa01.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:59 am:|
What are you two afraid of? I've been getting death threats for three years, and I'm
(Plus people know what I look like, and have a physical address on me.)
Go to Hotmail.com, and take out an extra address for the board. You'll get plenty of junk mail from Bill Gates, but it will be worth it.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb052.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:37 am:|
Tom: You've got a good point, but I'd rather not end up being stalked by Sylvie. Just kidding Sylvie . . .
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:04 am:|
Bucko, I hadn't read Jake's post on the death of Foukes.I am very sorry to hear that.As time go's by we loose more and more witnesses.Out of all the suspects shown to Foukes, he liked Kane the best, but said that it had been too many years to make a positive Id on him.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ti081.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:30 am:|
Sandy: Do you really believe that Foukes, while looking for a black man, at night,
following a grisly murder, could honestly pinpoint a suspect that he'd seen for a very
short period of time, and who was probably wearing a disguise, based on an obviously
biased photo lineup? Seems rather unlikely to me.
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:52 am:|
Scott, If I didn't believe it I would not have written it! Are you saying Foukes was lying? Cops are trained to observe in a few seconds what they see.It would take you or I much longer, and then we still could get it wrong.It wasn't a biased photo line up. It was a picture of the suspect taken in 68, and shown to Foukes many years later. Over the years Foukes was shown many suspects, if it was as useless as you seem to think, why then would he even bother ? If foukes "wasn't" looking for a black man, then they would have taken this guy in don't you think?
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:15 am:|
Just because Z told us, that he only looks like that, when he is doing his thing.Do you believe z was a honest man? If he really looked like the composite, wouldn't he want to throw us off by saying he didn't look like that? I believe he did look like the composite at that time,but then he grew a mustache maybe even a beard,shaved his head, or grew his hair longer.I believe he left the area for a while (like 4 months) changed his look, and his name.When you read the 4/20/70 cipher, don't you get the feeling from what he wrote,that he was away for a while?
|By MDB (Michael_D_Brown) (184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:29 am:|
There are no infallible witnesses in the Zodiac case. All Zodiac witnesses can be felled with reasonable doubt.
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 04:09 pm:|
We have a lot of doubting Thomas's true,but once someone show's the "right" person evidence that he or she has something that only the Zodiac could have had his hands on. That also may have the blood of one or both of the Lake B. Victims.I am sure most of you would find a way to dispute even that! Somehow that person must have gone to Queen of the Valley Hosp.on 9/27/69, taken some blood from the victims, put it on a old book. Just to try and prove that they infact crossed paths with the real Z. It's not something that this person is proud of,why would he or she want to brag about it?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tj022.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 01:28 am:|
Sandy: I suddenly find myself completely lost. How did we go from talking about
Foukes' eyewitness testimony to "Somehow that person must have gone to Queen of the
Valley Hosp.on 9/27/69, taken some blood from the victims, put it on a old book. Just to
try and prove that they infact crossed paths with the real Z." What are you talking
For what it's worth at this point, I still stand by my statements with regard to Foukes. I'm sure that he was a man who deserves great respect, and I believe that he was genuine in his attempt to single-out a suspect, but from everything that you've indicated, I can't help being skeptical with regard to the photo lineup. It seems that it was biased when it was presented to him. Furthermore, you said yourself that Foukes said "that it had been too many years to make a positive Id on him." I'm not calling him a lair, because it sounds as though he DIDN'T lie when he said the aforementioned (although paraphrased) quote. HE COULDN'T MAKE A POSITIVE ID ON KANE. With regard to Foukes' testimony, that pretty much speaks volumes about his viability as an eyewitness, doesn't it? What I'm hearing you say is that Foukes is NOT a viable eyewitness, and I agree. Why you are arguing against the validity of your own statements is beyond me.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb013.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 08:35 am:|
Okay, he did not make a POSITIVE i.d. on Kane because he was a good cop in that
respect if he was not absolutely sure he wasn't going to say so.
But he liked Kane best. Now think about it between Kane and Allen, there is a BIG difference.
Facially and otherwise. You are not going to say "well, I thing it is Kane, but I am not sure so Heck ok it could be Allen too". The whole thing about witnesses and composites in that they cannot be used to rule IN someone as the guy but they definitely can be used to rule someone out.
You have a continuum. On the one end you have someone like Shaq, ok wrong era -- Wilt Chamberlain, now we can all agree (can't we?) that from the eyewitnesses we can rule him out.
Finally one thing we agree on. Further down the continuum you could have Bruce Lee, probably we could rule him out, and on and on. Allen was, as a 30 something white male still in the realm of possibility, but it is slight. The guy was a PUDGE! Sharon, who we know knew him said he was very large. I have seen it possible to add weight and size to embellish one's appearance but I do not know how anyone would make his face look thin
when it is round and full, or his fat body look skinnier, or his height look shorter. Suffice it to say the first thing anyone would have said about Allen is "A big guy", hence his nickname "Big Al".
What Foukes was saying was the guy LOOKED LIKE Kane. What is so hard to understand about that????
|By Classic (Classic) (spider-wd083.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 09:51 am:|
Only a scant few minutes after talking to z, Foukes realizes he was talking to the
killer. It's pretty certain that the killers image would be burned into his memory. You
can bet your bottom dollar that as suspects were uncovered,Foukes got to see their
pictures. Did sfpd make a big deal about it? No, because the official line was that the
cops had never seen z.
If Kane had been developed as a suspect back in '71, Foukes could have made a more positive ID one way or the other. That's not to say that I think it was Kane or anyone else for that matter. Classic
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:46 am:|
Scott, it is obvious to me that you skim over the messages so fast you have a problem with getting it straight. Please read "all" of the post before mine, maybe then you will understand what you are reading. You are taking things out of context,no wonder you don't get it.Read my lips:I did not say Foukes looked at a LINE UP.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-wf071.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:25 pm:|
Sylvie: You wrote, "The whole thing about witnesses and composites in that they
cannot be used to rule IN someone as the guy but they definitely can be used to rule
someone out." In a word: WRONG! They can, and have, been used for both. Additionally,
you said, "What Foukes was saying was the guy LOOKED LIKE Kane. What is so hard to
understand about that????" In another word, NOTHING. I'm not saying that Foukes never
said that Z looked like Kane. What I'm saying is that he also said, THAT HE COULDN'T BE
SURE THAT IT WAS KANE! Therefore, his eyewitness testimony is USELESS. What is so hard to
understand about that????
Sandy: I do not skim over the messages; I've read every word on this particular thread and I understand you loud and clear. Foukes was shown a picture of Kane taken in '68. Because the photo was not shown in CONJUNCTION with other photos comprised of both other suspects and non-suspects it was therefore BIASED. You're the one who needs to get your facts straight about the credibility of eyewitnesses, which shows me that YOU are the one who hasn't read all of the preceding posts. Furthermore, it's too bad that you didn't say "Foukes looked at a LINE UP," because at least a claim could then be made that the presentation of Kane's '68 picture to Foukes WASN'T BIASED. I suggest rereading the first post on this thread, especially that which pertains to the King bank robbery case, then, MAYBE, you'll understand what I'm talking about. If that doesn't clear it up for you, then read Ed's post from June 22. If THAT doesn't clear it up for you, then I seriously doubt that you are able to see the forest because of the trees.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8b73ce.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:57 pm:|
Foukes liked Kane's hairline.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-tb042.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:46 pm:|
I think Sandy is correct--you do not READ thoroughly thru the posts. My point was that Foukes on Kane meant maybe, but we can use that to pretty much eliminate others. We cannot really pinpoint Kane here but if whoever it was looked like Kane, then it is a good chance it is not, for example Allen, 'cause there is NO resemblance there.
By the way, sometimes eyewitnesses get it pretty d**n close as well, i.e. the Bundy Lake Samamish composite, and the Davis (Polly Klass killer) composite.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (181.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:35 pm:|
Tom, I can't see what it was about Kane's hairline that Foukes would have liked, seeing that the revised composite appears to indicate a receding hairline.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (aca7b207.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:48 pm:|
Foukes didn't see Kane's picture until 1987. Who knows what he was thinking.
Besides, this info originated with Harvey Hines, a known liar.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tc032.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 08:07 pm:|
Sylvie: We've come to an impasse. If you want to believe that Foukes was a credible
and viable eyewitness, then fine. I will stand by my belief that, given the nature of the
presentation of the photo shown to Foukes in '87, any testimony that he may have given was
conjured forth in a BIASED manner. Furthermore, Foukes could have been "Dirty
Harry" on the night of Stine's murder, but the fact remains that they were looking
for a black man and only spoke to Z briefly, therefore it is unlikely that he can recall
specifics about the man he saw. He didn't get out of his patrol car and talk to the man/Z
face to face, did he? Foukes never took the guy's statement, or asked him if he could ID
the "black man" that he'd seen should he be apprehended, right? No. Why? Because
at that particular moment the "pucker factor" was extremely high. All that he
would basically have noticed, at the time, was that the guy he was talking to WASN'T BLACK
and therefore NOT THE PERP they were looking for.
I could go on and on and on. But what's the point? You can't convince me and I cannot convince you. So, let's just agree to disagree, okay?
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-ntc-ta084.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 09:14 pm:|
Does anyone know how the message to look for a "black man" came about. Was it just a stupid mistake or could someone have purposely radioed or phoned that in.
Howard, my thought is that if Manson was trying to get his follower to help him get his race war going.....well, you get the picture.
(I've always felt that Davis is as good a suspect
as Allen, no--better).
p.s. I've looked around at almost all the threads at how Davis could have succeeded at a non-hippie looking disguise, can't find it. I'll get the book--gotta be in there.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (acb72e50.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:49 pm:|
It was a stupid mistake, as most people already know.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 12:15 pm:|
Please see Lying Eyes on MSN News today.It's about witnesses.