Upcoming 20/20 Zodiac segment?
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Zodiac Media: Upcoming 20/20 Zodiac segment?
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbf0e79.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 11:04 am:|
The following is an excerpt from a post by Mike Kelleher over on his message board
earlier this morning:
2. There is a 20/20, hour-long special coming up soon that will provide a good deal of information about the Zodiac case, and much that is new. I was heavily involved in the project, and much of what is in the book formed the basis for an ABC investigation that lasted about a year. When (if) you see that special (which will be advertised ahead of the air date), some of these issues will become more clear. Once again, this is all I have to say on the subject, so there's no point in any follow-up questions.
Looks like Rodelli is finally getting his wish...
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-178-109.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:16 pm:|
I'm glad it's not a secret anymore.
Last I heard the show will air after Monday Night Football this September 30.
By the way, the suspect attached to Rodelli, "Q", would sue the hell out of ABC (and win lots of money) if they focus on him. He told me so! I just can't believe anyone would be that stupid without a smoking gun.
(And if they indeed have that smoking gun, they need to be in a court room, not in TV Guide.)
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-102.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 02:27 pm:|
This should be interesting to watch develop. I mean the lead-in, not just the show itself. Interesting attitude on the part of Q. Not sure his confidence is well-founded. Lots of suspects who never get arested or convicted get focused on without suing or winning anything. If the guy is a suspect, or under investigation, or has been questioned, or has refused to answer questions, or whatever, it is tough to win against someone who just reports those facts. If Rodelli says "I think Q did it", and the paper, or ABC, reports the next day "Rodelli accuses Q!", Q has no case except against Rodelli.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-178-109.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 02:49 pm:|
Peter, I'm no law expert but it seems to me the National Enquirer has been sued
successfully several times by Q-scenario-type plaintiffs, have they not?
Regardless (and I don't want this thread to turn into a Bar exam), I seriously doubt ABC will put together a prime-time show featuring the big payoff of Mike Rodelli (who?) pointing the finger at Q. It wouldn't be news, it wouldn't be entertainment (except for us), it wouldn't be anything except a waste of time.
Now, make the accuser a credible homicide detective and that's a story.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-102.bos.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 04:17 pm:|
Tom: I'm with you on Rodelli,and don't think Q has anything to worry about. And you
are right about the NE. And ABC: they ain't so dumb. Sometimes I think the NE consideres
libel damages a budget item, that they make more on the circulation numbers than the suit
ANyway, the Enquirer gets sued successfully when they print a report or allegation as if it were fact. Such as "Rodelli proves Q = Z!", rather than "Rodelli believes Q is Z". To say Rodelli believes it is stating a fact: if he does. To say he proved it is saying its true. Huge difference. That's why we hear "alleged" used to the point of absurdity, such as "the alleged perpetrator shot five times". Baloney: the perpetrator did shoot five times: theres nothing alleged about it. If we don't know who the perp is, there can't be any allegation, or at least no reason to use "alleged" as a defense to lible. Or "Arthur Lee Allen, the alleged suspect in the Z killings". Again: nothing alleged about it: ALA was and is a suspect. On the other hand, "Arthur Lee Allen, the alleged PERPETRATOR of the Z killings" is correct. Isn't this fun? A corrolary is "the suspect (or my favorite, the "unknown suspect")shot the clerk and escaped on foot. Police have no leads to his identity." A perp did the shooting. There is no suspect.
PS: Did you get my email in the last day or so?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-ta052.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 06:28 pm:|
I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are with regard to "Q's" ability to
sue anyone, but one thing is for sure: the man has more money than God. Also, if 20/20
really put together a segment highlighting Q as the Z then I'm going to have to laugh my
butt off! Why in the world would Q kill Paul Stine only a matter of blocks from his own
home? The man's picture is available in the public domain and has been for decades; why
commit a murder in an area where most can recognize you? Also, if Foukes and Zelms did see
the Zodiac in Presidio Heights, why in the world would Q (if Z) have walked past
his house to the area where they saw him? Two illogical moves do not make a logical one.
Q, in my opinion, is the worst possible Zodiac suspect: He had everything to lose and
absolutely nothing to gain.
Recap: Q as Z. Let's see here, Z commits his first two known crimes in Vallejo, his third at Lake Berryessa; all 3 are quite some distance from PH. Then, for reasons known only to Rodelli, he kills Paul Stine roughly 3 blocks from his own home in upscale Presidio Heights. Yeah, right.
|By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (pm2-084.svn.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 07:10 pm:|
Since my message on Topica seemed to start this off, I feel compelled to add one thing: please don't focus on the man you refer to as "Q." That's not what it's all about. It's much broader than that, I can assure you. But, please, let's not speculate. It will all come to light soon enough.
Sorry if I led you folks astray with my message quoted above by Ed. It was part of a response to a poster on Topica who needed to hear a few things from me.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc0597d.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 09:01 pm:|
It's good to know that they are not going to focus on "Citizen Q" (the SFBM)
for this one. I had heard some time back that Rodelli was excited about being interviewed
by 20/20 about the guy I discovered, and so when Mike mentioned the upcoming event on the
other board, it sounded like it was actually going to happen, but it appears that is not
actually going to be the case (thanks for clearing that up, Mike!). In fact, the less we
talk about "Q," the better. Scott is correct: he is, next to other such
luminaries like Mike O'Hare, the worst possible Z suspect ever developed.
In any case, I shall be awaiting this upcoming segment to see what they actually have. I just hope it won't end up being a clone of "Now It Can Be Told" with Gerald Rivers (aka Geraldo Rivera).
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 12:44 am:|
Regardless of which (if any) suspect is focused on, without something solid like a DNA
result I can't see the 20/20 special being anything more than a re-hash of virtually every
other show on the Zodiac case of the last several years.
With all due respect to Mike, his book isn't news, it's perspective. Since when does that justify a network show?
I'd love to be surprised, but after speaking to a DOJ DNA expert, Diane, at the July 4th event, I am not going to hold my breath.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 05:20 am:|
Tom wrote, ". . . after speaking to a DOJ DNA expert, Diane, at the July 4th
event, I am not going to hold my breath."
Quite right, Tom. I spoke to Diane at length and she is unaware of any DNA connected to this case. And if anyone would know it would be her; she is the only DNA analyst for the DOJ in Berkeley. Furthermore, she is in contact with every DNA analyst in California and claims that none of them are aware of any DNA samples connected to this case, other than a sample taken from Allen following his death. She stated as a matter of fact that no DNA was sent to the DOJ from Riverside. If there had been, she would have been the one to analyze it, period.
|By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (pm2-072.svn.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 05:56 am:|
You wrote: "With all due respect to Mike, his book isn't news, it's perspective."
Thank God someone finally gets the point! I've been saying that over and over.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb033.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 07:08 am:|
Will you kindly do me a favor and offer your input on the thread I started called, "Lynch/Allen Interview, Oct. 6th, 1969"? It can be found under the Arthur Leigh Allen subject heading and is near the bottom. I'm interested in knowing what you have to say about some of the assertions I've written there. All that is required is reading my first post to get the gist of my position. I'd greatly appreciate anything you have to offer whether it is in my favor or not.
|By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (marinhousing2.org - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 07:27 am:|
Ok, I read your opening message and a few at the bottom of the thread, so I have some idea of what's going on. So, ask your question (here or there) and I'll try to give an intelligent answer.
When you do, please point me in the right direction. I'm still trying to get used to navigating the MB on my own. ;-) This happens with old folks!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb034.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 12:09 pm:|
Mike, kindly see my post on the other thread, "Lynch/Allen Interview, Oct., 6th, 1969." I thank you in advance for any input you are willing to provide.
|By Mike Kelleher (Mike_Kelleher) (marinhousing2.org - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 01:47 pm:|
Ok, Scott. I actually made it over to the other thread and answered your question. Very interesting.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 05:35 pm:|
This case really is gaining momentum with the mainstream media. Even the BBC wanted to
involved themselves on July 4th with a live broadcast from Blue Rock Springs Park, however
I was so busy with other reporters I accidentally blew them off.
In the last two months alone I've been contacted by no less than eight people who are all involved in documentaries on the Zodiac case.
20/20 has competition!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb011.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 07:36 am:|
Tom wrote, "In the last two months alone I've been contacted by no less than
eight people who are all involved in documentaries on the Zodiac case."
I bet I know whose documentary will be the most compelling and win the most awards. How 'bout you?
|By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 07:50 am:|
Scott wrote I bet I know whose documentary will be the most compelling and win the
most awards. How 'bout you?
No I don't... who?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb011.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 08:06 am:|
If I told you it would compromise the big payoff. We can't have that, now can we? I know that sounds cryptic, but it's the truth.
|By steve merritt (Cashflagg) (64-48-108-250.customer.algx.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:49 am:|
I can't imagine what 20/20 would have to offer. After watching my (new) copy of the
Zodiac tape that I got from Tom, I was really annoyed by the kind of stuff I saw on 'A
Current Affair' and 'NICBT'. Again, I knew there was a reason that I never watch TV! I
guess it's going to be a re-hash and more lame speculation. Also this probably correlates
with ZU and other recent books.
Tom did the fine folks at 20/20 interview you?
If, as Mike stated please don't focus on the man you refer to as "Q." That's not what it's all about. It's much broader than that, I can assure you. But, please, let's not speculate. It will all come to light soon enough. Why not speculate? That seems to be what many of us are doing here, why we came here in the first place. Speculating on suspects, motives, evidence, etc. Essentially going over details of the case. I guess well have to sit back see what happens. For me personally, it better be good. If its some crackpot theory, with no real evidence, then someone needs to be slapped. I cant stomach another Mr. X looks like the drawing and lived in the Bay Area he also drove a car, he liked to write letters There better be something REALLY substantial. But with the lack of DNA samples, etc. I too, will not hold my breath.
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 11:40 am:|
Tom, Scott, I agree with you. Too much focus on "alleged" suspect SFBM, I think, would upset him enough to sue regardless if it is rational or not. This is besides my point. While I was at the tf meeting a reporter, which I'm assuming was for 20/20,asked me some questions about Z and the case. I mentioned something about there being "one prime suspect" (Leigh Allen) but that there were other good suspects too, and that not everybody has the same suspect in mind. She seemed surprised, asking "are there really that many suspects?" I turned her away to someone else who has a different, unknown suspect in mind so she could hear a different perspective. She was also probing somewhat before that about Art Allen, so my impression is that the 20/20 show will be a rehash of old stuff with a focus on Allen, with a possible mention of SFBM and others. Oh, and while I was talking to her, I had ZU in front of me, and noticed that the cameraman asked Clark to lift up the cover so that he could film it. I was thinking at the time, "oh no!" because, well, we all know that ZU is full of half truths...I hope they don't get most of their info from that....
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbe1963.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 03:33 pm:|
The unfortunate thing is that many of the recent shows seemed to be rehashes of earlier shows and/or books on the case, with not much, if any, new information. The good thing is that, despite the fact that they tend to perpetuate the Graysmithisms we have all come to know and love, they're at least keeping the case alive in the public domain. Maybe that one person who has the vital piece of this puzzle that will make the solution obvious will finally see something about Z on TV and come forward.
|By Mcgarrett2000 (Mcgarrett2000) (sfmhinet.chw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 06:31 pm:|
Actually going way, way back up there: the legal standard of libel and slander counts
the broadcaster who airs such unfounded accusations as equally culpable as the person
making them. If 20/20 airs these accusations and they are libelous and slanderous than
they could pay out in damages.
The exception to this are let's say prosecutors who have executive priveledge in such matters because if they had to worry about slander and libel than the whole justice system wouldn't work.
|By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (220.127.116.11) on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 08:20 pm:|
If I were Mike O'Hare, I'd be suing everybody in sight.
But I don't make his money, and I am probably slightly challenged in the humor department by comparison to him.
I did avoid mentioning his name in the ZODIAC UNMASKED review, mainly out of courtesy to the guy. I'm uncollectable, as most freelance journalists are. I'd LOVE to tell his side of this.
MH2O, are you there?
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc232ce.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 10:08 pm:|
I've mentioned it before, and I'll say it again: if Hunter or O'Hare ever decide to sue, I'll be there to help in a heartbeat, because I can show how their accusers (or is that libellers? Martin, Carl and Penn) manipulated, perverted or just plain made up "facts" in order to accuse these two fine, absolutely innocent gentlemen of the Z crimes.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc2b360.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 11:37 pm:|
If the show's still airing this month, it's T minus 18 days and counting...
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 12:33 am:|
I checked tvguide.com to check on the Zodiac 20/20 segment, and it doesn't look like 20/20 will be airing at all on Monday, Sept. 30, after Monday Night Football. It usually airs on Fridays, maybe Z feature will air on the 27th or Oct. 4th???
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-40-171.bos.east.verizon.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:34 am:|
It would seem that ABC News would have it listed if it were going on. Does anyone have any good information on this?
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 01:26 pm:|
I scanned ABC news, too. I even checked the 20/20 website for upcoming segments, but it seems to be outdated. I'm hoping that it will be updated really, really soon.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-19105.linkline.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 01:04 pm:|
E mail the 20/20 program director!
|By steve merritt (Cashflagg) (ip64-48-108-250.z108-48-64.customer.algx.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 03:46 pm:|
I e-mailed the Program Director last week but I never got a response. (I didnt expect one.)
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 04:49 pm:|
I can't yet be specific, but the show will be airing very soon. However, it won't be under the "20/20" moniker.
|By steve merritt (Cashflagg) (ip64-48-108-250.z108-48-64.customer.algx.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 03:00 pm:|
Not trying to be a ball-buster, but I dont really watch TV (I'm rarely near one) and I would hate to miss it.
Is there any information you can share with us at this time?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 06:17 pm:|
Steve, I wish I could be more specific, but I can't...yet. Hopefully soon.
|By Esau (Esau) (12-246-187-137.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 11:54 am:|
What moniker is going to be under, Tom? When will it be on? Is it true that a dog's mouth is cleaner than a human's? (I wanted a 3rd stupid question in there).