Was Zodiac an insider?


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Theories: Was Zodiac an insider?

By Eduard Versluijs (Eduard) (2cust158.tnt12.rtm1.nl.uu.net - 213.116.119.158) on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 12:07 pm:

Just a thought, what if Zodiac worked at one of the newspapers. He could get easy access to info and he could see the reactions of his editor on his letters.
Just a thought....

By Dowland (Dowland) (140.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.140) on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 05:29 pm:

Not a bad thought, Eduard. Zodiac appears to have known the difference between the three types of dashes used in typography, i.e., em, en and hyphen. He used nice hanging indents when making the points in his letters and of course anyone working in a newspaper at the time would probably have had access to blue felt-tip pens, which were used for writing on mechanical galleys. He also rendered a nice hanging initial capital letter on the October 5, 1970 card. Whoever he was, I think there's a good likelihood that he once worked at a newspaper or in a newspaper setting, perhaps as a proofreader or compositor.

Douglas Oswell

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0922.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.155.157) on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 10:46 pm:

Douglas,
Allen would have probably been able to perform all of the skills that you mention in your posting. Does anyone know if Allen worked, in any capacity, for the campus paper when he attended college? Did Davis have any newspaper experience? Just curious.
Oscar (the Prolific)

By Eduard Versluijs (Eduard) (1cust67.tnt4.rtm1.nl.uu.net - 213.116.102.67) on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 02:30 am:

Can someone send me the editorials (where a newspaper writes who is resposible for wich section of the paper) of the three Zodiac-newspapers?
Especially those when the ads for Badlands and Exorcist where in the papers.
Who can help me?

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tm071.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.76) on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 07:26 am:

ooo, maybe he wrote up horoscopes for a paper or magazine!

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0011.cvx4-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.146.11) on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 04:53 am:

Hurley-Gurley Man,
Maybe he had his own advice column, "Ask Zodiac".
Typical query: "Dear Zodiac, My girlfriend has been seeing another man. What ever am I to do?" Response? "This is the Zodiac speaking....KILL THEM!".
Your Fashion Victim,
Oscar.
p.s.Eduard. You can find this material at a large library with a comprehensive microfiche archive. This is where I got a lot of the original newspaper stories about the case.

By Eduard Versluijs (Eduard) (erasmuscollege.nl - 194.109.60.77) on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 08:09 am:

Thanks Oscar for your help, only problem is that I live in the Netherlands and there they don't collect back-copies of American newspapers.
Still thanks!

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p31.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 159.134.234.31) on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 02:10 pm:

Let me go way out on a limb, the letter writer in this case was either an Insider or someone who got involved and or was interviewed as a suspect before he got the chance to get involved.It was his "NATURE".

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.172.234.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.172.234) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 03:32 pm:

OSCAR:
Douglas,
Allen would have probably been able to perform all of the skills that you mention in your posting. Does anyone know if Allen worked, in any capacity, for the campus paper when he attended college? Did Davis have any newspaper experience?

BRUCE:
Not to really seriously bring O'Hare back into the loop, but he DID edit a student newspaper at Harvard University while he was a student there. He also has a long history of writing letters to newspapers.

But in the real world, I seem to recall someone on this list making the *excellent* observation that the Zodiac would most likely have written to the papers many times before in "letter to the editor" type comments expressing dissatisfaction with current events reported in the news.

It would be *very* interesting if someone in the Bay area were to search through the "letters to the editor" archives of newspapers "Z" sent letters to in the months leading up to the crimes beginning. There may just be a hit there...

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (56.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.56) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 08:21 pm:

Kaczynski is the only Zodiac suspect I know of who felt a need to write letters to the editor, and everyone else, for that matter. He was quite Micawber-like in that regard.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.172.103.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.172.103) on Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 04:39 pm:

Well, I have copies of actual letters O'Hare wrote to editors, etc., so he at least qualifies on this point (if nowhere else).

However, I'm with you Doug, and I think that you should be afforded space to present a detailed overview of your "evidence" in favor of Kaczinski being "Z" on Tom's website--but it should be done in a fair and impartial format that separates absolute facts from speculation, and it should also have all the negative evidence *against* Kaczinski being "Z" presented as well. I'm trying to get Tom to present Allen in such a manner, and along side ALL THE SUSPECTS, rather than as a conclusion before the fact as he basically does now.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-189.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.189) on Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 08:05 pm:

Is this Russia? It's Tom's site, Bruce. You seem to want to dictate what he should or shouldn't have on it.

The fact is, Tom allows space here for anyone, you included, to present anything they want on the Zodiac and welcomes theories on any suspect. Instead of using that option, all I ever hear you do is complain.

You want a detailed overview of Douglas' evidence on Ted? Buy his CD.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8c331a.ipt.aol.com - 172.140.51.26) on Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 09:20 pm:

I think it's more than fair of me to point visitors to, for example, Doug's site. He's the Z-Unabom expert. If he would like to post a lengthy pro-Ted diatribe right here, that's fine with me. Same for Howard Davis and anyone else that has a suspect.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.226.114.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.226.114) on Friday, December 15, 2000 - 06:22 pm:

Ed,

You miss the point. Yes, it's Tom's site. Yes, he can (and does) have his own theories. And, yes, he can (and does) present what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. However, the moment Mr. Voigt started becoming a national spokesperson and "expert" on the Zodiac killer, and appearing on national television, then he became MORE than just another web designer--he acquired a status that, at least ethically, demands a certain level of responsibility in his presentation of "evidence."

To say that a discussion board forum is Tom's answer to equal presentation of the evidence (whatever that evidence may be) is laughable. Tom's site is an ARTHUR LEIGH ALLEN promotional billboard, and that's a fact! And he does is nice job of painting Graysmith-like conclusions from far-fetched circumstantial evidence and wishful thinking in order to point all his fingers at Allen, and Allen alone, while paying little if any attention to other suspects and especially negative evidence (powerful negative evidence!) AGAINST ALLEN BEING THE ZODIAC.

I find such presentation presumptive and even counter-productive in a case that is, after all, more than thirty years old and STILL UNRESOLVED, even though his favorite suspect, Allen, has been dead for over eight years. Just providing a link to another website is NOT the same as presenting the highlighted overview of the evidence for and against each suspect IN AN IDENTICAL FORMAT, each on equal footing.

Ed, do you see it as unreasonable to ask that Tom present his "evidence" for Allen in a manner that separates fact from circumstantial speculation, from sheer wishful thinking, and more importantly, also presents all the negative evidence AGAINST Allen being "Z"? Why is that so unreasonable? Tom's "Arthur Leigh Allen File" is full of unsupported conjecture. So where's the critical view of that? He ignores it, that's where?

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.226.114.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.226.114) on Friday, December 15, 2000 - 06:58 pm:

VOIGT:
I think it's more than fair of me to point visitors to, for example, Doug's site. He's the Z-Unabom expert. If he would like to post a lengthy pro-Ted diatribe right here, that's fine with me. Same for Howard Davis and anyone else that has a suspect.

BRUCE:
That's a start! But, in all fairness, there really needs to be a standard format in which evidence is presented on all suspects in like manner. I'm not talking about the amount of information here (I realize there is going to be more information on suspects that have been investigated in more detail--but more of anything certainly doesn't mean one is any closer to the truth), just in how it is presented. I'm talking about evidence being divided between absolute known facts being separated from circumstantial evidence and wild speculation, and also having all NEGATIVE evidence working against a particular suspect be presented also. Anyone touting any particular suspect should have no qualms about taking these issues head-on; afterall, if they are right, then there should be nothing to fear about their conclusions holding up against scrutiny.

Finally, all suspects should be featured together, and not have one singled out to appear all alone on the front page while all other be relegated to the *if you want to waste time with anyone else then go to the "other suspects" pages*.

If such requests as these are unreasonable, Tom, then I would like to know WHY it is so?

If you want to promote Allen, Tom, I'm not knocking you, go right ahead (er, well...you already are...), but change your website to "SOLVED: ARTHUR L. ALLEN IS THE ZODIAC KILLER", or something to that effect, or write a book, or whatever. But stop pretending to be one who is dedicated to finding the truth based solely on the evidence (whatever the evidence) because your wild speculation and pick-and-choose methods in favor of Allen while avoiding the pitfalls is simply not conducive to responsible investigative reporting.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.173.3.dnvr.grid.net - 63.50.173.3) on Friday, December 15, 2000 - 08:58 pm:

BRUCE:
Tom, here are just a couple of quotes from a couple of frequent, and respected, posters on your message board. I will be happy to provide many more of a like-minded vein from many other posters here who are regarded as analytically stringent and proponents of sound evidence.

A common theme, I have noticed, is that a lot of people here do not have nearly the confidence in Allen as you do.

*****What I'm really finding interesting in my examination of the various comments you have made on the discussion boards. If I were you I would stop judging ANYONE on their "bad logic," "contradictory statements," "unreliability," among other allegations; not to mention making disparaging remarks against character as a means to attack evidence.*****

ED N. wrote:
As far as the other suspects go, such as Kaczinsky and Bruce Davis, I have to continually reassess my position concerning their viability whenever Douglas or Howard post something, because there are so many good parallels between their suspects and Z! The problem is, only one can be Z (if Z was in fact a lone killer and responsible for all the crimes attributed to him), and, like Kane, we shouldn't necessarily discount one (or both) nor favor one over the other. Unlike Kane, there are many elements for both suspects that are similar to or match Z, and so, IMHO, they are far more viable as candidates for Z than Kane is.

ED N. wrote:
But that doesn't mean that I believe any one of them are Z, in fact, I don't believe that any of the suspects are Z. I just have those who are better suspects, and those who are worse.

BILL BAKER wrote:
Kane's viability as a Z suspect should neither rise nor fall on Hines' credibility, but unfortunately it does. I've never been much of a believer in Kane's involvement in the Z cases, and I wonder how viable he'd be were it not for Hines' promotion. For that matter, I have serious doubt as to Ted K.'s involvement and that of Bruce Davis, but I must confess that Douglas and Howard have often shaken my skepticism with their excellent presentations and caused me to re-think my own theories more than once.

BRUCE:
Is it reasonable or unreasonable to present evidence for ALL THE SUSPECTS in an unbiased manner as I have previously outlined?

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac822518.ipt.aol.com - 172.130.37.24) on Friday, December 15, 2000 - 09:25 pm:

I've got better things to do than waste my time creating Web pages for every suspect that comes along. You seem to think there are only a handful of suspects. There are THOUSANDS, and 99.9% are the product of active imaginations.
If you think I'm not giving enough attention to someone, by all means develop your own site. In the meantime, I suggest you start ranting about something else. You take up an incredible amount of space with each post and repeat the same content over and over again.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (254.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.16.254) on Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 07:23 am:

Tom would deflect a lot of criticism if he would simply place the Allen material on a separate web page. For my part, I've no problem with the link to my own material. There's a ponderous amount of information on Kaczynski and I wouldn't expect a general site of this nature to deal with it.

By The_Adversary (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 11:57 am:

Well, Tom, no one said you had to create web pages for every one of "THOUSANDS" of suspects that come along. But you are aware, are you not, that there ARE other good suspects?

All you have to do is present Allenite evidence in the proper format, and then have the "experts" on "other suspects" present their evidence in that same format! If the person has a webpage devoted to "their suspect" (as a few do) then they can just link to that file on their website (but, again, in a standard format). Beyond that, for those who do not have a website, it would just be a matter of your cutting and pasting the information to the pages you already have set up for certain suspects--about as complicated as when you add a file of any type to your web page.

I'm sorry you feel such efforts are "a waste of time."

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-tj022.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.182) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 01:00 pm:

Hey Bruce, I don't know what server you use, but most ISPs give you a great deal of space that you can use to create your own Web site. This is precisely how I started mine.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac83e1e7.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.225.231) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 01:36 pm:

Jake:
"Hey Bruce, I don't know what server you use, but most ISPs give you a great deal of space that you can use to create your
own Web site. This is precisely how I started mine."

That's how I started, as well. And it was only 2.5 years ago that I first attempted HTML and graphic design.

Bruce:
"But you are aware, are you not, that there ARE other good suspects?"

Ok, name one suspect that was in the area at the time of the Zodiac murders, had a propensity for violence and no alibi. (Other than Kaczynski, who is covered quite nicely at Doug's site.)

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 05:33 pm:

Hey Tom,

As usual, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. The issue here is your double-stanadards in evidentiary reporting. You rule-out other "suspects" on criteria that you DO NOT equally apply to Allen! Show me one shred of physical evidence that places Allen at ANY CONFIRMED ZODIAC CRIME SCENE! Come on, Tom, he has only been investigated for more than two decades--surely there must be one single shred of physical evidence to place him at just one crime scene! If you have evidence you are witholding that ties Allen to a Z crime scent, then let's see it! There are thousands of people who could (and do) meet your vague requirements. I'm not defending (or favoring) any one of them--I am only saying that until such time as they can be definitevely ruled-out they should be treated with just as much attention than that directed toward Allen. If that is unreasonable then I would like to know why you think it is so.

"In the area"? Which area, Tom? Vallejo?, San Francisco?, The state of California? Which of the current suspects CANNOT be shown to be "in the area during the time of the Zodiac killings"? From what I have seen here, none of the known suspects has been definitively ruled-out based on this criteria.

"had a propensity for violence"? This is about as subjective as you can get, Tom! EVERYONE has a propensity for violence given the right circumstances and mindset. Also, are you really going to suggest that for someone to be a serial killer requires that they exhibit violent behavior (whatever that means) or exhibit other ideosyncracies that would be characteristic of a serial killer but not of any other law abiding citizen? Please define exactly what I need to be looking for so that I can be on the look-out for serial killers in my area.

Bruce Monson

P.S. I'm sorry you feel I'm wasting so much of your space with my critiques.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 06:04 pm:

JAKE:
Hey Bruce, I don't know what server you use, but most ISPs give you a great deal of space that you can use to create your own Web site. This is precisely how I started mine.

BRUCE:
I don't currently have that available to me, but I am in the process of changing servers, after which I will be able to do this.

But then that doesn't really address my point in these discussions.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8b6b18.ipt.aol.com - 172.139.107.24) on Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 09:18 pm:

Bruce:
"I am only saying that until such time as
they can be definitevely ruled-out they should be treated with just as much attention than that directed toward Allen."

If you had read the caption on my Suspects page, you'd be much better off.
The caption says, "Since 1968, there have been thousands of Zodiac suspects. This page features several of the most high profile."
Allen is the most high profile of them all, like it or not. He generates the most interest, and therefore gets the most attention.
I'm about done discussing this with you.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.222.223.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.222.223) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 04:03 pm:

VOIGT:
Allen is the most high profile of them all, like it or not. He generates the most interest, and therefore gets the most attention.

BRUCE:
Yeah, this *popularity contest* attitude is the problem, and probably a huge reason why this case has never been resolved, and probably never will. But, hey, keep plugging away ... I'm sure that elusive piece of physical evidence linking Allen to JUST ONE Z-crime scene is going to pop up any day now.

VOIGT:
I'm about done discussing this with you.

BRUCE:
You mean you actually DID "discuss" this with me? I guess I missed that part. All I have seen from you is a game of dodge ball, without ever really addressing the problems that have been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you.

I have tried to offer some reasonable ideas and other help to you, Tom (even long before these discussions began), but you just are not interested; obviously becuase your mind is already made up.

Q: What is the identity of the Zodiac Killer?

a) Arthur Leigh Allen
b) Arthur Leigh Allen
c) Arthur Leigh Allen
d) All of the above

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8139e5.ipt.aol.com - 172.129.57.229) on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 06:52 pm:

Bruce:
"I have tried to offer some reasonable ideas and other help to you, Tom (even long before these discussions began), but you just
are not interested; obviously becuase your mind is already made up."

I've found details about all of the other suspects profiled at my site that indicates they were probably not involved in the Zodiac crimes. Allen is the King of the Mountain at the moment.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (pool-63.50.222.222.phnx.grid.net - 63.50.222.222) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 12:07 pm:

VOIGT:
I've found details about all of the other suspects profiled at my site that indicates they were probably not involved in the Zodiac crimes.

BRUCE:
Oh, really? Well then, when might we be seeing these "details" you have found that indicate "they were probably not involved in the Zodiac crimes"? Whatever you have, let's see it! You'll have to forgive me if I say that your previous efforts in the PRO/CON department leave me with little confidence in just taking your word for it.

NOTE: I also noticed that you worded your above statement very carefully so as not to say you have information that definitively RULES THEM OUT! I find that very interesting.

VOIGT:
Allen is the King of the Mountain at the moment.

BRUCE:
Yeah, and there are a lot of innocent people in our prisons that have been falsely convicted on circumstantial evidence and questionable testimony that made them "king of the mountain" as far as being made prime suspects in crimes. Nearly every year there are people being exonerated based on a proper and unbiased re-examination of the evidence, and challenges being brought against false evidence/testimony, and proper focus being made of the NEGATIVE evidence in the cases.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-ta022.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.105.27) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 07:51 pm:

Where is the evidence that Allen had a propensity for violence? Spanking, or even "torturing" a small boy (with what?) is not evidence that a person has a propensity for shooting, stabbing, and murdering people, and the fact that Allen got in fistfights does not constitute evience of that sort, either. This theory that Allen had a propensity for violence is not supported by the known facts.

According to Armstrong, Allen was asked if he was in Southern, California in 1966. Allen said that he was, and it is clear that he was simply telling the truth. So-called "evidence" that Allen was IN Riverside ON the weekend that Bates was killed has yet to surface, despite the fact that Mel Nicolai said that he had proved that Allen was there at that time. Yet, Allen's possible presence in Riverside on that weekend does not link him to the Zodiac crimes, let alone the Riverside killing or writings.

Allen offered an alibi for the day of the Berryessa attack, and, to date, no one has proven that alibi to be false.

No one can say, with any certainty, just where Allen was on December 20, 1968, July 4-5, 1969, or October 11, 1969. Was Allen in Vallejo at the time of the first two attacks? It is possible, but it is also possible that he was not. There is no evidence that he was in Vallejo at that time, and, NONE of the reports which I have seen make ANY mention of ANYONE asking Allen where he was on those dates. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that he was not there at that time, or, that he DID have an alibi and no one ever asked. So, there is NO evidence placing Allen in Vallejo at those times. Considering the fact that Allen apparently traveled frequently, he could have been anywhere on those dates.

Also, there is NO evidence that Allen was in San Francisco on the night of the Stine murder. It is perfectly possible that he was nowhere near S.F. on that night, and no one can say with any certainty just where he was on that date. None of the reports make any mention of any attempt to learn Allen's whereabouts on that date, and, again, it is perfectly possible that he did have an alibi.

At best, one could say that Allen was most likely in the state of California on those dates. Allen's presence in the state at that time hardly constitutes evidence placing him in those "areas" at the times of the crimes. Many other suspects were in the state during those events as well. AND, Allen offered an alibi which was never refuted. So, he DID have an alibi for at least one of the Zodiac attacks.

Therefore, Tom's statement that Allen "was in the area at the time of the Zodiac murders, had a propensity for violence and no alibi is not supported by the known facts.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (acab1a18.ipt.aol.com - 172.171.26.24) on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 09:51 pm:

Gregorypraxas:
"Allen offered an alibi for the day of the Berryessa attack, and, to date, no one has proven that alibi to be false."

According to Allen, he was in the company of a mysterious couple from Treasure Island. He claimed to have their name and phone number, but could never produce it. Great alibi.

Gregorypraxas:
"None of the reports
make any mention of any attempt to learn Allen's whereabouts on that date, and, again, it is perfectly possible that he did have
an alibi."

If I was a Zodiac suspect and had an alibi, the police would have heard about it...even if they didn't ask.

Gregorypraxas:
"Where is the evidence that Allen had a propensity for violence?"

I think torturing a child qualifies. And according to people that knew him, Allen got into fights on a regular basis.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wg071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.51) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 01:14 am:

You don't know how Allen "tortured" the child, and it seems clear that this behavior was a component of his pedophilia - further indication that he most likely did not engage in acts of murderous violence towards teenagers or adults. To say that this means he had a propensity for the kind of violence committed by the Zodiac is a stretch. Many pedophiles "torture" their victims, using belts, cigarettes, all kinds of methods, yet never commit murder. You are simply assuming that his behavior is a propensity for murderous violence when there is no basis for that assumption.

That Allen got into fights on a regular basis is still not ANY indication that he had a propensity for the kind of violence committed by the Zodiac. Many people get into fist fights, and most do not commit murder. I've known many men who feel it necessary to engage in fist fights on a regular basis, and none of them ever committed murder. You're simply making more assumptions, and avoiding the fact that there is NO evidence that Allen ever committed any acts of violence even remotely similar to that of the Zodiac, and that there is NO evidence that he killed anyone.

You ignored the issue, as usual. Whether or not you think it was a good alibi is not the point. The point is that you said he did not have an alibi, when, in fact, he offered an alibi that has not been refuted. Like it or not, it's an alibi. AND, none of the available reports indicate that there was any attempt to ascertain his whereabouts at the times of the crimes, and none mention that anyone even bothered to ask him where he was at those times.

Even more important is the main issue which you ignored altogether - namely, that you said he can be placed in these areas during the murders when there is no evidence to support that claim. You have no idea where he was at the time of the murders, AND, the only crime for which we have any idea of his whereabouts is that of the Lake Berryessa attack, and we only have Allen's word on that matter. He said he was at Salt Point Ranch, and then Treasure Island. No one can prove otherwise.

Therefore, I repeat: Your statement that Allen "was in the area at the time of the Zodiac murders, had a propensity for violence and no alibi" is not supported by the known facts.

By Peterh (Peterh) (209.8.9.196) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 07:51 am:

I am intrigued by the circumstances under which Allen offered his Lake Berryessa alibi. He apparently said he had intended to go there the day of the attack, but went up the coast instead. Did he mention LB first, or did the investigators? Either way, it strikes me as too coincidental. If he went up the coast, or just chose that as an alibi, mentioning where he had considered going couldn't help him, and mentioning LB must have heightened the investigators suspicions.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (acab6535.ipt.aol.com - 172.171.101.53) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 10:03 am:

Gregorypraxas:
"You are simply assuming that his behavior is a
propensity for murderous violence when there is no basis for that assumption."

Here is how this started:
-->Bruce:
-->"But you are aware, are you not, that there ARE other good suspects?"
-->Tom:
-->"Ok, name one suspect that was in the area at the time of the Zodiac murders, had a propensity for violence and no alibi. (Other
than Kaczynski, who is covered quite nicely at Doug's site.)"

An alibi can either be proof, or merely a claim. Allen's alibis were a claim, as they were obviously never proven.
Allen's temper was very explosive and violent, at least according to the people that knew him. (I'VE never taken a machete to a kitchen table in a fit of rage at a gathering of friends.)

I'm still waiting for all of Bruce's "other good suspects" to emerge. If you'd like, we can change the terms.
1) Can be placed in Vallejo on ANY date before murders
2) Had displayed violent temper
3) Ready access to weapons
4) No proven alibi

Is that better?

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 01:35 pm:

VOIGT:
I'm still waiting for all of Bruce's "other good suspects" to emerge.

BRUCE:
And I'm *still waiting* for your evidence that places Allen at ANY KNOWN ZODIAC CRIME SCENE; and further, your evidence that rules-out the "other" suspects we have even now.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wd083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.188) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 04:19 pm:

That might be better, as it is not as assumptive or prejudicial, but it still ignores the issue. Before you worry about rewording your response to me, you might want to consider answering Bruce's criticisms instead of always saying "Um, well, ok, name a better suspect..."

He's made some good points, which deserve a straight answer...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca2d335.ipt.aol.com - 172.162.211.53) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 06:02 pm:

I believe I've already answered all of Bruce's questions. He seems to have been repeating himself for a couple of weeks now.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 08:06 pm:

VOIGT:
I believe I've already answered all of Bruce's questions. He seems to have been repeating himself for a couple of weeks now.

BRUCE:
Tom, you amaze me to no end! You have not answered a thing! If you WOULD actually answer questions, and provide the evidence that is CONTINUOUSLY asked of you, then maybe I wouldn't have to "repeat" myself. Would you like for me to "repeat" my questions "again" so that you can finally answer them, POINT-BY-POINT? I know, how about I just ask one question at a time, and continue to ask that one question until you answer it?

[Question #1]

In lieu of the fact that there is not one single shred of physical evidence linking Arthur Leigh Allen to ANY known Zodiac crime scene or event, what, in your mind, would be good enough "evidence" to rule Allen out, forever?

A: ???


NOTE: Before you answer, Tom, I would advise you to peruse the discussion forum for the various comments you have made regarding this issue, both in relation to Allen and the conditions you demand of "other" suspects for inclusion and exclusion.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca8390b.ipt.aol.com - 172.168.57.11) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 08:37 pm:

Short of DNA, I can't think of anything that would rule Allen out in my mind....unless, after all these years, he's proven to have a legitimate alibi on one of the murder dates.
Allen was ambidextrous, yet the only handwriting samples the police got from Allen's "other" hand were taken via court order. If I could find non-forced samples that didn't match Zodiac's writing, that would be a big chink in Allen's armor.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 11:22 pm:

VOIGT:
Short of DNA, I can't think of anything that would rule Allen out in my mind

BRUCE:
So the presence of DNA on, say, a stamp on one of the envelopes of "Z" correspondence that DID NOT match Allen WOULD exonerate him in your mind? (I doubt this, since I can already envisage some of the "explanations"); yet if NONE of the 30+ latent prints that have been gathered from different Zodiac scenes and letters match Allen, then THAT is just not compelling evidence for you?

Yeah, I know, you don't consider print evidence reliable enough to rule anyone out in this case, and yet said prints DO belong to someone...

Incidentally, even though most of these prints may not be good enough to determine enough points of comparison (minimum eight, I believe), then do any of them have even four, three, or two points of comparison that match Allen or any other suspects?


VOIGT:
If I could find non-forced samples that didn't match Zodiac's writing, that would be a big chink in Allen's armor.

BRUCE:
Excuse me! First, you don't have "writing," my friend, you have printing--there's a huge difference there (in terms of analyzing for comparisons) as any QDE worth his salt will tell you--which is why so many "suspects" exhibit "similar" characteristics in their printing to that of the Zodiac (I'm still amazed at how close O'Hare's printing matches, I mean, it's uncanny...). Second, thus far it's just your amateur opinion that the Allen printing you have is a "match," it's not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. Let's not get the cart before the horse here.

I even have a quote from you regarding SFPD's examination of Kane ("at Hines' prodding") in which you state that his "prints" were taken and also a "handwriting sample," after which you conclude "obviously, nothing incriminating was found."

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tj014.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.179) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:34 am:

Tom, who are you kidding? If a DNA comparison ruled out Allen, you'd be right back here telling us that he had his mother, or his dog, lick the stamp. Or that the DNA had degraded, or that the tests were unreliable.

What if the police were able to learn that Allen had a solid alibi? I think you'd tell us that the cops didn't check thoroughly (yet you ask us to accept the opinions of cops who think Allen is Zodiac, when they failed to search Allen's home or car and, according to some, let him run amok, murdering dozens of Santa Rosa coeds, or the word of Bawart, who was apparently unaware that Philip had changed his story), or that the people who confirmed the alibi were mistaken or confused (even though you accept the fact that, according to Nicolai, there seems to be little more than the word of "some people" that Allen was in Riverside), or that they were lying (even though you accept the conflicting accounts, incredulous claims and self-serving stories of Philip, Don and Spinelli), or that it's been too long for anyone to be sure (even though you ask us to accept Mageau's ID 23 years after the crime and Philip's sudden 180 turn on the Corvair).

I have no doubt that your responses would be just like those of Graysmith. He was perhaps the only person who ran around telling the world that the 1978 letter was a genuine Zodiac letter, until he learned that the DNA lifted from that letter did not match Allen. Then he said "You mean the one that everyone thought was a forgery?" as if he had that opinion all along. The fact is that you would not accept anything as evidence to exclude Allen as a suspect, no matter what it was. You say that you'd like to find such evidence, and even boast that you would find such evidence long before anyone else could, but, in truth, you probably wouldn't recognize, let alone acknowledge such evidence even if it were snacking on your rear-end for months.

As I said here before, the only thing which would change your mind would be an arrest of another suspect. Yet, the laughable irony is that such an arrest could only be accomplished using the very evidence which you dismiss - I.E.: the fingerprints, the handwriting, possible DNA. In short, you'd accept that evidence if it matched a suspect, but dismiss that evidence when it doesn't match your suspect. The truth is, you're hooked on Allen, and won't be able to kick the habit until you are forced to do so.

If you dismiss fingerprints and handwriting, then there is no legitimate reason to dismiss suspects such as Kaczynski. I know you think that the fact that police got a search warrant against Allen, and that Mageau IDed him put Allen above the others, but it's not a sound position. The fact is, Allen was investigated for years and they found nothing to link him to Zodiac, and, in the end, what they did find (Mageau's ID and Philip's statement) could have been obtained back in 1971 if someone had bothered. If someone had spent as much time investigating Kaczynski, or other suspects, in regard to the Zodiac crimes, it is perfectly possible that they would find evidence which is just as convincing as the so-called evidence against Allen.

You've made a big deal about checking samples of Allen's handwriting prior to 1966. According to Armstrong's search warrant affidavit, Don claimed that Allen had asked him how he might go about altering his handwriting. This alleged conversation occurred in December of 1967. If Allen did not know how to change his handwriting until 1968, then he obviously was not all that concerned about altering his handwriting prior to 1968. Police had many samples of Allen's handwriting to offer for analysis, and although he was asked to give samples with his other hand, you do not know for a fact that those were the only samples examined that were written with that hand. And, even if you wanted to disregard those samples, the simple fact is that your main expert - Morrill - believed that the Zodiac had used his natural handwriting, and not some altered version.

The facts speak for themselves: Those who ask us to accept Allen as the Zodiac also ask us to abandon all reason, all common sense, the conclusions of all the experts, and all the evidence, in favor of accepting little more than oral testimony of a few VERY questionable witnesses, a 23 year-old ID, and the hunches of a handful of investigators.

Oh - and I reviewed your so-called "discussion" with Bruce, and you have yet to answer a single question. In fact, in reviewing the many messages on this board, you rarely answer a question, let alone address the issues at hand, and seem to prefer insulting others, dismissing their criticisms with some snotty remark, or responding with little more than "OK, name a better suspect." None of these responses are "answers" by any stretch of the imagination, and are simply your way of avoiding the issues altogether. When and if you actually start addressing these issues and the mountains of legitimate criticisms regarding your biased presentations, then, and only then, will you be "answering" questions and engaging in a real debate.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac95247a.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.36.122) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:48 am:

Bruce:
"Second, thus far it's just your amateur opinion that the Allen printing you have is a "match," it's not a fact by any stretch of the
imagination. Let's not get the cart before the horse here."

If I thought I had a match, why would I be looking for additional samples of Allen's opposite hand?

Bruce:
"I even have a quote from you regarding SFPD's examination of Kane ("at Hines' prodding") in which you state that his "prints" were taken and also a "handwriting sample," after which you conclude "obviously, nothing incriminating was
found."

Yeah, so? What's your point? I never said I expect handwriting to solve this case. The main reason I want Allen's handwriting analyzed is because if there is a "match," it would probably prompt SFPD to finally do a legit DNA test.

Gregorypraxas:
"you ask us to accept Mageau's ID 23
years after the crime"

No, I don't. I published that detail because it was a "Allen-Zodiac Connection."


Gregorypraxas:
"I have no doubt that your responses would be just like those of Graysmith."

Aren't you doing the very thing you keep criticizing me for???

Gregorypraxas:
"your main expert - Morrill - believed that the Zodiac had used his natural handwriting, and not some altered version."

MY "main expert?" You are confused.
Every detective I have spoken with about Morrill thought he lost all credibility when he authenticated the desk-top poem.

Gregorypraxas:
"you rarely answer a question"

Tell you what:
When Bruce can post a single question without filling my monitor with text, I will be more inclined to answer.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-72-71.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.72.71) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:49 am:

The truth is, you're hooked on Allen, and
won't be able to kick the habit until you are forced to do so.


Forcing someone to abandon their theories? Anyone who knows anything about addiction will yell you: people have to decide on their own when to quit. They can't be forced to change. Even so, I know it won't dissuade you from trying your "interventions."

No one is forcing you to accept Allen as Zodiac.

It feels like I should put one of those smiley face things here.

Naaaaaaaaaah.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac95247a.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.36.122) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:50 am:

By the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation of Sandy's theory.
Bruce, you seem to be a proponent of her idea...perhaps you can explain.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg052.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.42) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 12:39 pm:

Bruce wrote:
"...yet if NONE of the 30+ latent prints that have been gathered from different Zodiac scenes and letters match Allen, then THAT is just not compelling evidence for you?"

That 30-plus figure represents every print, identified or not, found at every crime scene and on every letter. The actual tally for probable Z prints is more like eight or ten, tops.

"Incidentally, even though most of these prints may not be good enough to determine enough points of comparison (minimum eight, I believe), then do any of them have even four, three, or two points of comparison that match Allen or any other suspects?"

I think the current legal standard in CA is 12 points. In any case, several of the prints, including some that none other than Dave Toschi felt were truly Zodiac's, are good enough to match suspects against. Allen was checked, and there was no match.

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

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd131.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.131) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 01:15 pm:

(Bruce earlier)
"Second, thus far it's just your amateur opinion that the Allen printing you have is a "match," it's not a fact by any stretch of the
imagination. Let's not get the cart before the horse here."

VOIGT:
If I thought I had a match, why would I be looking for additional samples of Allen's opposite hand?

BRUCE:
Ok, allow me to quote from your earlier post:

"If I could find non-forced samples THAT DIDN'T MATCH Zodiac's writing, that would be a big chink in Allen's armor." (my emphasis)

Now, please reread the above statment until you see what it is you have claimed in it. Do you see it? What you have really said here is that "the non-forced samples you have (presumably the ones you are collecting money to have professionally analyzed--need I quote you even earlier where you state that this sample DOES match Zodiac?) DO MATCH Zodiac's writing."


(Bruce earlier)
"I even have a quote from you regarding SFPD's examination of Kane ("at Hines' prodding") in which you state that his "prints" were taken and also a "handwriting sample," after which you conclude "obviously, nothing incriminating was
found."

VOIGT:
Yeah, so? What's your point? I never said I expect handwriting to solve this case. The main reason I want Allen's handwriting analyzed is because if there is a "match," it would probably prompt SFPD to finally do a legit DNA test.

BRUCE:
"Yeah, so?" ... Geez, Tom, do you ever pay attention to what you write from one post to the next? If you don't expect it to resolve this case then why do you say that should these "non-forced samples" of Allen's "did not match Zodiac's writing" then that would be "a big chink in Allen's armor."?

We have no shortage of suspects with "similar" hand printing characteristics to that of the Zodiac, so what shall be the ESTABLISHED STANDARD by which you will either rule-in or rule-out suspects based on this evidence? For example, if your hired gun actually comes back to you in the end and says, "Tom, sorry to disappoint you, but we just don't have a match here" would you hold that evidence in high esteem and rule-out Allen based on that? Or would you just say it was "inconclusive" (kinda like the after-the-fact comments about Allen's passed polygraph, like finger prints, like searches that never turn up any links, like physical descriptions, etc., etc., ad nauseam) and move on?

I keep asking you, WHAT IS THE GOAL HERE? Is it to, at last, just present the evidence as it exists, and to examine (or re-examine it) at face value in order to reach untainted conclusions; or is it to continue on in the same ruts that have been dug by previous investigators who became dialed-in and couldn't escape the trappings of their own preformed conclusions? There's a name for the latter, Tom, it's called "dogma" and it's the antithesis to progress. We all fall into it at times (in one form or another) and this case is no exception. No one is saying that Allen does not deserve to be presented as a strong suspect, but that being the case, it is EVEN MORE IMPERATIVE that every weakness against him be attacked. The negative evidence should be a PRIORITY, not an after thought pushed to the footnotes--the classic method-madness we see in so-called "true crime smut," with literary embellishments, "secret sources," ignored evidence, and wishful thinking ... ala' Graysmith.

Once again, sorry if my comments are a waste of your time.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8a3a67.ipt.aol.com - 172.138.58.103) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 01:49 pm:

Bruce:
"We have no shortage of suspects with "similar" hand printing characteristics to that of the Zodiac"

Kaczynski is the only suspect I am aware of that:
1) Had similar handwriting to Zodiac's
2) Was in the San Francisco area in 1969

However, Kaczynski was supposedly placed elsewhere on five crucial Zodiac dates.
(By the way, O'Hare was somewhere in Massachusettes in 1969-70.)

I have samples of Allen's handwriting that, IMHO, closely resemble Zodiac's. I also have samples of Allen's handwriting that look nothing like Zodiac's.
However, Allen was ambidextrous. He could write with either hand, but for some reason came to deny that fact by the late 1960s-early 1970s. Therefore, until there are sufficient handwriting samples from Allen that were written with each hand, it would be idiotic to "rule him out" based on the lack of a match.
Find me another ambidextrous suspect and I'll feel the same way about them.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-196-33.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.33) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:01 pm:

O'Hare was in Brookline, Mass.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd131.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.131) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:09 pm:

JAKE:
I think the current legal standard in CA is 12 points.

BRUCE:
According to __Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection__ By Nickell and Fischer (Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1999), p.126:

"To actually make a [finger print] comparison, the expert looks for four elements; if the elements of one print match those of another, individualization may be declared.

1. Likeness of pattern -- Two prints must have a likeness of pattern types (arches, loops, etc.)

2. Qualitative likeness of ridge characteristics or minutiae -- The ridge endings (enclosures, bifurcations, etc.) must match.

3. Quantitative likeness of ridge characteristics -- A sufficient number of ridge details must be present for individualization to be declared.

4. Likeness of location of minutiae -- The friction ridge details must be in the same relative positions in both fingerprints; that is, they must be the same relative directions and distances from each other, with the same number of ridges between them in both fingerprints.

Also, there must be no unexplained differences between prints."

Thus, the basis for determining a *possible* match are actually based on just a few criteria, and then it gets more stringent from there. They go on to say [regarding the number of "ridge characteristics" that must match]:

"...the issue has been much debated; numbers as low as EIGHT and as great as SIXTEEN have been proposed. TEN to TWELVE characteristics would generally seem a reasonable number in most cases, FEWER IF THE POINTS OF COMPARISON ARE PARTICULARLY DISTINCTIVE." (my emphasis)

Thus, your reference to TWELVE in the state of California is probably accurate. However, it's obviously a case-by-case situation with characteristics. Therefore, even in cases where incomplete latents are recovered that are not sufficient to make a 100% ID, there would likely be some characteristics that could at least point to a certain suspect.

The point is, we apparently do have latents that are, with some confidence, considered to be those of the Zodiac, and so far as we know none of the current suspects (and I mean especially Allen) has been matched to any of them. And that's not speculation, folks, THAT'S A COLD, HARD, FACT!

JAKE:
In any case, several of the prints, including some that none other than Dave Toschi felt were truly Zodiac's, are good enough to match suspects against. Allen was checked, and there was no match.

BRUCE:
And that's all I'm saying as well. Those prints DO BELONG TO SOMEONE, and if not Allen, then who? Obviously, someone as yet unidentified or unprinted.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd131.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.131) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:18 pm:

Edward,

I'm not touting ANYONE as "Z" here. I only used O'Hare as an example in how many people can have hand printing that can appear to match that of the Zodiac.

Oh, and by the way, has it been definitively shown that O'Hare WAS in Brookline, Mass. during any or all of the known Zodiac dates? I suspect that that is probably the case, but I have not seen the evidence presented that demonstrated that. If it has, please direct me to it.

Thanks,

Bruce

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wo031.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.200.31) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 03:13 pm:

Tom wrote:
"(By the way, O'Hare was somewhere in Massachusettes in 1969-70.) "

Edward wrote:
"O'Hare was in Brookline, Mass."

Eric Fehrnstrom wrote:
"While [O'Hare] acknowledges once being assigned to Arthur D. Little's San Francisco office, [he] told The Herald he was not working on the Boise Cascade project [depicted on the "Pines" postcard]." ("Author targets Harvard Lecturer in Zodiac case," Boston Herald, 29 October 1987)

Unfortunately, neither O'Hare nor Fehrnstrom give a date for this assignment, so its value is dubious. Still, I'll take a page from Doug Oswell's book and suggest that while O'Hare was paying rent "in Massachusetts" in 1969, he wasn't necessarily "in Massachusetts" on, say, October 12. To my knowledge, he's never offered evidence publicly or privately that he was. And I don't present this as part of an argument that he was the Zodiac, just that he exhibits the same kind of "taunting" that I believe Arthur Allen did. There are at least as many examples. O'Hare, I think, is teasing Gareth Penn, whereas Allen was fooling with the cops.

By the way, Tom, I don't know if your feminization of my home state was intentional or not, but I'll have you know that just because we aren't all Carhartt-and-flannel lumberjacks and mountain men like you Pacific Northwesterners, the sissy factor in MA is only at about 85%, and dildos notwithstanding, the rest of us resent your implication. Thank you.

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

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac840196.ipt.aol.com - 172.132.1.150) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 03:48 pm:

Bruce:
"Those prints DO BELONG TO SOMEONE, and if not Allen, then who? Obviously, someone as yet unidentified or unprinted."

Show me evidence that indicates these prints definitely match EACH OTHER, then we can worry about matching them to a suspect.

Jake:
"By the way, Tom, I don't know if your feminization of my home state was intentional or not..."

Huh???

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn074.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.79) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 05:50 pm:

Tom wrote: MY "main expert?" You are confused.
Every detective I have spoken with about Morrill thought he lost all credibility when he authenticated the desk-top poem.

Tom, I think you're the one that is confused. If he is not "your expert" - meaning you endorse some or all of his theories - then what on earth are you doing looking for samples of Allen's handwriting prior to '66? What are you doing making a big deal about Allen being in Riverside at the time of the Bates murder? Why are you asking that VPD check his typewriter with the type on the confession letter? Morrill was the only expert to conclude that Zodiac wrote any of the Riverside letters. As usual, your theories, and your thinking, are not consistent. As usual, you abandon or disown elements of your own arguments rather when you are faced with criticism you cannot or will not address.

Edward wrote: No one is forcing you to accept Allen as Zodiac.

I know that, Edward. However, I was not referring to me, but Tom's readers. And, although I understand that you think Tom did respond to my request, the simple fact is that he did not. To repeat, for the zillionth time, Tom simply presented a one-sided and selective presentation of some of the facts, being very careful to leave out anything which conflicted with his theories. His response? "Well, it's not the Allen-Zodiac disconnection." This is a bit like a judge saying "Mr. Prosecutor, why didn't you tell the jury, let alone the court, that the witness had lied, or changed his story, or had a prior bad relationship with the defendant?" and the prosecutor responds, "Well, 'cause I'm trying to convict him, not defend him, your Honor." The fact is that Tom never responded to my request, despite what you or he may think.

Edward, I have heard you claim that I use "fuzzy logic," and although I am sure that you are referring to the radian posts (which show no signs of fuzzy logic on my part, and I will prove as much in that thread), with all due respect, the only ones using fuzzy logic here are Tom and anyone who thinks he really responded to my request. "Fuzzy logic" seems to be one of those catch-all phrases often used when someone can't really refute an argument but wish to belittle the person making the argument. Sort of like G. DUHbya's "fuzzy math" remarks...No smiley face...

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tn074.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.207.79) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 05:59 pm:

Tom: Gregorypraxas:
"I have no doubt that your responses would be just like those of Graysmith."

Aren't you doing the very thing you keep criticizing me for??? >>>

Uh, NO.

I have seen you in action when it comes to such issues, and I would say that, if your previous behavior is any indication, your reactions would be rather predictable. And, you apparently are not - dare I say it? - paying attention if you think that my statement bears any resemblance to my criticisms of you, your theories, or your presentations...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac90891c.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.137.28) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 07:57 pm:

Gregorypraxas:
"Tom, I think you're the one that is confused. If he is not "your expert" - meaning you endorse some or all of his theories - then what on earth are you doing looking for samples of Allen's handwriting prior to '66?"

I'm not looking for pre-1966 samples of Allen's handwriting, although I wouldn't turn them down.

I don't need an expert to tell me the desk-top poem resembles Zodiac's handwriting. I also don't need an expert to help me conclude the three Riverside letters were probably the work of Zodiac.

By Esau (Esau) (2cust198.tnt2.sacramento2.ca.da.uu.net - 63.25.234.198) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 08:21 pm:

The human ego along with the need to be right never ceases to amaze me. Don't you think that the coversation has drifted just a little bit from "Theories: Was Zodiac An Insider"?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-th061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.71) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 08:46 pm:

Ok, your attempts to "debate" these issues are so laughable that I am going to respond and then resign from this so-called "discussion." I know that will make you very happy...

So, you say "Every detective I have spoken with about Morrill thought he lost all credibility when he authenticated the desk-top poem."

Now, some of these same detectives undoubtedly believed Morrill when he said that certain suspects did not write the Zodiac letters, and relied upon his conclusions. Some of these same detectives are the very same detectives who relied upon Morrill to tell them whether or not certain letters, and the writing on Hartnell's car door, were actually the work of the Zodiac. These are the same detectives who believed that Morrill's conclusions were so valuable that they then proceeded to "link" Zodiac to the Riverside case, to such a degree that they decided that the Bates murder was a Zodiac crime - based on little more than Morrill's opinion. Now, you're saying that some of these same detectives lost faith in him for reaching the same conclusions they themselves embraced? So, these detectives thought he knew what he was talking about until he decided that the desk top poem was the work of the Zodiac?

Then, you write: "I don't need an expert to tell me the desk-top poem resembles Zodiac's handwriting. I also don't need an expert to help me conclude the three Riverside letters were probably the work of Zodiac."

You believe the detectives when they say that Morrill lost credibility when he concluded that Zodiac wrote the desk top poem, but you, yourself, think that the handwriting resembles the Zodiac's, and you "don't need an expert" to tell you that Zodiac wrote the Riverside letters.
So, you agree with Morrill on that issue, but, when you are confronted with his other opinions which conflict with your theories, you cite the opinions of these detectives in an attempt to cast doubt on his conclusions and/or discredit him? So, Morrill's conclusions are sound when they support your theories, yet, unsound when they do not, and, you flip-flop on his conclusions whenever his other conclusions are used to refute your theories. I see...

Oh, and forget that several other experts concluded that the Zodiac did not write the Riverside writings. Oh, and you'd better forget that Morrill was the only person to forge the link between the Zodiac and those writings. You obviously like to have things both ways, or, rather, three or four ways, depending on whatever criticism you're attempting to dismiss, and whatever information does not suit your purposes.

If you don't need an expert to reach your own conclusions on the Riverside writings, then you're obviously qualified to make your own conclusions. Why bother trying to get an expert to look at samples of Allen's handwriting in order to compare them to the Zodiac? Why bother when you have annointed yourself as an expert? Why not simply reach your own conclusion that Allen wrote the Zodiac letters, despite what Morrill and other experts concluded?

Your continuing inconsistency on these matters is absolutely baffling, not to mention illogical. You want to hire an expert to compare Allen's handwriting with that of the Zodiac. Despite your denials, you've made it clear that you believe that Allen was altering his handwriting, and were looking for handwriting samples which pre-dated the Riverside and Zodiac writings. Yet, even if you weren't concerned with that issue, here's the problem:

Morrill, and several other experts, examined the Zodiac letters and compared them to the writings of Allen. ALL OF THESE EXPERTS concluded that Allen did not write the Zodiac letters. Now, you want some guy to look at the Zodiac letters and Allen's handwriting to determine if he wrote those letters? WHY? Obviously, because you have faith in the conclusions of handwriting experts. That is, you have faith in their conclusions when you agree with them. You are willing to ignore the conclusions of ALL of the other experts, in favor of the opinion of ONE expert. That is, if that expert reaches the conclusion you desire. No doubt, you will dismiss the conclusions of that expert if he fails to link Allen to the Zodiac letters. So, you DO need an expert to tell you that Allen wrote the letters, unless he concluded otherwise, and do NOT need the conclusions of experts to tell you that the Zodiac wrote the Riverside writings. You are willing to abandon all the conclusions of all the experts when it comes to Allen, cling to Morrill's sole connection between the Zodiac and the Riverside writings, but dismiss his conclusions when they do not agree with your own. You dimiss his conclusions because some cops told you he had no credibility once he determined that the Zodiac wrote the desk poem, even when these are the same cops who apparently took his word as gospel for years.

I see. Wow. And Edward thought I used fuzzy logic. This is so fuzzy that Fuzzy Wuzzy would feel naked by comparison...

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-th061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.71) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 08:57 pm:

"The human ego along with the need to be right never ceases to amaze me. Don't you think that the coversation has drifted just a little bit from "Theories: Was Zodiac An Insider"?"

Yes, it has. That is why I have said my peace, and will leave this thread. Yet, you're mistaken if you believe you have witnessed a "conversation."

I don't know who you are referring to when you refer to ego and the need to be right. I have never claimed that I am "right" about anything in this thread - rather, I have simply pointed out the obvious flaws in Tom's remarks. In fact, *I* have nothing to do with this conversation. The only person defending his ego, and claiming he -and not the experts, not you, not me, nor anyone else - is right is...well, Tom. That much is obvious.

It's pointless to attempt to "discuss" these issues with Tom, and there has been no "conversation" regarding these matters. This has been little more than an example of what happens when ego and the desire to be right take the form of a brick wall known as Tom Voigt, and those who attempt to assess and refute -let alone comprehend- his theories and opinions find themselves talking to that wall.

I am all for keeping these threads on topic, but I don't see how that is possible when so many people mention so many issues, theories and suspects in every single thread.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg021.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.196.26) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 09:12 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Huh???"

Massachusetts -- no final "e."

--Jake

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac8f1f6c.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.31.108) on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:59 pm:

Esau, I agree with you.
I used to attempt to make sure posts were in their appropriate category, but with almost 70 registered users, that task is getting almost impossible.

How in the hell did I become a topic of discussion, anyway? It seemingly happened overnight, and I didn't ask for it. I feel like I'm in boot camp, and any answer I give my sergeant is automatically wrong. Oh well.

I'm starting a new thread called "Tom is always right".

By Esau (Esau) (1cust162.tnt1.sacramento2.ca.da.uu.net - 63.15.247.162) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 07:01 am:

Tom, drop and give me twenty.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 10:28 am:

VOIGT:
Show me evidence that indicates these prints definitely match EACH OTHER, then we can worry about matching them to a suspect.

BRUCE:
That's actually two issues now, isn't it?

ISSUE#1: If NONE of the latents we have match Allen, then that is a strike against Allen, is it not? That information must be weighed in and of itself, separately from other issues.

ISSUE#2: If NONE of them match "each other" (particularly on those taken from Zodiac letters), then what is the implication? Is it a possibility worth pursuing that maybe, just maybe, there is more than one person involved in this process?

These are the problems you must consider, Tom, and because you have chosen to place all your eggs in the Allen basket, it's a MAJOR problem for YOU to address.

Regards,

Bruce M.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 10:37 am:

VOIGT:
I don't need an expert to tell me the desk-top poem resembles Zodiac's handwriting. I also don't need an expert to help me conclude the three Riverside letters were probably the work of Zodiac.

BRUCE:
What can one say to such evidence but ... WOW!

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca19dfa.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.157.250) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 11:02 am:

Bruce:
"These are the problems you must consider, Tom, and because you have chosen to place all your eggs in the Allen basket, it's a
MAJOR problem for YOU to address."

Are you nuts? I'm collecting all the info I can, on everything and EVERYBODY related to this case.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most of what I have on suspects CAN'T legally be posted, anyway. Unlike the few high-profile characters on my Suspects page, most suspects are NOT public figures, and I could be facing legal problems if I published information about them. But I'm sure you never considered that.
What in the hell do you expect from me, anyway? I'm not a cop. I don't have a staff or an unlimited budget. If you don't like what you see, don't look.

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (csd133.bvi3.cos.pcisys.net - 207.204.7.133) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 05:55 pm:

VOIGT:
Unlike the few high-profile characters on my Suspects page, most suspects are NOT public figures, and I could be facing legal problems if I published information about them. But I'm sure you never considered that.

BRUCE:
Tom, it would be a mistake for you to presume what I have and have not "considered" on such issues.

Have you ever heard of pseudonyms, Tom? How many times on these pages have certain *hush-hush* "suspects" been discussed and information posted on them without actually identifying their true identity?

Have you ever wondered how reporters can "report" without getting sued by every Tom, Dick and Harry they "report" on?

Have you ever wondered why those smut tabloids can LEGALLY publish seemingly libelous information (true or not) on so many famous figures and still not be held accountable, and further, not have to reveal their "sources"?

Do you suppose the reporting of information that is in fact TRUE, and available through the freedom of information act, is the "reporting" of such information libel?

What do you suppose is the difference between the manner in which Graysmith reported information on his "suspects" in "Zodiac" and the manner in which Penn reported information on his "suspect" in "Times 17"? One of them is open to a libel suit and one is not. You make the call...

Oh, and one last thing: In the U.S. people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and yet not one of these "suspects" has EVER even been charged as being the Zodiac killer, let alone convicted! As such, if any or all of the "suspects" you already have listed on your web page are innocent, then please explain (from your understanding) why it is that you should not be held accountable for libel against these individuals?--you do give their REAL NAMES, after all. What protects you against libel in these cases? Do you know?

But since you're only worried about the "suspects" who are "NOT public figures" already (evidently not worried about the ones who are ALREADY publicly known), then let's get to the meat of information you have that categorically exonerates each of these. This way we can all be on the same page as you are and focus on the person who is, after all, THE ZODIAC KILLER--Arthur Leigh Allen!

Let's start with Kane and just go down the list, shall we?

And you're right, Tom, you're "not a cop" (thank goodness). A "cop" (i.e., the law enforcement entities, right down to the prosecuting attorneys) is required to share any and all "evidence" with the defense (and vice versa), and there are stiff penalties for those caught trying to withold "key" evidence that might exonerate (or convict) a "suspect" on trial for a crime. Unfortunately, you (as an independent investigator who, apparently, has been given "inside information" from investigating law enforcment agencies, on a case that is still open) are NOT held to such a standard of evidentiary reporting.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca199ff.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.153.255) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 08:42 pm:

Bruce, I am going to keep doing what I am doing. It has proven to be effective in my goal of gathering information on the Zodiac case. If you don't like it, I don't care. Start your own site. Please.

Meanwhile, I have many better things to do than sit around and make up little nicknames for all of the hundreds and hundreds of suspects not yet featured on my site. Again, if you don't like it I don't care. Start your own site. Please.

I'm done argueing with you. It's pointless. And before you type one of your thousand-word responses, don't bother. I'm going to delete any of your posts that repeat what you've already been chirping about for the last month.

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 09:07 pm:

Since Gregory and Bruce have already strayed from the topic I too will stray. Tom, you should charge people to post. Charge by the word. Then maybe all of the pointless, senseless, rambling, and argumentative dribble will stop. It's getting to point of being sickening.

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 09:16 pm:

I meant to capitalize "RAMBLING".

By Realtor (Realtor) (1cust251.tnt20.hou3.da.uu.net - 63.29.198.251) on Sunday, December 24, 2000 - 08:57 am:

That would be "drivel," not "dribble." To whom do I owe my nickel?

Realtor

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 10:49 am:

ESAU:
Since Gregory and Bruce have already strayed from the topic I too will stray. Tom, you should charge people to post. Charge by the word. Then maybe all of the pointless, senseless, rambling, and argumentative dribble will stop. It's getting to point of being sickening.

BRUCE:
Hey, great idea, Esau! Tom, why don't you start with such "pointless, senseless, rambling" words of wisdom as we see in the following quote from Esau from elsewhere on this forum:

"Maybe '2 Live Crew' could come out of retirement for some of the gangsta rap numbers. I think I know where I might be able to get a clip of ALA dressed as 'The Big Bopper' doing 'Chantilly Lace'."

BRUCE:
Oh, and btw Esau, why don't you take any part of my arguments on these ON-TOPIC Zodiac issues and demonstrate how they are "pointless, senseless, rambling, and argumentative dribble."

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 10:54 am:

Tom,

Do what you think you have to do. All I can say is that if you ever actually answered my questions when I asked them THE FIRST TIME, then there would not have been any need to repeat myself.

Bruce M.

P.S. I'll see what I can do about getting page my own page on the subject.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac879b5c.ipt.aol.com - 172.135.155.92) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 11:13 am:

Bruce,
Your questions THE FIRST TIME were in multiples of five, buried in a post taller than I am.

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 05:19 pm:

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. The post you mention was from a very long string by many users under the title "Zodiac Media / Zodiac Movie..A Ray Of Hope". This was an attempt at levity. I would have predicted it would have been lost on you but you didn't cross my mind when I wrote it probably because your senseless, RAMBLING, argumentative drivel (thanks Realtor) doesn't make you the admired contributor that you imagine when you in awe read your own writings. I will not engage in arguing with you because I don't believe you would listen with an open ear and I believe that you would give me a written barrage, in a sense beat your opinion into me (much like an old south bible thumper). Sometimes when I read your posts and see the way that you attack anyone that doesn't agree with you I wonder if you're really Pat Buchanan using an alias. I do thank you for keeping this shot at me much less rambling than the ones you take at others. Take care buddy, Esau

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 09:43 pm:

Esau,

That's funny! It's this "bible thumper" attitude of certain people on this list who take a certain other person's mere assertions as "gospel truth" that is the problem here. Just like from the fundies of the world, however, such "drivel" will get us no where nearer the truth.

In addition, it is our dear Tom who is forever throwing out flagrant insults and ad hominem attacks against those who contend problematic evidence that works against his preformed conclusions, or those who dare to challenge his presentation of evidence, and even his making such assertions for the benefit of media hype. Why don't you chastize him when he does this, Esau? Do you deny that he does it? Do you think that it is appropriate behavior?

Lastly, Esau (btw, is your father named Abram/Abraham? ... If not, I suggest you change the name immediately lest' risking others taking offense at your using a Biblical name), I know that your comments I quoted came from a comical scenario of discussion--in fact, I found it amusing myself, even if I chose not to partake in the "discussion." It wasn't something "I" had a problem with. But THAT's not the point! The point is, certain off-topic discussions ARE selectively allowed to go on-and-on-and-on (over 50 posts, in fact, on the "who will play whom" discussion) without the least bit of complaint from Tom about "taking up valuable space on his website," but when certain of those among us start challenging sensitive conclusions of certain people, then ... well, the nerve! ... How dare we "take up valuable space" by pointing out flaws in analysis and presentation, and ask questions that some don't think are worthy of their time to consider. Puh-lease!

My analyses, whether "admired" or not, I don't care, this isn't a popularity contest (although that seems to be how certain people make their conclusions about certain suspects...). If there is anything that is "senseless," "RAMBLING," or "argumentative drivel" about my comments then I would like you to pick out any part of them and proceed with demonstrating WHY such is the case! If you cannot do that (as I suspect to be the case, given that you felt the need to express your displeasure with me while not actually backing it up with any evidence), then your admonitions are NOT warranted.

Regards,

Bruce Monson

By Spencer (Spencer) (acb43a06.ipt.aol.com - 172.180.58.6) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 01:50 am:

Does anybody else think Bruce could be Z?

"Tom, you better answer my repetitive questions or I may have to DO MY THING!"

By Bruce Monson (The_Adversary) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 03:01 pm:

Yeah, I confess, I'm "Z"!!!!!! (notice the six exclamation points!)

I did my best work when I was two years old.

Bruce M.

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 10:57 pm:

Back to the original topic of this thread. I was looking at some of the letters today. I looked closely at the Belli letter and noticed how the penmanship was much neater than in any other letter. I've often suspected that maybe a journalist or police officer may have forged some of the letters using the light table that I believe Graysmith may have suggested. I know the Belli letter contained a piece of Stine's shirt but that leaves me wondering if the chain of custody was broken with the Stine evidence.