Rambodine, Zodiac Suspect :-)


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Theories: Rambodine, Zodiac Suspect :-)

By Glen Claston (dialup-209.246.129.214.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.129.214) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 06:13 pm:

These “theories” are as good as it gets, considering I don’t have all the newspaper articles and police press releases necessary to validate or disprove any part of this theory. I don’t have police files, photocopies of evidence, or anything that might sway my opinion/fantasies one way or the other. What’s worse, without duplicating the research and expense of everyone else on this site, there is no present way for me to gain access to these files. Anyone who went that far in the internet age would probably have to write a book to recover their expenses. A ‘Concise Chronology’ would be a very good tool for current investigators (maybe a good title for a research paper or book?). (Hint Hint).

With that said, let me present the bazarre in true Gareth Penn style: "It was the very moment the aliens beamed me back to earth that a major revelation struck me between my three eyes like a ton of bricks. Zodiac was a dark and demonic rogue alien masquerading under the guise of none other than Chief Inspector Wiggins!"... Uh, I was Gareth Penn last week, this week I’m channelling Robert Graysmith, but I still get them confused. Now to the ‘real thing’-----

Using Graysmiths’ book, Zodiac, 1986, (beginning page 1), we find that David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen were killed on Friday, December 20, 1968, between 11:10 and 11:15 p.m., one day after a full moon. (Very dark night in an even darker secluded area). Policemen were notified and on the scene within 15 minutes of the murder, and as much evidence as possible was recovered, including shell casings and faint footprints. No tire prints were recovered, making it more probable that the car parked on the road blocking the victim’s egress instead of parking next to the victim’s car as Graysmith suggests:

There the two cars sat, side by side, just off a desolate country road. Graysmith says of tire prints: Because the ground and gravel area was frozen, there were no visible tire tracks or signs of a struggle. but goes on to say: ...and very slight shoe prints were found in front of the parked car, leading to the passenger’s side. Also, a deep heel print was found behind the pump house beyond the locked fence.

Soft enough for a shoe print, but hard enough that a tire would leave no prints – okay fine. We’re obviously looking for someone with a mass/density of a small neutron star, the WeightWatchers poster boy.

Other ‘facts’ suggest our culprit in the Faraday/Jensen murders is Rambodine, an uggly (2 g’s, he’s that uggly) and massive individual who occasionally doubles as a Goodyear blimp. (Some suggest that Zodiac killed because he couldn’t get women, but Brad Pitt and Michael Bolton get women. Uggly gets women, so where’s the logic there?) The facts I speak of relate to the excellent marksmanship of the killer, as evidenced by Robert Garethsmith’s expert analysis. Not wanting to paraphrase a master, let him tell it in his own words: Betty Lou had gotten out. As David slid across the seat and turned his head getting out, the man reached through the open left window with the gun and pressed the barrel behind the upper part of the boy’s left ear and pulled the trigger. The bullet angled horizontally forward, leaving behind the powder burns of a contact wound. It exploded the boy’s skull. Betty Lou screamed and ran northward, parallel with the road and toward Vallejo. Racing after the girl, gun extended, less than ten feet behind her, the stocky man shot Betty Lou five times. He hit her in a tight pattern in the upper right portion of her back. This was incredible marksmanship; a moving target, a moving gunman, running over gravel, on an almost totally dark country road.

Master Graysmith goes on to tell ‘little grasshopper’ that Betty Lou fell dead exactly twenty-eight feet and six inches from the Rambler’s rear bumper. The fleeing girl had never even reached the pavement of the road. Grasshopper also learns that forensic evidence reveals six shots, not five: Examination of the dress (item 9) revealed one hole in the front near the center and five holes in the upper right side of the back.

It took incredible marksmanship to surprise a teenage boy enough to shoot him in the back of the head before he could escape, and it took incredible marksmanship to shoot a girl in the front (stomach region) at least once, then “run” after her less than 10 paces, the meanwhile shooting an already severely wounded and slow moving target 5 times in the back. The ignition was in the “ON” position, which means escape was probably intended but no time was available for the plan to be executed. When parking the ignition is usually in the “accessory” position so the radio works but the battery is not severely drained. No offense to Graysmith, but I get the impression of a blitzkrieg, not a casual approach.

Is it any wonder to you guys, Tom, Jake, or Ed, etc., why so many people come up with off-the-wall theories? Look what they have to work with. Should I continue my saga and examine Graysmith’s evidence pertaining to the rest of Zodiac’s murders? I’m quite certain that if I do, I can prove Rambodine the ultimate suspect.

By Glen Claston (dialup-209.246.129.214.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.129.214) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 06:33 pm:

As an addendum for Ed.N,

One of the bullet holes in the back of the dress had a powder grain attached, suggesting to me that the killer got off a good shot at very close range into her back, and then took his time firing the other four shots.

In addition, if he were less than 10 feet behind her and she fell 28 feet six inches from the fender of the car, he only had to have travelled 18 feet or so in "chasing" her, hardly six paces, not ten. Already inflicting two serious wounds, he had more than enough time to plan each shot before pulling the trigger at very close range. Can an average marksman do the same? I'm pretty confident this is the case.

By Tom Voigt (ac9021ba.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.33.186) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 08:03 pm:

According to all internal DOJ reports, Betty Lou was only shot five times, all in the back. Not sure where the "Item 9" story originated, but it's not accurate. Besides, it's highly likely she would have gone right down after a shot to the abdomen area. I would have, and hopefully I'm at least a little tougher than Betty Lou.

By Glen Claston (dialup-209.244.93.39.dallas1.level3.net - 209.244.93.39) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 08:16 pm:

Which illustrates my point about us not having all the evidence at our behest. If we have to rely on sources like Graysmith to glean information from, gross inaccuracies are sure to run rampant. "Item 9" is quoted directly from Graysmith.

I've only pointed out a few of the problems with only a few pages of Graysmith. Just a single example of a passage from a book full of inacurracies, contradictions, and outright fiction.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-98.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.98) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 09:58 pm:

One might wonder how Mr. Graysmith knew Betty Lou screamed? He tells a spell binding story though and I was driving taxi at night when I read the Stine Chapter, simply not a good combination. After reading of Bob Starr I swore off boating equipment forever.

Rather than a paper, I would like to see a book written that examines the outer-limits of people who look into these types of unsolved crimes. I propose the title: "Zodiac Unlimited (a compilation of diverse speculations and pathologies.)

Tom, you really do a good job by the way as do the rest of you most stable and insightful people seem to. I'd like to see a high class true crime book come out of all of this, one that does not suppose an answer to questions that can not be answered.

By Tom Voigt (ac8fda4f.ipt.aol.com - 172.143.218.79) on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 10:38 pm:

Glen, if I posted all of the information I have, the entire Internet would be rendered 20% slower.

Seriously, I have to keep certain items private. If I don't, what will I have left to bargain with when I encounter someone with reports/info that I don't have?

Undoubtedly certain visitors of this board will moan and groan over the above paragraph.
"Everything should be posted!"
To that inevitable perspective I say:
If you don't like it, collect your own goodies. Then you won't have to depend on me and my selfishness.
All you need to do is:
1) Pay for r/t airfare to the SF Bay Area, plus rental car, motel, food etc.

2) Find a way into the various police departments

3) Convince the police to allow you access to the Zodiac files

4) Convince the police to allow you to copy whatever you like

See? It's as easy as that.

By Glen Claston (dialup-209.245.225.45.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.225.45) on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 01:07 am:

Tom, I fully understand your position. Hard earned private information is to be cherished. I keep some of that myself on things that interest me.

I'm more concerned with seeing a chronological display of public information, newspaper articles, talk show transcripts, stuff that the average person would have had access to at the time. These sources are good because the also contain "police disinformation" as opposed to insider facts. It's a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-92.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.92) on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 03:54 pm:

Dear Tom:

You certainly have right to what you have collected and you need not share any of it. I for one, am grateful that you have and that you have allowed us a manner by which we can all discuss these things.

I do agree that the public information is just that and it would seem that there has been substantial effort on the part of some to collect those media items. I can not see how such a project would infringe on your work. I can see how it can further the discussions we have and perhaps eventually tie up a few unanswered questions. Only a fool would want to replicate your work, it stands alone and worthy in a sea of half efforts.

By Mike (spider-tp011.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.176) on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 06:47 pm:

Hi-

Just an idea. It is possible that the "light shoeprints" found in front of David's car could have been there before the crime was committed. There is no proof (that I know of) that they have be related to the principals that night. In fact, there is no mention of any other shoeprints (of which there should have been many) around the car. If the ground were soft enough for prints in front of the car, why not behind and around it? This fact (if I may correctly infer that there WERE no other shoeprints found, since RG doesn't mention any) may serve to support the idea that the ground was too hard/frozen for tire tracks or shoeprints that night.

I am not defending RG's account of the LHR crime, as I do disagree heartily with it. However, I am just addressing this facet of the crime scene evidence.

Mike

By Glen Claston (dialup-209.246.134.148.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.134.148) on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 11:57 pm:

Mentioning the shoe prints and the lack of tire prints, in conjunction with R.G.'s theories on the subject was my simple way of pointing out that I can start at page 1 of Graysmith's book and from the beginning run into contradictions and misassessments. The true facts seem to lie somewhere else, because they're not in between the covers of "Zodiac".

By Mike (spider-wa031.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.31) on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 08:26 am:

Hi-

I realize that your remarks about the shoe prints/tire tracks might just be examples to illustrate a larger issue you were bringing up. I just added my two cents about them! I agree that the truth about what happened, particularly at LHR, is probably much different from what is presented in "Zodiac".

While I am constantly reminded that we have to cut RG and his book some slack because of the conditions under which he was working in the mid eighties, I want to say that while I am capable of doing that, it is his more recent remarks and distortions on TV (in such things as the "THC" special) that really irk me. If he could realistically plead ignorance of many of the facts of the case in 1985, what is his excuse for distorting things now? A "new Zodiac letter" was NOT, for example, received immediately after Allen was released from Atascadero. (The letter was from Allen HIMSELF to Toschi.) To infer that it was a "Zodiac" letter is to conclude that Allen was, in fact, Zodiac. This has hardly been proven by RG or anyone else.

RG, more than essentially anyone else in the world (certainly myself included) should be up to speed on every aspect of the case by now. But like the representative of SFPD, who indicated that there are "four blocks" between Maple and Cherry, and a certain man who insists that fire hydrants exist where they simply do not, RG has shown that either he is not up to speed, or that he has lost touch with the facts of a case that is associated with his name moreso than anyone elses. (Either that, or that chooses to knowingly distort the truth to suit his own needs.) He would do well to absorb what is covered in Tom's and Jake's sites and start from there!

I am anxious to see what his new tome has to say, if it is ever published. Let's see if he has taken steps to amend the many errors for which we were asked to cut him slack fifteen years ago. If not, then he deserves whatever criticism has been leveled at him in the past.

Mike

By Chrissy Shaw (dial-93.farmtel.net - 209.207.16.93) on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 09:08 am:

Mr. Graysmith is earning a living, but, alas, unless I get a taste for fiction this winter, his latest book will not be on my "must read" list. He got me once and I have no reason to assume that he would not do it twice. I write primarily fiction, but it says, "novel," right up front. Let me point out that even the date and time of his previous book does not excuse the wild speculations he engaged upon. There is far too much "Sherlock Graysmith" and too little report of the bare facts. Misreporting facts due to genuine ignorance is one thing, it is quite another to mislead in order to protect your source of income.

In Tom we have a man who does not print fantasy as though they were fact and I have yet to see him run off with wild calculations because someone said this or that. He and Jake both maintain distance and objectivity worthy both of note, if not outright emulation.

Chrissy

By Jake (Jake) (spider-wd071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.181) on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 03:29 pm:

Chrissy wrote:
"He and Jake both maintain distance and objectivity worthy both of note, if not outright emulation."

Aw, save it for Tommy Boy. There is so much crap on my site left over from my days as a Penn-itent that I wince every time I look at it. I've recently edited the "Overview" section (calling all fact-checkers!), but the "Analysis" is about 50% misinformation that I haven't goten around to fixing. Soon, I promise!

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

By sandy (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 24.176.152.45) on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 09:12 am:

I have been to the LHR crime site,too much gravel all around where the car would of been,I would think for "any " foot prints.Softer ground was next to the fence and on the other side.If the deep heal print was found next to the pump house,and no tire markings from the suspects car next to the victims car,then the truck that was parked not far away by the so called hunters, might be the vehicle the killer drove in.They both had guns,(22 cal.?)Why didn't they see or hear anything? If it was so cold that the ground was frozen, I don't think I would want to be hunting, "unless it had 4 points or better"!Anyone know who these two "hunters" are? Was one from S.F.? The other from Vallejo? Could the heal print be from one of them? Could one or both of them be the killers? If not, why not? Just because they were cleared by VPD? So was Jeffery Dahlmer,even when his next victim was begging to be helped by the police,they thought Jeff was a ok guy.We all know how that turned out!

By Mike (spider-tm013.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.48) on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 11:41 am:

Hi-

I think that after thirty years, the amount of gravel that is currently found at the LHR site almost has to be considered a moot point. I know that the site has not changed that much, but... Also, the pump house is so hopelessly far away (and downhill, clearly out of sight of the crime scene) that the footprints found there almost have to be considered irrelevant by any objective standard (unless, of course, they match the one found near the front of the Rambler or from LB!). In fact, in my two or three trips to the site, I have never even SEEN the pump house itself. You have to go a long way down that road, I'd imagine. (I ventured about fifty feet or so down it the last time I was there but did not see anything down the hill.)

I once saw a "four-point" raccoon-- but only once! ;)

Mike