New Evidence Message Board: Theories: New Evidence

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 08:34 am:

The following is a response to posts by Ray and others over on the D.N.A thread under "General Zodiac discussion".
As far as my own thoughts go,it may only be a matter of splitting hairs to say that I have never actually stated that "this case is solved".
However, that statement carries a lot of baggage with it,not least,enough proof for conviction and I would prefer to approach this by
saying I think there is a very strong case here to be considered.
The nature of this evidence lies in Cryptography
and that in itself has its own problems.Peolpe are frightened off or scoff at this type of evidence,not least when they see the many and varied interpretations derived from Zodiacs written communications.So why do we think this is any different?
It is very difficult to explain exactly what has been found without going into detail(which I cannot at this time)however,the core of this theory revolves around an encoded name.This name is not encoded once but three times,a full name spelled exactly the same way.Additionally this name is encoded in such a way as to link each one to the next.This theory in turn, goes way beyond these findings and offers explanations to much of the questions that have been asked about Zodiacs written communications.
As it stands this theory is now going nearly two years and is actually still growing.As far as indepentant analysis goes we have asked two professionals to examine these findings.While not experts in Cryptography, they are Professionals in the criminal field with a sound knowledge of this case.
The first was given a very basic copy, still in it's infancy, that contained only about half of the current information.At that time his opinion was that the findings were hypothetical and could not be linked to outside evidence.However he did suggest we work with S.F.P.D if they were interested.The second was was given a later copy and was highly impressed by it.I would like to thank these people again,I have not mentioned their names as I do not know if they are interested in commenting at this time.
Just as a general footnote...What makes this finding so appealing to me is that it was uncovered completely independently of the other physical evidence against the suspect and can stand by itself as more incriminating evidence.
At the same time it ties in very well with what we know about him.
I have been over this a thousand times in my own mind and for what it's worth I can only see three alternatives;-
1.Our suspect is the Zodiac
2.Whoever wrote these communications did so to incriminate him.
3. It is the greatest case of coincidence we will witness in this mystery.
If there is something to this,it could not have been achieved without this site and the peolpe who post here.The information and corrections posted by Tom were critical and I thank you for it.There were also so many times when someone here made what appeared to be nothing more than an innocuous comment, only for it to evolve into something of real substance.I thank you all.
The file is now with S.F.P.D

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 09:29 am:

My sincere apologies Ray,in the height of it all I forgot to mention the one man who has helped me most .If it was not for Ray's support and contribution with this project it may still be lying here as some half-baked idea.When I first posted on this subject nearly two years ago it struck cord with Ray.Since then he has always been there with ideas his own ideas and help to put this whole thing together.It was most important to be able to throw ideas back and forth
with someone thinking along the same lines.

By Juno (Juno) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 12:33 pm:


Were you looking for the particular name before you decoded it, or did you find the name first and then develop the suspect based on having found the name?

Looking forward to eventually hearing more on this. Thanks for posting!

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 04:39 pm:

The only belief I had when this began was that Zodiac(whoever he was) would be the type of person who would give clues to his identity within these written communications.I think that going into this thing looking for a particular name would have defeated the whole purpose.Neither was is a case of "developing the suspect".That's already well established.Once the initial find was made it became obvious that this particular item (if correct)could not,nor was meant to, stand on it's own.It then became a matter of following the clues.

By Juno (Juno) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 05:02 pm:

Thanks for the reply, Lapumo. I agree that looking for the particular name would defeat the purpose. I'm glad it was the other way around in this case.

By Bucko (Bucko) ( - on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 05:49 pm:

Lapumo.....Is this the same person you named back in 2001 on this board, or a different suspect?

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 03:08 am:

Yes Bucko, it is Arthur Leigh Allen.

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 09:53 am:

LAPUMO: Actually it is I who have "solved" this case long ago, not you. I know the solution & have submitted it to "un-named authorities". And also like you, I cannot reveal how I solved it or which ciphers or sections of ciphers I have made the solution with. Nya, nya, nya.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:25 am:

Well Vincent, if you have solved it, Congratulations!
If your post was an attempt at humor,it's pretty pathetic.One the other hand,perhaps it's an equally poor attempt at sarcasm, implying that I have nothing better to do with my time that sit here and make up silly stories.
Perhaps a key word seacrh would put you right on that score.Although given that you have read my original post (i think) and managed misquote most of what I have said,I ain't holding my breath.
In the meantime here's an equally "funny story"
Not so long ago,in a thread not so far away, a certian individual was asked to give his account of a telephone call he made to a Mr.Belli.Having went to the trouble of posting all the "fascinating details" he became very indignant
when he was (in his own mind)not taken at his word.He then went on to chastize those doubters
and suggested how those same people should behave when posting.Here's this same person now,having requested information ,behaving in the the same manner."Ironic,don't you think"?

By Muskogee (Muskogee) ( - on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 06:35 pm:

I reread your old posts regarding this matter, and I'm really impressed. My biggest problem is that since I'm an "Allenite" I don't think my eye is critical enough to judge it with! I would be interested to see what some of the non-Allenite board members think about your finding.

By Zander Kite (Zk) ( - on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:13 pm:

I'm a non-Allenite. Tell you what, post the new evidence and I'll tell you what I think. I'm willing to label all of the code connections to any suspect I've seen as "entertainment-value", with perhaps one exception. That is the 13-code, because it can be matched to a suspect, and appears to rule out another. THE 13-code was carefully prepared, and takes the appearance of a balanced equation, so to speak. It appears the writer purposely placed the K(11) and M(13) between the 3 8's as a mathematical match. This string can be connected to a suspect. THE 13-code also appears to rule out ALA. Without even effort to decode it, it dryly reads **My last name is Allen 888.** IF I'm not mistaken, Allen had 3 eights in a row in his SSN. The codes before this were difficult enough, without revealing "high-price" info, so I can't imagine reverting to an easy code, giving away his name. I'm willing to rule out on this alone. At any rate, I disagree with this idea that you shouldn't go into the codes looking for a name. That's exactly what you should do. It's called investigating. If I'm not mistaken, Reichert still labels the cabbie in the GRK case as a "person of interest". So I think something similar is going on here. Even as the suspect peels away to a point where it's obvious he can't be involved, letting go is difficult.

By Esau (Esau) ( - on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:51 am:

Don't worry Lapumo. I respect your posts. I think Victor received one too many swirlies in the boys room in high school.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 07:41 am:

For those of you who have made genuine posts here ,I thank you.Like I have said at the outset,this thread was started because of comments made by Ray and others elsewhere on this board.It wasn't intended (at this point)to become a forum to discuss the exact detail of the project but only to give general information on where this project stands.
I realise that this is frustrating and will lead to all kinds of speculation,however I thought it would have been unfair (given the comments made) to sit here,as a member of this board and say nothing.
I don't know what impact,if any, this project will have on this case.It may well end up on the scrap heap with the hundreds that have gone before it.The consensus so far though, indicate that it is worthy of serious consideration.
Muskogee,your point is a fair one and well taken.
I wasn't an Allenite untill this surfaced.I always had more time for Marshall(given the choices Graysmith gave us).I also was very impressed with alot of the links to Bruce Davis,forwarded by Howard.Again, the only thought I had going into this ,was that Zodiac would gives clues to his identity.There is much,much more to this than a decoding of a name.On that point,if this project was simply some alternative to some of the once off efforts such as "Kane my name" it would not be where it is now.
I'll go as far as to say this,if at this point nobody ever heard of Allen or the information about him here was not known,I am of the opinion that a good case could be laid against him based on the letters alone.So at the very least,it is a huge coincidence that a reasonable and detailed
crypto solution can be made against him at this point in time.
The project now stands at about 50 pages,with what I would call, another three areas of very promising leads to be checked out.
Esau,thank you for your words.
I will attempt to answer any genuine questions as best I can.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 02:31 pm:

For what it is worth, I'm positive that Lapumo has taken the evidence to a level that has yet to be achieved by any amateur investigator thus far, and I've never even seen his work! I say this because I'm very confidant in the opinions of the people who have seen his work; people such as Ray.

Lapumo, I have a question for you: Why are you allowing SFPD to sit on your evidence? If it were I, I'd go ahead and publish the information you have for all to see and let the cards fall where they may. Carroll and Maloney are good guys, I'm sure, but SFPD as a department simply hasn't the funds or manpower to solve this case once and for all. Anyway, keep the faith and I can't wait to scrutinize your work myself!

Happy New Year to all!

By Tom Stout (Tom_Stout) ( - on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 04:40 pm:

Happy New Year everyone!
Good luck Lapumo! I hope you're on to something!

SFPD doesn't have the funds or manpower to solve ANY case!
Among the top 50 largest cities in the USA, I believe SFPD ranks DEAD last for solving homicides.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) ( - on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 05:49 pm:

Lapumo,I think Scott has a great point...releasing your work for all to see might be really helpful. I think it was very wise of you to have independent experts review your work. And while we board members may not be experts in the field, I think there are a few here (excluding myself) who are pretty darn good at cryptography.

Again, kudos for the independent reviews. As with any hypothesis, the more critisism it withstands, the stronger it becomes.

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 12:06 am:

LAPUMO: I think your comparison of your current position with my previous one is unfair. Your pretentious words at the top of this thread, "It may only be a matter of splitting hairs to say that I have never stated that 'this case is solved'." are pretty grandious and ridiculous. It leads the public to think that you have the solution to the Zodiac's identity without offering any proof whatsoever. Do you actually expect anyone to believe this??
Obviously some have taken your bait, 'hook, line & sinker'. Not me. In my previous situation, I was merely relaying a conversation that I had with noted attorney Melvin Belli. I posted all the details about it, as promised, at the beginning of last summer. It was immediately & involuntarily deleted without my knowledge or consent. This caused much consternation among the readers here. I am not in charge of this board, and was only told that it may have originally been "lost" when it was being 'transferred' to another thread. I later re-posted my entire account, as best I could. You, on the other hand, have claimed to have solved this case & refuse to re-post your vaulted 'solution' only giving vague allusions to mysterious posts you may have made several years ago. Come on, LAPUMO, be realistic. If you've got some kind of 'solution' to the savage murders of many people years ago, let us know. Otherwise your mysterious deductions are about as valid right now as "the Singapore Slinger's" letter.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 06:32 am:

My position is this...I believe that the encryptions uncovered within these communications were deliberately put there..I believe the evidence is strong enough for serious consideration.I will stand by those statements.That does NOT mean that the "case is solved".It means that I personally believe that Arthur leigh Allen was the Zodiac OR whoever wrote these letters did so with the intention of incriminating him.
My response to your ill-mannered and ill-informed post was justified and fair.You made those comments without reading the facts,already available on this site.Others(such as Muskogee) have managed to find and read some of the original findings AND if you want to take the trouble you will also find a record of an interview given by S.F.P.D, which comments on this project.So, the project exists and is with S.F.P.D and you don't even have to take my word for it.
Scott and Muskogee,
From early on,when we realized or thought we had something significant the decision was taken to at least try and do things the right way.
It was felt that the right thing to do was to approach Law Enforcement first.However we fully realized that many people have forwarded theories over the years and rather than waste their time or ours,it was decided to send it out for independent scrutiny beforehand.The positives far outweighed the negatives so we went ahead.
No sooner had the file been handed over ,when several more crucial links were discovered.This necessitated a re write and delayed things further.The updated version was handed over late last year,October/November I think.So while we have worked on the project for a considerable amount of time,S.F.P.D do not have it that long.
Of course the DNA evidence clashes with what this theory proposes and that does not help.Since then even more links have been discovered.That's been the nature of this project.Since the decision was taken to approach S.F.P.D,I think it's only fair to give the the time to evaluate it.I would also prefer to finish off investigating the latest links(that could make all the difference) rather than posting an unfinished theory.
Although,very crude and badly put together,part of this theory is already outlined on this board.
If it would help to discuss that,I'm willing to do so.
Thank you for your good wishes.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 08:54 am:

Lapumo, I understand your position completely but I will offer this as advice: Don't let SFPD sit on your work for too long, as they really don't have the money to accomplish anything of substance, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I simply mean that I don't see SFPD, in general, placing much priority on this case. It is going to take someone like you, Tom, Doug, Howard, Ed, Zander, Peter, et. al, to solve this case. As the adage goes, don't place all your eggs in one basket. Does the Vallejo PD have a copy of your work? How about NSD? I know of one of the fine detectives who's been very complimentary of your work, but who else has read it?

Also, I wouldn't worry about the DNA evidence in the slightest. It's as simple as this: the testing has only been completed to ABC's satisfaction, not to the satisfaction of those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sure that even Dr. Holt can and will confirm that for you. The questions on the Primetime special were very leading, and much of the information was misleading.

Also, in case it isn't obvious, having deliberated on the subject of ALA's complicity in the Zodiac crimes since the Primetime episode first aired, I feel more confident, now than ever, that Allen was the Zodiac. Additionally, I'm confident that there is enough evidence forthcoming to more than satisfy any doubts that may remain as to Allen's involvement.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:16 am:

The only department that has a copy of the project is S.F.P.D,for no good reason other than as far as I knew, they were the only ones actively working on the case.I did note though,with some interest,how quickly Vallejo P.D came out to defend the case against Allen when rumors went around that S.F had eliminated him.
I'd speak to anyone that could help push this along.Having said that,I have no complaints with the person I spoke with at S.F.P.D,I have great time and respect for him.Had I not been so far away from everything I would have been banging on all doors.Perhaps others will show some interest now that word is out of it's existence.
Other than that,the only others(that I'm aware of)
that have read this report are those whom we asked to give an independent analysis.I may be being silly,however I don't want to force them into comments or a discussion they may not want to get involved in at this time.So I'll leave it to them if they want to comment.
Also,as I said before this thing is still growing,so none of the above have the whole story yet either.
Thanks for the advice and encouragement.

By Esau (Esau) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:47 am:

My apologies Victor. What I wrote was a knee jerk reaction. Hence, I was a jerk.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

I have less confidence that Allen is Z since the DNA results were announced, but I have not given up on him by any means. Many things, including Lapumo's findings, contradict the story the DNA might appear to tell.

I find this interesting because, in the few cases I've been involved with in which there was a good suspect, the DNA always confirmed that suspect's involvement. Here we have a good suspect, and the DNA appears to point somewhere else. However, as I've posted previously, there are a lot of "what ifs" involved with DNA testing, and, until we have more results, I won't hold my breath about anything.

Meanwhile, I look forward to seeing Lapumo's final analysis in the future and everyone's take on it.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

There's already so much circumstantial evidence pointing to Allen that it's going to take something huge to get the attention of law enforcement. (And I mean HUGE.)

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 02:00 am:

ESSAU: I appreciate your above apology. I know it's easy to get excited over things, especially on this web site.
We must all be careful (me included) of getting too overZealous of our opinions here. I think the strategiZing on this case may just lead to the prevention of other Future serial murder cases. Let's all team up & make the world a safer place for people to live in.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 08:38 am:


I honestly feel that Lapumo is part of the reason why Maloney still sees ALA as the number 1 suspect, regardless of the DNA results. Obviously, he knows as well as anyone that the ABC funded DNA "evidence" is totally inconclusive.

Muskogee wrote, "Here we have a good suspect, and the DNA appears to point somewhere else . . . until we have more results, I won't hold my breath about anything."

Good philosophy, that.

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:02 pm:


One thing I can say about Lapumo is that he is a man of character and not given to mindless claims backed by some need to inflate his ego. I am, for sure, not on the same wavelength as many folks on here, but I am admittedly quick to engage stupidity. Say what you will, this thing is over. I of course understand that it might be a bit frustrating to be told something that is not corroborated or backed up by proof. It's the easiest thing in the world to do - make up some BS and then offer no proof out of make believe concerns of "security". Well, I'd be all over that if it were the case. The only alternative is to not tell you anything, which advances nothing.

Think about it like this: Look at the firestorm of controversy that erupted when I even reminded the board about something that Lapumo had already posted on. It seemed almost like it was overlooked, and it's not the first time. Now, all of a sudden, there are demands, well, maybe suggestions that this should just be posted, just to satisfy the question, "Is this a bunch of malarky?" Well, there is a certain someone on here who has seen it who really gave us the courage to go forward to the authorities. Maybe that person will see fit to elaborate here on his views about the project. Perhaps not. Nonetheless, there have been literally hundreds of emails exchanged, phone calls made, plane rides across oceans taken, etc. All of this unseen by the board members due to legitimate concerns about security. I can assure you that BS does not warrant the time, money, and effort expended by several people directly involved, and anyone scoffing now under the heading of "This is the first I've heard of this" would serve themselves well by accomplishing two things:

1. Go find Lapumo's posts without asking me where they are, and then read them.

2. Control your urge to criticize something you haven't even seen and don't know anything about. You're only going to damage how you are perceived here.

I feel better already.


By Zander Kite (Zk) ( - on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:31 pm:

With all this talk about frustration over the lack progress in the case and the lack of info forwarded on the project, I'll say this: I know the who and most of the why, so I'm laid back like a lumberjack with a lithium stack. I see the clashing of this project with a DNA match leading to the last srain of Allen-resistance possible: That is that Allen was an original member of FC. To make any claims of solving the case based on cryptic clues, that find would have to be really spectacular.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 10:48 pm:

While I certainly respect (but may not necessarily believe) that various people have extracted various suspects' names out of Z's ciphers and writings, it is that very fact that tells me that I cannot accept any one of them as being the final nail in anyone's coffin. To wit:

1) Zander Kite has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ted Kaczinsky is Z by extracting his name from Z's ciphers;

2) Gareth Penn has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Michael Henry O'Hare is Z by extracting his (and his mother's and father's as well) name from both Z's ciphers and writings;

3) Harvey Hines has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Larry Kane is Z by extracting his name from one of Z's ciphers;

4) Lapumo has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Arthur Leigh Allen is Z by extracting his name from Z's letters.

I'm not making fun of anyone here. I'm pointing out that it's all been done before, and everyone and their grandma has extracted their suspects' names from Z's ciphers and writings. While I may not agree with anyone's results, I respect all your work, and certainly continue on with it. But for me, the case is hardly over; when compared to JTR, we've barely gotten started. But you never know, Lapumo: perhaps you'll find something (or already have) that might lead investigators to Z's buried cache of Z evidence that will put the last nail in ALA's coffin.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 01:55 am:

Zander Kite,

At the risk of sounding foolish, would you kindly elaborate on the middle sentence of your 1/5/03 9:31 pm message so that an amateur like myself can understand it?! As it is I'm guessing at the various interpretations, and after spending the evening poring over all the old cipher entries do not want to misunderstand your simple statement as well.

Thanks! Great reading. You guys really went the extra mile on your cipher workups.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 07:26 am:

Ed, You make an excellent point and it is one accepted by many on this board and outside.We have so many names and so many interpretations how can we rely on anything?Far from being put off by this argument,it is one I was hoping someone would raise.
If we are to compare one against the other and "write them off" accordingly,we must at least ensure that we are comparing like with like.
There is much on this board we have termed "Cryptology" and "Encoded names" that fall woefully short of those definitions.Fact is Ed,we do not have any "Names" and certainly none linked to known methods of Cryptology.What we have is an assortment of "Bits of names" extracted under "make it up as we go along" rules.
Pulling "Kane" out of 13 symbols is not Cryptology.We cannot legitimately even call it a name.From the same 13 symbols we get ALFRED E NEUMAN, ROBIN O NEAL, TED KACZNSI,ALLEN 888, In other words,
we can play around with various combinations and rules,call it a name, call it cryptology and we have a link to a suspect.We have several more examples,none stand up to scrutiny.99% are not even full or correct spellings.
Each has been a product of the individual thinking
of the person who came up each "name".There was no instruction no rules,just an idea.
What this project claims is something much different.It's not a case of I found a name therefore this guy must be the Zodiac. What I am claiming is that there is a puzzle laid out within Zodiac's communications.A puzzle with instructions not dictated by me.A jigsaw that covers over a dozen communications. Zodiac used approved methodology with his own twist.In a very deceptive,yet simple manner he told us exactly what to look for,he told us where to find different pieces of the puzzle.He told us how to decode the puzzle and when we decoded it ,he provided proof that the "solution" was correct.As you can perhaps appreciate, there is an awful lot of material that would have to come together in order for me to make that statement.
I certainly have not said that I have proved that Arthur Leigh Allen is the Zodiac beyond a shadow of doubt.I believe he is the Zodiac based on these findings.I have looked at all the suspects
and continue to do so.I am also capable of rendering an unbiased opinion on evidence.This is the best I have seen.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 02:01 pm:

Lapumo: that is the problem I have with the extraction of names! There are no rules, some are incomplete or incorrect etc, as you pointed out. I know you've explained only a little of how you've gone about finding Allen's name, and until such time as you post your findings (if you ever do), I'll reserve judgment on your theory. All I can say is, if you've found his name using rules you've discovered in Z's own writings, fantastic! Keep on with it.

As far as the others go, Zander's methodology is at best unorthodox, and only yields the name he wants to find. The method Hines used to find Kane's name plus his year of birth is not only untenable, NO ONE encodes things that way! It's not unlike Zander's method, he found Kane's name because he was convinced Kane was the perp.

The only one whose suspect's name can perhaps be legitimately extracted from Z's writings is Penn, and I say this despite the fact that I make fun of him and take every opportunity to show where's he's wrong. However, considering that Penn has not told us the full story about how he truly discovered O'Hare, the fact that I have proven his radian theory invalid (I can hear his supporters now! lol) upon which his entire argument rests, the fact that he has perverted and altered evidence to force it to fit O'Hare, assumed Alan's phone calls were O'Hare's and used them as more proof (granted, he had no way of knowing at the time, but I had figured it out many months before Alan told us he was responsible, and I'm not a member of Mensa like Penn is (or was)), and generally fudged things here and there hoping no one would notice, leads me to reject his theory despite the few interesting things he's found.

Assuming that you've engaged in none of Penn's tactics (SFPD's interest in your findings speaks volumes, so I would imagine that you didn't), then all I can say is that, from what little you've explained, it certainly sounds like you have a legitimate find on your hands. Keep up the good work, and let's hope it's fruitful.

By Zander Kite (Zk) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 02:53 pm:

ED, On Dec 31: I posted on this thread...((I'm willing to label all the code connections to any suspect I've seen as entertainment-value with perhaps one exception,the 13-code)). I've said it before, so I'll say it again..I dont think there is any evidence to convict TK with, yet I see no reasonable way that TK isn't Z. I judge by the totality of the case. Concerning Beoriete Methhpiti, and I know this is crude, but I'm not even sure there is anyone here in a position to grasp it fully, or otherwise in a position to criticize it. You know if anyone wants to pick up on the 11 off the 0,3,6,9... Go for it(if you can). I believe now that there stands an 85 percent chance that Beoriete Methhpiti was designed as an anagram for TK at least closely along the lines of my solution. It's not like this is about ego like it is with others, I've already said that the most compelling code connection to TK is the 13-code and that's not mine. Of course if you ask Lapumo, he'll tell you all solutions are the same caliber no matter what. So what if the 13-code matches closely with a string of math work from Kaczynski pre-Zodiac, and so what if you get From Ted Kaczynsi(a perfect anagram within) using the same math from that problem. Kane my name is just as good. And who in their right mind would send in a line reading my last name is Allen and then call it a code. I keep getting the Allenites on that one. There's no way that'd be sent in(by Allen). It's not like he read the paper and said OOOps, I meant to write jibberish but I put my name there instead. Better cut back on the Coors(lol). Carolyn>> ((The DNA results will direct the Allenites to the last strain of Allen-resistance possible, that Allen was an original member of FC.)) Just a joke I hope, not sure, but you see if(lol) DNA results come back Kaczynski, some are so resistant to any other idea than that Allen was Z, that somehow they'll have to make room for him. Hey, its not a totally bad idea. Perhaps there was friction over the naming of the club. Allen wanted Fat Club instead of Freedom Club. Perhaps even KFC was kicked around(lol). By the way ED you wrote that Lapumo(and Ray) extracted Allens' name using rules from Zodiacs writings. Better guess again. The work involved here will make Bookworm jealous.

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:03 pm:

One of the most telling facets of this project has been it's likeness to a jigsaw puzzle, as Lapumo points out. It was only after seeing that certain pieces fit together in certain ways that we began to realize that this was one single entity. Unfortunately, in the beginning there were lots of failures to make the required connections, because as everyone knows, Zodiac's clues are cryptic, and we were trying to put the puzzle together without a picture to look at. As more pieces were fitted, however, we began to make our own picture, in effect. This was the main aspect that eventually produced success. As the picture became clearer, we became able to predict what was coming next, where it would be, even what it would be. Were this not the case, we would still have been struggling at the end just as we were in the beginning. But it got so much easier the further we went. Each of the communications contained it's own piece, whether it be a piece of the puzzle, instructions for what to do with it, or both. Zodiac even went so far as to provide examples of how to reorder things he had given us to produce the solution. The bottom line is, instead of deciding who we thought Z was and then trying to find that particular name in there, which is what everyone else that came before did, we followed certain instructions that we were able to interpret. The results were irrefutable. As the name materialized letter by letter, not only did it match the name of a leading suspect, it dovetailed perfectly with a comprehesive system of messages set down in a certain format. It is not a complicated system at all, in fact it is best described as extremely simple. What it took to do it was countless hours and many sleepless nights of failure after failure before the first pieces were fitted together. And then the revelations began. And along the way, we did not encounter even one instance of a new discovery contradicting what came before. Either we got gibberish, or we got another piece of a continuous string. At the end, we have a giant word puzzle assembled according to the instructions. There's no way around the fact that the name buried within it is repeated, and is spelled exactly the same each time. And, of course, there is plenty more of the name-calling, taunting, and teasing that Zodiac is famous for. In short, for us to produce what we have by any means other than legitimate cryptography would have been impossible, because what we have is built solely upon what was provided by the author of the Zodiac communications. We didn't do what we wanted to do with things, we did what we were instructed to do. And that is the difference between this project and all others that came before.

Without a full explanation, this may well be a tough pill to swallow for those who don't know the details. That's entirely understandable. For those who don't agree with our views on many of the other issues discussed on the board, it's surely going to be seen as a subjective attempt to force Zodiac to be who we want, as they've done. This is also understandable and predictable. However, unlike most, we have gone to the authorities with the project and they have been very receptive to it.

As has been pointed out on here, no one at SFPD has been quoted as saying Allen has been eliminated by DNA. Notwithstanding previous discussions about the problems with the test actually done, this is not at all without good reason. The power of this new evidence, viewed from a standpoint of the likelihood of it being a coincidence, puts it's evidentiary value in the same league as DNA by my estimation. Yes, that's a powerful statement. And I stand by it.

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:15 pm:


So what you are saying is that you figure an 85% probability that TK was Zodiac. Fine. Keep in mind we are not the one's you need to impress, and since nobody on here is smart enough to comprehend your explanations, maybe you ought to put your theories in report form and forward them to professionals, as we have done. Surely, there must exist somewhere in the world as least one or two individuals with the mental capacity to fathom what you seem unable to plainly explain to idiots.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:21 pm:


By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:59 pm:

Zander wrote:

... yet I see no reasonable way that TK isn't Z.

And that's why anything you find in the ciphers et. al. will point to TK. But, I think everyone's beaten that dead horse to a pulp now.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 06:01 pm:

Guess it's time to come out of the closet. No, not that one.

Many months ago I was privileged to be asked by Ray and Sean (Lapumo) to review a project that was still in its rough-draft form. They acknowledged, when I more than readily insisted, that my skills at cryptology were nearly nonexistent, but felt that whatever assessment of the project I could offer could be of value for that very reason. As it turned out, not even the most rudimentary understanding of cryptographic principles was needed to appreciate and recognize that they were on to something. And that's not to say that such skill and expertise was not a factor in their discoveries, which it most assuredly was. I later received from them an updated, more finished product (it's an ongoing process, so finalized would not be accurate), which served to cement my conviction in the validity of their findings.

Part of what Ray and Sean were seeking from me was an independent opinion of the validity of their hypothesis, but it was also to solicit some guidance as to how they should proceed with it. I made it clear from the outset that I did not want my name associated with the project, win, lose or draw, other than if necessary to initially get their collective foot in the door of law enforcement as someone with an investigatory background that had studied their work and felt it deserved further consideration. Ray and Sean had already identified the most likely police agency, and investigators, to contact, and all I did was to lend my support and offer suggestions for how that agency should best be approached in order for their project to be given that consideration.

I'm not going to elaborate on the nature and specifics of their work; that's for Ray and Sean to do as they see fit. I can only say that, regardless of my preexisting biases toward Allen, the way in which the puzzle revealed itself in the objective manner that it did, with the clarity of recognition it offered, and without forcing any square pegs into round holes, it was like an epiphany. Not at all like the anagrammatical manipulation which the vast majority of amateur code breakers use to derive names or messages, intended or otherwise, from a random selection of words or cryptograms. If the outcome had pointed to Scrooge McDuck, I would have sh*tcanned Allen and adopted the duck as my new favorite. It is that convincing. As Ray and Sean have described, the outcome of the process was accomplished by locating and identifying certain keys by which the instructions could be found, and following those directions to isolate precisely the messages the writer had hidden in plain view. That same, exact process was replicable in many of Z's writings, not just in one letter or coded excerpt. That, alone, speaks to it's validity.

I've been reluctant to mention my involvement in this, knowing that I already have my share of detractors here, and I didn't want to lend whatever taint that might represent to the remarkable work Ray and Sean have accomplished. I was also respecting the understandable confidentiality under which my limited involvement came about. Ray more or less invited me to speak out in an earlier post in this thread (at least I think he was referring to me), and I felt compelled to come forward to offer my support now, as I have done since I first read their work and will continue to do. If the addition of my name/contribution, however minor and cetainly not of any material value, to the furtherance of this project diminishes its credibility or lessens the credibility of Ray or Sean, I sincerely apologize to both of you.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 06:42 pm:

Of interest is that professionals at the FBI came up with Adam Granahan,Adam Shanahan and Adam Flanagan and Gemini for the 13 my name is code.
There are a hundred others, many of them ingenious contrivances.
Robert Emmett the hippi,or be with me in the pit,this is the clue Robert E.Lee,and scores of names and possible pen names have been devised from the ending verbage of Code I.
Zodiac was an amature(keep this firmly in mind) cipher creator and I do not believe he spelled out his real or actual name and then tried to hide his real indentity by disguises,finger tip coverage and a deceptive writing style,etc.
He plainly stated with great pride he was "crack proof" and that the police will "never catch" him-unless they,of course,decode his name!It would have to be his name- he told us he wouldn't give us his address in code I!
Solutions are works of art in many cases,but just like art, much can seem to appear masterpieces by 'decoding' lines of symbols-it's as old as time.They 'fit perfectly' like the hand of an artist,but is it what the author really intended?
I want all true solutions to the codes(there are three that are in dispute)but finding Zodiacs name is a bit much.It is a massive contradiction to his personality and his demonstrated activities both by deed and by letter.THERE IS NO FIT -no matter whose name/s are 'derived.'

By Zander Kite (Zk) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 08:19 pm:

Allow me to forward an example of finding Allens name in the writings. I'm assuming this is one of the mysterious posts referenced by the project. That is finding IL LEE ALLEN in the Belli letter. This is how it goes. Zodiac directs the reader to the number 9. How? 1.One code is mailed on Nov.9 name is.....mailed as the 9th letter 3.Belli letter skips the number 8 going directly to 9((Sidenote: the 340 read: (deals eighth soel slain))). 4. an Oct 27th mailing of "you ache to know my I'll clue you in" (2+7=9). Because of this the reader is directed to the Belli letter to look for the 9th letter after...??.(Also the reader is reminded by the Exorcist writing to review the Belli letter because the movie has a scene where "help me" is on the girls stomach as compared to "please help me" and "this thing in me". Also compare "billowy wave" to "drownding".) Anyway the reader is led to looking for the 9th letter after each sentence? First let me say that if IL LEE ALLEN were found correctly, it would be what I'd expect to find anyway...common letters. But the process is manipulated. There is no set rule for following nine after each punctuation, or following nine from the beginning of each sentence. At any rate if you were to offer paradice=pair of dice=gambling=The gambler Kenny Rogers=Mister Rogers=likes little kids=Arthur Leigh Allen, I would be more impressed. RAY, I have one question and I'll tell you this is potentially hilarious. What is the same name that is repeated? You see, Det. Baker has just said he would adopt Scrooge McDuck as a suspect if that's the name that repeats by this absolutely impartial cryptic recovery. So now if you tell me that the repeating name is Lee Allen, then we have a new suspect for the project team...that is first name LEE,last name Allen.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 08:20 pm:

Thanks for Your explanation, Zander. So that WAS a joke?! I like your humor. Definitely makes me a believer.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 10:36 pm:

Zander: Lapumo posted on 12-31-2002 at 3:08 AM that the name is "Arthur Leigh Allen," not "Lee Allen." If that's the name Lapumo finds, spelled precisely that way and encrypted several times, I think that's worth a second look. I submit that there are not as many "Arthur Leigh Allens" in the world as compared to, say, "John Smiths," so that immediately narrows down the number of possible suspects to a handful. When we throw in the geographical angle (for the sake of argument, 99% of the "Arthur Leigh Allens" live outside of the Bay Area), then we can focus on an even more select group of suspects. When one turns up in Vallejo, and was turned in as a suspect for a Z crime, I think we should focus on that individual. And if his name keeps turning up spelled the way he spells it, I think that's mighty suspicious.

Of course, if the same process yielded "Theodore Kaczinsky," or "Michael Henry O'Hare," etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum, then we should focus on that suspect. Since Lapumo discovered ALA and not TK, that's telling.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 10:44 pm:

Zander, you might find the in-your-face, overwhelm-them-with-smug-superiority approach to debate an effective style, but all it tells me is that you are so fixated and narcissistic with your own creations that any differing view must be summarily mocked and vilified. And that does little, sorry to say, to strengthen your position, your credibility, or even your reasoning abilities. I admit that I know little about cryptanalysis; there are plenty of you "experts" here to cover that quite adequately. However, I do know a lot about people, and the insecure rantings of someone who cannot bear to be upstaged or contradicted says a lot about the person and their character. A closed mind is a terrible thing to flaunt. Zander, you are pathetic.

My earlier post is my position, and I will say no more about it.

By Nick (Nick) ( on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 11:34 pm:

First of all Lapumo and Ray, I would like to say I admire the time and effort you have put into this project. Given your quiet confidence, I'm compelled to believe you may have come upon something. What I don't quite understand is your expectation in regard to the SFPD. What can possibly happen other than some of the detectives firming up their existing personal convictions. I don't think any solution found within the code, no matter how firm, will result in any law enforcement agency making a public declaration that the case is being closed. I think you guys would do well to publish a manuscript or book. If that's the plan, please let me know. I'll be quick to order an advance copy.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 12:34 am:

Good post with wisdom.I still see Zodiac saying "I will not give you my name."He knew how dismal that would be to his career of crime and murder.It would "slow or stop" it!
And he goes to prison and the gas chamber-just for the cheap thrill of placing his full name in a cipher-with "no address"though!

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 05:52 am:

I thank you for adding your thoughts at this time.You participation/involvement in this project can only help.The one comment that stands out(which I have not heard before)goes to the confidence you had in the process itself.That you would actually change suspects had the name been different speaks volumes.I have just realized,all over again,(name aside)how convincing the process behind it,is.
You do make a very good point.First and foremost I would like to see this evaluated by
a crypto expert/s within the department.There is a certain level of proof here (albeit on paper).
I would hope that a big step could be taken if experts determined that these decryptions were valid to the exclusion of all other possibilities(which I believe).
However more recent research,has convinced me that
Zodiac did actually "go all the way" and link this up to a piece of "outside" evidence that would put this beyond all doubt.I still want to research these avenues.
There is actually so much already it's hard to explain.So many things would have had to have come together to make this incorrect that it almost defies odds to make it so.
Let me remind you of some comments you made.
When it was suggested that you forward your cryptic solutions for professional analysis you responded with, quote "Lapumo I am that professional you speak of" That was a lie.
You then claimed to have solved the 340 without forcing Tk's name in there.That was a lie.
You then claimed to have calculated odds of over a million to one against finding TK's name in the first and last lines of the 340.That was a lie.
When asked to show how you did it,you claimed to be a "skilled handicapper" able to calculate odds when the formula is not strict.B.S and lies.
In each and every one of these discussions you continued hammering your ideas and "finds" as legitimate.After all that you now label them only "entertainment value".
You also said that you were an honest person,who would evaluate each find on its merits.Now you turn around attempting not only to knock something before you see it,but attempt to insult all involved.You even go as far as to drag Bookworm into things.All in an effort to achieve what?
I'll tell you something,when all of this is done,be it right or wrong,those of us involved will walk away with heads held high.Knowing that we have made an honest effort without trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes.
You have now made such a disgrace of yourself that I hope you will have the decency not to post again.Although chances are you have become one of those most pathetic of animals,a guy that believes his own sh**.

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 07:32 am:

LAPUMO & RAY N.: You are both starting to sound an awful lot like GARETH PENN, but without the explanations.
Can you please inform us of your "wonderful" & ingenious solution to the Zodia case?? Otherwise your meanderings seem ironicly similar to the "PAUL McCARTNEY IS DEAD" theories of the late '60's!
Thanks for sharing....

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

Zander is of course referring to Lapumo's initial post in which he explained how he arrived at that find. And he is correct, that in and of itself means very little, if not nothing. However, I hope no one here gets the idea that this is the limit of the scope of the project. It was the beginning, the foot in the door so to speak. His post was the beginning of our collaboration, and we have since put over a year of dedicated effort in furtherance of the "complete" solution. We would be wrong and irresponsible to declare what we have with that tidbit only. Initially, Lapumo offered that post to see if anyone found it interesting, and perhaps might be able to add to it or offer constructive comment, as he asked for in the post. We were both kinda surprised at the lack of comment on it at that time.

Zander, for what it's worth, your contributions here are simply not worth the intentional havoc you attempt to wreak upon truly constructive efforts (leastways ones that tend to point away from Kaczynski). My first impulse here is to go on record asking for your sorry hide to be thrown off this forum permanently. But I'll tell you what. Why don't you send your report to Det. Baker? Or does he have to pass an I.Q. test first? As soon as you accomplish this, Bill can report back to the board! Or maybe you can pay for the opinion of a professional cryptanalyst. What? Oh, no, now you have to put your money where your mouth is. I can assure you that you are living in a delusional world if you really think you're the most intelligent member of this board... despite your irreproachable handicapping skills. Not only have you no shame, you've no integrity, as Sean has so aptly pointed out. In any event, the best thing you can do for all concerned is to keep right on posting. After all, around these parts, you are what you write.

Carolyn, It's not humor. It's ego. In any case, neither should be enough to make anyone a believer.

Nick, What we'd like to see from from SFPD is simply a commitment to continue with more DNA tests. I understand that DNA is probably going to close out this case. But further tests are warranted. My sincerest hope is that the project will provide sufficient impetus to overcome the age and state of the case and make the necessary funding available.

Bill, Thank you so very much for your valued input.


By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 06:28 pm:

Of again. Why have my last 2 posts relating to WILLIAM BAKER, LAPUMO & RAY N. been CENSORED? Is sarcasym too much for you to handle? There was nothing obscene or anything in them. Just funny poking fun. I think freedom of speech is something this country was founded on. So it's a valuable thing. Don't you agree?

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 07:24 pm:

Victor, you've already made your point, ok? No need for duplication. I have to pay for this web space, so feel free to take this up with Ray, Lapumo and Bill through e-mail.

By VSCANTU (Vscantu) ( - on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 12:56 pm:


But don't you think that this will attract more viewers and participants to your web site? Maybe it's a new "thread" of discussion, but I believe that many readers will want to take part in it. I know sometimes things get a little too emotional, which is why I have to take brakes from this site.
I imagine it's only much harder for you. But listen, I think that it can only get better. This discourse is very good for everyone involved. Dont' you think?

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:32 pm:

Victor, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me. Nonetheless, my only concern with this thread is keeping it civil and avoiding repetition.

By Len (Len) ( on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:23 am:

Lapumo and Ray:

I've skimmed this thread and have only one question: Did your decryption yield cogent, understandable sentences (as opposed to the kind of manic ranting that Graysmith's "solution" elicited)?

I think my position on this is very close to that of Ed N, and in that regard, I look forward to the time when more expicit results can be made public. Good luck with it.

By obiwan (Obiwan) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:18 am:

Lapumo, I strongly encourage you to post your work here. I think we all would be interested. The benifits of posting it here would be: 1.) people here with different skills than yours might find connections you have overlooked which better support your theory. 2.) If there are weak points to the theory they will be exposed, yes. But this will enable you to better refine the theory not to be dependant upon those points. 3.) If the theory is as strong as Det. Baker suggests, perhaps you will save people the trouble of investigating other suspects. For example If evidence demonstrated to my satisfaction that TK was not the Zodiac, that would tell me something about TK's psychology which, at present in my mind at least, remains an open question.

I agree with Nick that the SFPD will not give your work the review it deserves, if for no other reason than bad PR that would occur if they fingered ALA after already having "ruled him out"
based on (questionable) DNA evidence. The "stir" created by the discussion of your theory here might perhaps be the only thing that could get the SFPD to take it more seriously.

Lapumo, you have shown that, like most posters, you are capable of having a reasonable mature discussion on points of disagreement. You need not answer criticisms which do not fall within this construct.

However I would advise you to take the time to make the lay-out of your theory, (which sounds complex) as clear as possible. Beginning, perhaps with starting hypotheses (ie "Hypothesis #1: Z planned from the start to write a series of letters, to ultimately reveal his identity," etc.) Then present the evidence step-by-step. Please recall (as evidenced by all of us who have worked on code-breaking in this case) that due to the amount of work you put in, some things will seem "obvious" and clear to you, which are not clear to everyone else. In any case good luck.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 05:52 am:

If there is one member of the board that I would suggest you run things past, perhaps for a report to the rest of us, that would be Peter H. He has no suspect (as far as I know), which gives him the greatest degree of objectivity possible, and he knows how to analyze ideas and to question (often to the dismay of others) basic assumptions. I don't know if he'd be willing to do it, but it never hurts to ask.

Please do not construe this suggestion as a swipe at Bill Baker. His support for your interpretation of the codes (and, I take it, several of the letters) certainly carries weight with me. I just think that getting an assessment from someone who is not a proponent of any suspect would be valuable to you in developing your thesis and valuable to the board in assessing the likely value (absent access to your entire report) your thesis has to the case as whole.

And, in the end, it's just a thought.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 08:52 am:

To answer your first question this is not a case of offering a full solution to something like the 340 cipher,so we are not dealing with full sentences here.What it is ,is a form of Jigsaw puzzle.To get a flavor of what is involved,have a look in the Cipher thread under "Did Zodiac give his name".Do not be put off by it as it was a very crude effort,badly written and badly put together.It is also a hell of a lot less complicated than it appears there.
While based in Cryptography one does not have to be an expert in order to follow what's going on here.Have a look and if you have a question I will try to answer.
At face value I do not blame you for adopting the same position as Ed.However,with the greatest respect to both of you,you are working from a false premise,at least in respect to the other "solutions" offered here on this board.
There are no other names.What you have are once -off curiosities and forced "solutions".Examples of this would be the few offerings of Ted Kaczynski's partial name and initials.Don't get me wrong here,that is not to say the TK is not the Zodiac.He could be.But these offer nothing by way of proof or even that there was some connection behind them.For example,I could go in here and pull out a limitless amount of names.It offers nothing,other than the connection I would have made myself.To that end,I can find the name of all suspects in this case and each would carry the same amount of weight.MY NAME KANE = HELLO TED KACNSKI.
Again that is not to say that our solution is correct,it may eventually prove otherwise.However
what's on offer here is repitition and sound links using defined methods,with no alternative readings of the solutions offered.To translate this,if this project is correct it will mean that
Zodiac was playing a game,very deceptively he told us where to look,what type of crytpology was at play,how to decipher his messages and proof that the solution arrived at was correct.
The real shock here is that Allen himself (Zodiac or not)not only pointed to where his name was uncovered but also provided a clue to decipherment.Think about that,we have uncovered a name in a specific place using a know method of Cryptography,gathered from clues with the letters.That name turns out to be one of the leading suspects in the case.The suspect himself,points to the same place and provides the same clue.There is no way I can see how he could have done this unless he had that knowledge.
Obiwan and Len
When I first posted on this,it was in response to a comment by Ray and also one by S.F.P.D.It genuinely is still growing,and there are connections to tie up.I can tell you that Bill Baker spent an awful lot of time over this.I can also tell you that he backed off at times because Allen is the suspect here.Such is his professionalism that he wanted to ensure that the opinion he gave would be an unbiased one.As to our methodology,I can only point to his comment that said if we had uncovered a different name he would have cast Allen aside in favor of whatever name we had.With all due respect to Peter,by his own words,his knowledge of cryptography is not good he has never shown any interest in the Crypto angle so his opinion would not serve a useful purpose at this time.That is not to say I do not value that opinion but we are not quiet ready to go yet.We would however consider giving it to someone like Glen C.
a professional Cryptographer would could advance the discussion in the right direction.I had some discussions with him way back but I can't get hold of him now.
I thank you both for your good wishes.If there is any point I have missed post again and I will answer.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 08:56 am:

Len, for the sake of balance, please consider that while Peter has not voiced a personal preference for any particular suspect, he has argued quite strenuously in disfavor of Allen. I'm not sure if a pro-suspect evaluator would be any less objective than an anti-suspect one in being able to set aside his/her biases. It would seem that the process of rendering an objective opinion would first involve having to overcome ingrained negativity, before attaining the neutrality necessary for viewing the material in a bias-free medium. Human nature is such that admitting being wrong is far more difficult than gloating about being right. In this vein, if Lapumo were inclined to seek out someone here for a confidential evaluation, I would recommend Ed. He has demonstrated time and again not only his often phenomenal grasp of the minutiae of the Z cases and their contextual significance, but the ability to do so even to the discredit of his own suspect preference.

With respect to Lapumo sharing his work openly -- and this is my opinion, not anything that has been privately discussed with him or Ray -- for whatever potential empirical benefit that could be derived, this ignores the reality that there are opportunists out there (not necessarily regular posters) who would seek to capitalize on Lapumo and Ray's findings to their own advantage. I know it sounds cynical, but even with copyright protection, if their work should prove to be valid, others could easily reshape the core theories and pass them off as their own. The solution of the Z mystery is too tempting a prize for the parasites out there who would have no compunctions about stealing credit whenever possible. Yes, Virginia, there are dishonest people in this world.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:21 am:

Lapumo: Thanks for a very informative post. I will check the thread that you referred to, but I can see what you're getting at here and can readily accept the notion that what you have uncover might not convert itself into lucid sentences, but rather be a collection of words and phrases. I think the phrase "fair enough" would describe my current attitude.

Bill: I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Ed. I believe he would apply the most rigorous standards to an evaluation of the work of Lapumo and Ray. There is no such thing as a person without bias, but the best way to gauge what is being presented is to listen to both the believer and the skeptic. As I said in my earlier post, my suggestion was not made because I thought your judgement was poor or clouded; in fact, I assumed that your appraisal was careful, thoughtful, and judicious.

You are correct about the need for them to keep their report private for the time being. They have a good book proposal on their hands, which, if they haven't already pitched, they should consider doing so.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:44 am:


I have just finished reviewing your initial post on the other thread and will say, even though it goes against a few of my own personal prejudices, that your findings, even then, were tantalizing and well worth serious consideration.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:21 am:

There is not a hell of a lot you can read into that as it stands as it does not appear far removed from what I have been critizing here.However there is much that has not been explained even with that piece.I would be interested to hear what those "personal prejudices" are.
As it stands I have not yet discussed this ongoing situation with Ray.As far as Ed Neil goes let me say this;I have long admired his approach and even way back before I knew Bill or Ray it was he that I contacted when I made the initial discovery.His is an opinion I look forward to reviewing because,like Bill's it's going to be a straight up,no BS honest approach I,m sure.
However,like I said in my initial post,at this time my reasons for starting this thread was to give a general overview of where this project was at the moment.That was prompted by a desire to be fair.I did not think it fair as a member of this board, to sit and say nothing when comments were already made.In a way this has turned out to be a frustrating episode for all.There is only so much I can say at this time and that does not fall well on those of you interested to hear more.I apologise for that.We are interested though in advancing this to the next stage,but again there are loose ends to tie up.
I will not dismiss this idea out of hand,however I'm wondering what purpose it will serve at this time.I only see it leading to more frustration.
Regardless of what opinion Ed should render,we are still in the same boat.We are going to have two people who like it, or one on either side.
Peolpe will still want to judge for themselves.
Perhaps I am missing some point here!
By all means keep the ideas coming.There are most welcome and we will discuss all options.We have been sitting on this now for almost two years and my head is spinning.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:47 am:

Okay, personal prejudices: The main one is my personal suspicion that the "Exorcist" letter is a phony. I think this for two main reasons: It doesn't use the phrase "This is the Zodiac speaking," which I think he had adopted as a kind of letterhead in the original missives; and the use of the word "me" rather than the Zodiac symbol in the so-called boxscore.

I'm not a big fan of the Halloween Card either, mainly because of the lack of the "This is the Zodiac speaking" letterhead, that fact that it's a pastiche, the backwards "N" in knife, and that it was sent to Paul "Averly." (If I were going to mail a Zodiac hoax to myself, I be sure to misspell my own name. That way people would really remember it.)

These are prejudices, though, and not demonstrable facts.

We are a curious species (and I mean that in every sense), and if you let one person peek into the bag, another will happen along who will want to, and before you know it, the bag is empty and the cat is walking around and ruining the arm of your sofa. It is a tantalizing situation, but I will do my best wait patiently until the time is right.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:47 am:

Len, Ray, Lapumo, Bill

If Len's suggstion that I review the work is serious, and is being taken seriousdly, I would like to respond seriously.

First, I am flattered at Len's assessment. In spite of my confrontational tone my intended approach and intent is precicely as Len has described it.

As for Bill's comment; while I certainly understand what it is based on, I think it reflects my failure to communicate exactly what my attitude toward Allen is. To sum up, let me say that I a somewhat more credulous of Allen as Z than the rest of the suspects. I really do think he is the best suspect, but the best of a bad lot.

To say that I am anti-Allen implies that I believe definitively that he is not Z. While that would be my inclination, if I had to choose one way or the other, it misses the mark. My real view is that I do not believe that the evidence to date makes it more likely than not that Allen was Z. He could be, but I don't think it has been demonstrated or could be demonstrated even more likely than not, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact, and I have said this before, I think it more likely that Allen did LB and none of the others and none of the letters than that he was Z.

If anything, I am slightly pro Allen as compared with any other named witness, say 20 percent as opposed to perhaps 10 percent for TK and Davis. I am anti Allen only in the sense that there is not enough evidence against him. Indeed I have no suspect.

Which is to say that I believe I could do just what Len suggests with respect to Lapumo/ray's work (I am unsure exactly how to credit to, so forgive me).

So, if entrusted with the task, I stand ready, willing, able and honored to give my best and most professinal and objective analysis, and my honest assessment of whether and to what degree I think it implicates Allen.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:59 am:


One comment you have made intrigues me. that is that you have been sitting on this for two years. how long have the police been sitting on it. it seems to me that after this lenght of time, you would want to publish it. Secrecy isn't going to help anyone's investigation unless Allen had accomplices. If you believe you have the answer, why in the world not publish?

This work has been discussed for months now without anyone knowing the first thing about what it actually is. Get it out there so there is something meaningful to discuss. the source of your frustration, and those participating in this thread, is no doubt that no one has seen word one of the topic of the discussion, although extensive comments characterizing it or describing it in vague terms have been offered up.

Tat's the reason I haven't participated in this thread (which is by far the most intertesting thing on the MB recently). It all meaningless without seeing the topic of the discussion itself. Please. Put it out there.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 03:22 pm:

Peter, you have a very fine mind and represent a credit to the legal profession. Moreover, your integrity and attention to detail are most enviable. However, you have demonstrated here with a degree of constancy a reluctance to give serious consideration to anything that doesn't meet the legal burden of proof as would be required in a judicial venue. Absent this legal standard of admissibility, little that is presented here could qualify as anything more than conjecture, speculation, hearsay, innuendo and unfounded opinion, all of which would be grounds for exclusion under that standard.

The work of Lapumo and Ray is compelling, in my opinion, but does not rise to the level of a valid DNA comparison or fingerprint match. Nor does it provide a clear-cut, self-promoting argument that would withstand the incisive (and too often obfuscating) assault by a defense attorney cum devil's advocate, any more than the testimony of a lay eyewitness. It takes the ability and willingness to look beyond the constraints of training and experience, to think outside the confining box that limits one's vision, in order to appreciate that not all knowledge is only that which can be successfully presented in a courtroom. Cops are most often accused of seeing things only in black and white; I wonder if lawyers are any less monochromatic.

I think that there is more at stake here in urging Lapumo and Ray to expose their work to public scrutiny, just because a bunch of people on a message board are curious and/or champing at the bit to blow it to pieces, and thus elevate their own agendas. There has been a number of posters who have expressed indignation and frustration at Ray and Sean's failure to lay it all out, as though it were an entitlement. Perhaps it would have been better if they had not given a sneak preview and then withdrawn it from further scrutiny. The point is that there will be intractable anti-Allenites who would love the opportunity to launch an attack, just as there'll almost certainly be others out there who will, as I described, plagiarize their methodology for personal gain. But, there will also be some who have positive contributions to offer. On balance, I fail to see how the advantages outweigh the aggravation.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

Gentlemen: thanks for the kind words. Yes, I remember when you contacted me about your discovery, Lapumo, I hadn't realized it's been nearly 2 years. The consensus seems to be that I can be fairly objective, even to the detriment of my own favorite suspect, and I think that sometimes I can perhaps be harder on Allen than the others. If you'd like for me to look at your work and venture an opinion, then I'd be honored if you'd trust me to do so.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 06:29 am:

I can assure both of you( Ed and Peter)that this is not a trust issue.As we all know, we are what we write around here and the fact that your names came up independently speaks volumes of the esteem in which both of you are held.Neither is it a case of any fear of criticism,I'm sure we are going to be up to our necks in it before this is over.Ed I have already outlined why I contacted you earlier on and Peter(same)plus I am really interested to know how this might "fly" in a court of Law.
However,it's a question of what is right for this project,at this time,that concerns me.As both Ray and Bill can attest to,this project is not complete. Yes,there is more than enough for appraisal,however there is one particular avenue that in my mind,has the potential to put this fairly much beyond doubt,if we are on the right track.To that end,I want to finish this and present the case in it's entirety.I do not see much point in putting this out now without those critical pieces on information,that could make all the difference.All that could happen at this stage is that one of you read this and agree or disagree with Bill's assessment.We are still on the board without discussing the detail.
Either way, the answer to this lies in Cryptography and an experts ability to evaluate it.If the extractions can be shown to be the result deliberate encryption(which should be possible)then we have a mathematical probability to measure against.We are not going to know exactly where we are until that happens.
That said,let's not dismiss the idea of getting other opinion's out of hand.We are moving forward
as fast as we can and I would expect decisions to be made in the near future.Hope you guys understand and can stay with us until then.Thank you for your interest and encouragement.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 02:10 pm:

Lapumo: I'm here for the long haul. I've been on the board for nearly 4 years, and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. So, whatever you decide, great! We'll be waiting to see what you've come up with.

By Tom Stout (Tom_Stout) ( - on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 02:41 pm:

Good luck you guys!
I hope you're on to something!
I wish I could help but I can't even finish a crossword puzzle!

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 05:16 pm:


Yes, it is both true and unfortunate that things have played out as they have here, with a tantalizing offering and then claims of success with no follow through with the actual details. Let me reiterate that the initial offering was not really an offering of a solution, it was Lapumo's attempt to get other input to a toehold he had managed to find. I gave my input to that offering and we were off from there.

It pains me greatly to leave it this way for now, but let's face it, we're convinced that what we have is valid, others such as Det. Baker are convinced that it is at least valid on it's face, not necessarily that it is the definitive answer. But as the project now rests with SFPD it is effectively evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation, and as such cannot be subject to public perview. We are convinced that SFPD is impressed enough with the report to have devoted a significant amount of time reviewing it, getting back to us and continuing the investigation into Allen being the Zodiac even in the face of the DNA test results, the validity of which is being discussed on other threads.

The messages uncovered are not all complete sentences, although a couple of them are. What is compelling about them is they are linked in many ways. In content, location, shape, topic, not to mention the fact that we were directed by various clues, including literal pointers, metaphors, and examples constructed by the author who is presumably Zodiac. In not one instance did we find anything that could be manipulated or construed as something other than what it obviously was by any legitimate method. In the most spectacular break, Lapumo discovered that by taking one simple action, not arbitrarily mind you, but as the result of direction, several of the messages were materialized at one fell stroke. Misdirection played a key role in making the initial discoveries difficult, in that it was not until we realized that Z was playing a series of word games using hints and clues frought with misdirection that we began to see that Z did not always mean what he appeared to say. This was indeed the case with the phrase "I will not give you my name". Suffice it to say for the purposes here that this was a shining example of misdirection.

As far as posting to the board, there is simply no compelling reason to do so, even independently of any concerns about it's release jeapordizing the investigation. Frankly, as Bill points out, it really can do the theory or us no good. Granted someone may find something we did not, that is actually likely, however we have spent countless hours exploring potential weaknesses and have discarded many, many thoughts we have had along the way sticking only to what we were sure could be proven correct. This is not to say we don't want to share it, but as Lapumo says, patience may yet prevail in putting this beyond debate.

Eventually, though, this will all come out. The only thing that's going to silence the project will be incontrovertible physical evidence that Allen was not Zodiac, or better yet, that someone else was. We are both supremely confident that this will not happen knowing what we know about the content of the hidden messages.

So I would ask that everyone bear with the situation, and give us the benefit of doubt as to our commitment and integrity.


By obiwan (Obiwan) ( - on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:28 pm:

Ray writes:

But as the project now rests with SFPD it is effectively evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation, and as such cannot be subject to public perview.

Sure it can. Don Cheney's testimony is evidence in the same criminal investgation, yet he can, and did talk about that testimony publicly, as reported on this website. It is only the police who, at times are under self imposed restrictions for discussing ongoing cases, not private citizens. May I ask if the SFPD have requested you keep your theory secret?

ps. I wrote a summary of this theory, on the original thread

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:01 am:

Right you are Obiwan, I didn't mean to say that we "cannot" speak, but as you suggest, we are in fact honoring a law enforcement request.

By obiwan (Obiwan) ( - on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:05 am:

Ok, Ray. I can respect that. But I hope your respect for the Law Enforcement officials is mutual. That is, I hope they will be able to give you a time, after which it will not "harm" them for your theory to become public. If not then it just looks like they are trying to keep quiet a theory which implicates someone they have publicly exonerated.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 09:08 am:

It would be interesting to know precisely which letters are keyed to the code, if that is possible. Have they all already been mentioned before?

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:00 am:

They actually have not exonerated him Obiwan.
Sorry Len,can't say exactly which ones but it does involve at least 13 of them.

By Len (Len) ( on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:16 am:

That information in itself is helpful. Thanks.

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:26 am:


I have the utmost respect for and confidence in the SFPD inspectors. At present, we are completely happy to let them proceed with the evidence as they see fit. They have not publicly exonnerated Allen. Far from it. In fact, the investigation of Allen is continuing. This would not be the case had they given up on him.

Len, I think you are asking if all the involved letters are already known or are there any unknown or "secret" letters involved. No, this is not the case. You may find them all online here and/or on Jakes website or Graysmith's books. Fair enough?


By Len (Len) ( on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:57 am:


I actually figured that it was some subset of the known letters. That it's as many as 13 is impressive. Good luck with the process.

By obiwan (Obiwan) ( - on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 07:01 am:

Ray & Lapumo: I just meant that some law enforcement officials claimed that ALA's DNA did not match the letters. While I do not belived this is first DNA check was done thoroughly enough to be meaningful, the last word we have from them leaves us with the impression that ALA was ruled out. They are free to change their minds, and perhaps already have.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 08:15 am:

Obiwan, you wrote, "T]he last word we have from [SFPD] leaves us with the impression that ALA was ruled out."

I think you're confusing SFPD's opinion with that of Primetime's.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:40 pm:


Could you explain to us how revelaing the theory could prejudice the SFPD investigation of a dead suspect? I'm not buying this, if indeed it is the reason for SFPDs request, and I am puzzled why you do.

By Nick (Nick) ( on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:41 pm:

From my own experience, it's a typical and standard request. It's not really a matter of prejudicing the investigation. It's more a matter of keeping media hounds from ringing the phone off the hook in high profile cases.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:48 am:


By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 09:36 am:

It's not like it's 1969; Z isn't exactly a hot item anywhere except here, and even then, reception is kinda lukewarm for most media outlets. I doubt that more than a handful of papers, and those would almost certainly be exclusively from the Bay Area, would even express interest at all. I bet they don't want to get any more than the one or two phone calls a year from the Chronicle (they call so often, it sure is a bother...).

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:36 am:

Right on, Ed. It's becoming increasingly clear that SFPDs response to this 50 page tome was "Thanks for coming in. Don't call us, we'll call you. Bring me Laci Peterson and we'll do lunch." Betcha its been sitting in a drawer ever since. SFPD is obviously not going to go arrest Allen, so what's the point of even giving it to them in the first place? Are they more likely to act on it, verify it, than say some ambitious Chronicle reporter, Primetime Live or Tom Voigt? If I wanted to bury a good theory on a dead guy, the first place I would dump it is with some police agency. Come to think of it, if I had a really rotten theory, but wanted to give it some credibility without ever running the risk that it would be exposed, I'd do the same.

By Warren (Warren) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:41 am:

Exactly. The prejudice of time. When you look at the birthdates of current Playboy centerfolds, you can fairly gauge the public's interest or lack thereof in something as archaic as Z.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

Peter and Warren: don't misunderstand me, I am not faulting Lapumo or Ray for forwarding their report to SFPD; in fact, I think it was the right thing to do. Nor will I fault them for honoring SFPD's request to keep it under wraps. What I am faulting is SFPD's and the media's apparent attitude, which I think both of you summed up quite succinctly.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:20 pm:

Ed: I don't fault them for going to the police either, but for buying into a patently silly request not to publish the report. It is not, apparently, evidence, but interpretation, a theory derived from evidence that we have all seen and are thoroughly familiar with. Like dozens of books that have been published on the JFK assassination or any number of other old, unsolved crimes. The only purpose served by not publishing it is to protect it from critical analysis. I think that if Ray and Lapumo aren't prepared to put up, this whole discussion ought to be relegated to the same dustbin as that occupied by that anonymous "prosecutor", who could never put up his/her theory of the case and wasted so much of our time and Tom's web space. Compelling, is it? Show me the money.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:02 pm:

I get to see the money first...

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:24 am:

Show Tom the money!!!!!

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:35 am:


Don't get me wrong. I still repect your views even though I simply cannot understand your consistently sour attitude towards the board. I'm not sure whether further explanation will help, but I'm going to try without getting defensive. First of all, whether it is an interpretaion or evidence is a requires, at least at this point, a subjective answer absent an expert law enforcement cryptoanalysis, which is pending. We believe it is evidence, and SFPD believe it might well be. Regardless, we have had fairly extensive contact with them. Everyone knows how busy these folks are, so it doesn't seem likely they would follow through on something in which they don't place much stock. But they are following through, and they are getting back to us regularly by email. It's actually quite aggravating even writing this reply because the tone of Peter's post is such that I am being made to feel as though I have to show evidence that SFPD are indeed interested, and basically prove that I am not a huckster in order to "earn" the privelage of discussing something I feel is of great importance on the MB. Am I silly? Am I naive? I don't know. This is the first experience I have personally had in dealing with the police. As long as Lapumo and I are convinced this is being handled professionally and appropriately, things are going to proceed as they are, and we're not going to be drawn into a "put up or shut up" situation. We could have remained completely silent on the matter. Instead, we chose to inform the board members of the existence of some new work through the very forum that made it possible and for which we are infinitely grateful. I understand that there is going to be some level of skepticism particularly from the non-Allen supporters. The simple answer as to why this project was forwarded to the authorities is the same as the answer to the question as to why we even undertook the effort in the first place - to assist law enforcement and to give the families of the victims some peace of mind. And we did this from the outset not even knowing if we would succeed. Both of us contributed an enormous amount of personal time to this, made personal sacrifices, and have asked nothing in return for it. Are these the hallmarks of hucksters? As for your comment, "Come to think of it, if I had a really rotten theory, but wanted to give it some credibility without ever running the risk that it would be exposed, I'd do the same", to the contrary, we have already exposed it. Willingly. To professionals. Twice. One of them, Det. Baker, has already checked in on here with his opinion. And we did this in advance of going to SFPD because we wanted to be sure we weren't the only ones who thought it had merit. This is quite a different thing than making the report publicly available and breaking an agreement we have entered into. If nothing else, we are going to maintain our character and integrity in all this even if that means things don't work out for us in the end. As I've said before, eventually this will all come out for everyone to see. This will happen whether law enforcement either embraces it or cans it. Judging from what I've seen, I remain optimistic. All we are asking for is a little patience.


By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:41 am:

Lest we forget, when Len nominated Peter as someone to review Lapumo and Ray's project, he said: "If there is one member of the board that I would suggest you run things past, perhaps for a report to the rest of us, that would be Peter H. He has no suspect (as far as I know), which gives him the greatest degree of objectivity possible, and he knows how to analyze ideas and to question (often to the dismay of others) basic assumptions. I don't know if he'd be willing to do it, but it never hurts to ask." Well, draw your own conclusions as to Len's credibility.

Peter, humbly accepting the nomination, said: "So, if entrusted with the task, I stand ready, willing, able and honored to give my best and most professinal and objective analysis, and my honest assessment of whether and to what degree I think it implicates Allen."

I then responded to this suggestion on 1-31-03/0856 and later that day at 1522 (you can read them for yourselves). As Ray suggested above with respect to Peter, "I still repect your views even though I simply cannot understand your consistently sour attitude towards the board." And Peter's remark yesterday, "Come to think of it, if I had a really rotten theory, but wanted to give it some credibility without ever running the risk that it would be exposed, I'd do the same." I think his professinal (sic) and objective analysis, as he characterized it, is disingenuous, masking his underlying intent in seeking to review the project, and confirms that he and Len are about as objective as their idol, Johnny Cochran. Truly an example of the fox drooling at the prospect of guarding the henhouse.

Ray and Lapumo, take the advice given to prospective trial witnesses and don't volunteer any more than absolutely necessary, because Peter, and others of his ilk, would like nothing better than to use it against you.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:56 am:

An additional note:

If I was a defense attorney (heaven forbid) examining prospective jurors, and one of the panel was someone with Peter's prejudgment and disparaging regard for my client's case even before hearing the evidence, he would be summarily shown the door.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:06 pm:

Why are so many posts of late dedicated to smearing other people's character? Personally, I've a great respect for many peoples' opinions here on the board: Bill, Ray, Lapumo, Ed, Howard, Doug, et al. But I also respect the opinions of people such as Len and Peter, also. What some consider a dissenting and/or sour attitude from Peter strikes me as a unique sense of objectivity. If one fears having their work analyzed by a possible detractor, then perhaps the work itself doesn't hold the water it claims.

By Ray N (Ray_N) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:36 pm:

What must be clearly understood is that we are well past the "Fear Factor" stage. The greatest fear we ever had was sending the project out for an objective opinion. We selected Bill for this not only for his professional background, but for his inarguably demonstrated qualities of a no-nonsense investigator who was not about to blow any sunshine our way if he detected even a small amount of BS. Plus, we didn't know him and he didn't know us, and that gave him no cause to be swayed either direction. For these reasons, we regarded him as the most likely of all possible detractors, which was exactly what we sought. We waited on pins and needles for a couple of weeks I think it was while he studied the report. The opinion letter we got back from him went even beyond my hopeful expectations. So, at this point, I am basically immune to any calls about being afraid. We've been there and done that. The report is not being released for the reasons outlined in my above post.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:58 pm:

This has getten to be a total bore. How about we cease this "discussion" until there is actually something to discuss?

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 02:57 pm:

Ray, you wrote, "W]e regarded [Bill] as the most likely of all possible detractors, which was exactly what we sought."

I respect Bill's opinions as much as anyone on this board, but you've got to be kidding me with that statement, Ray. It's a known fact that Bill is an 'Allen advocate,' that is hardly "the most likely of all possible detractors," in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I must ultimately agree with Tom's sentiments, why all this discussion when only Ray, Lapumo, and Bill have seen the 'evidence' being discussed? I'm fully in support of Lapumo and Ray, but until we can see what it is that we are talking about, why is so much breath being exhausted?

Ray, Lapumo, I don't necessarily agree with your approach, but I still respect it. It's my opinion, however, that you've more to gain by allowing your 'Z peers' to examine your evidence than not. If it were I, I'd publish the information if for no other reason than public exposure. Therein lies the possible solution to this case, in my opinion; keeping the case in the media in hope that somebody, somewhere, will remember something about some important detail and decide to come forward with it.

For what it is worth...


By Nick (Nick) ( on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:05 am:

I'm sure the SFPD provided no timeframe for the review of the information submitted. Law enforcement agencies rarely do. Rather than just accept their request to keep the matter quiet, I would ask them how they intend to process the data. Do they intend to research it internally, or farm it out to a professional cryptologist? I think it's important that you set a personal time timeframe, and then move forward from there.

By Bucko (Bucko) ( - on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 05:39 am:

Tom wrote: "This has getten to be a total bore. How about we cease this "discussion" until there is actually something to discuss?"

With respect to all, Tom is right. This is a thread that should not have been started until everything could be disclosed, otherwise it can not be evaluated. I can tell Lapumo and Ray are excited about their possible find, and I look forward to evaluating it when available, which I hope is soon.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 08:24 am:

Agree with Tom and Bucko.In hindsight the timing of this was all wrong.In my defence,it was just an honest attempt to inform the board about the status of a project that not only begun here,but could not have materialised without this site.
(S.F.P.D has also commented on this pubically)
While I make no apologies for doing what I thought was the right thing to do,I do understand
and regret the frustration all this has caused.
Any notion that we are going to sit on this indefinitely is absurd as is any idea that we are not publishing for fear of criticism.We will stand by our decision to approach Law Enforcement with this first.It was the right thing to do.We have absoultely no reason to believe this is not receiving the attention it deserves. However that process too will run its course.Regardless of whether they endorse it or dismiss it,this theory will be published.In the meantime and just as important in our decision not to go forward at this stage,is the fact that our research is not finished.
Anyway,we would like to thank all of you who have
contributed constructively to this discussion.
A big thank you also to those who have extended good wishes to us.There really is no more to add at this time.

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) ( - on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 10:54 am:

I sincerely hope you have cracked the case, Lapumo. It has begun to seriously bore me.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:15 am:

I am with Alan (I almost said "Allen") in this. Before we drop this thread though I would like the chance to mend a couple of fences. I don't know why Bill, of all people, has becme so hostile to me since his return to the board. Although my manner is deliberatley abrasive form time to time (I like to think of it as "provocative") I strongly resent being called disingenuous about the approach to examination of the vidence I have always brought to the board. Whatever I have done to draw this fire, I apologise for in advance, but I honestly do not know what it is. I also reeent Johnny Cochran being idnentified as my "hero" without any suggestion from me. Saame thing, I don't know where that comment comes from, but coming from Bill, as no one else on the board, it hursts and I aould like to know what I can do to address the apparent resentment that triggered it. But most of all, I ask anyone on this board to point out one instance of "prejudjment" of any issue on my part. I beleive most of all, and I arrogantly beleive, more than many on this board, in rational, dedutcive reasoning over hunches, or premature conclusions. I don't pretend to know who Z was, and I even accept Allen as the best of all the identified suspects. But he's the best of a bad lot. So if anything I'm pro-Allen, relatively speaking. Sure I'm skeptical, even cynical about some things that get presented as fact or evidence or analysis here, but if I have any prejudices, they are against unexamined preumption, blind acceptance of unsupported assertion, and disregard for rational proof. I I don't believe the desktop poem or the Confession or the Bates letters are the work of Z, my opinion is based on my examination of the evidence and arguments on both sides of the issue. I had no idea coming in to this thing who the Zodiac was, and was even leaning heavily toward accepting Allen , and Bates, and the poem and the rest of it, based on the Allen File at tis site until I started looking at the facts for myself. SO just what is my prejudice? What prejudgment have I rendered? My personal interest in starting in was to confirm that my friend was, as I was convinced, a Z victime. that was the strongest prejudice I have ever held about tis case. My educatin at tis site and on tis board, as well as my correspondence with Bill, have convinced me otherwise. But tis education has also lead me to a number of other more or less tentative conclusions, based not on any predisposition nto anything but the discovery of the truth. I have drawn a nu ber of these tentative conclusions that are not mainstream on this board, but they are conclusions which I can and have defended with reasoned and sincere argument and rational analysis. In fact, some are directly more aligned than not with some of my detractors here, such as that Tajiguas and LB were highly likely the same perp. Others, that have drawn a lot of fire, have been vindicated in my view, sush as that Anon showed absoslutely no basis for the arrogant assertion that s/he could convict Allen, and that the Singapore/Atlanta letters would go nowhere.

And still others, such as that LB was more likely not Z have never been ratinally, logically and deductively refuted.

And other times, I have been proven wrong (I am sure of this, although in the interest of brevity, I'll leave it to others to identify the instances of this).

Allen could turn out to be Z. Lapumo may have something (although I can't square Bill's comments that the work is both compelling and short of admissible evidence). My problem with Lapumo's work is that I don't fnd it credible that SFPD has any compellng need to keep it quiet at this point. I'm just not buying it. That is not to doubt Lapumo's sincerety, or to prejudge the quality or value of his work. It is to say that without some compellng need, we cannot say that the work is valuable, and the unexplained shielding of both its substance and SFPD's exact respinse and treatment of it raises serious doubts about the assertions that SFPD is really treating it as a potential breakthrough. Even if tey are running with it like a kickoff return, I see nbo reason why it couldn't be sismultaneously published. None. so to keep it unpublished raises doubts and hinders what I believe is Lapumo's sincere goal.

Ok, I'll leave off with this: Bill, whatever I have done to incur your wrath, I apoligise. I do not believe any of your positions, including those on Riverside, are based on bias or prejudice, despite your own characterizations, but on your rational conclusions from your examination of the evidence in light of your experience and reason. I would ask you to accept my postions in the same light. Lapumo: I certainly do not mean to prejudge your work, only to let you know that I believe you are being disserved by SFPD to the ultimate detriment of your work.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 06:28 pm:

Peter, I'm not ignoring you, just trying to formulate a response. You're not deserving of some flip retort, and in the interest of being clear in what I do say, I need to mull the matter over some more.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

Tom, I need to offer a response to Peter's recent post, and it would not be best served to do so in a nonpublic e-mail. It would also be a waste of space to create another thread under "Etc." to accommodate it. So if you'll bear with me and allow one last departure from the theme of this thread, I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

First of all, Peter, you don't owe me any apologies for my responses to your posts. That's my problem, not yours. I won't spend any time addressing the comments regarding Lapumo and Ray's project, or my remarks regarding it; that's no longer on the table as far as I'm concerned.

Frankly, it's been most difficult, going from being a hands-on practitioner of homicide investigation to that of a pundit, of sorts. From Homicide - The Reality, to Homicide - The Game. From exercising my expertise and authority, with no quarter for BS or egotism, to an academic exercise that allows both to flourish. Again, that's my problem. My prejudices and biases, kept in check for so long in the pursuit of a strictly disciplined work product that had to bear up under the scrutiny of time and conscience, are becoming increasingly less restrainable as I grow older. You have unfortunately been victimized by that eroding discipline.

Over the years on the job, I listened and watched as an endless succession of lawyers plied their art before the triers of fact, working within the judicial framework of permissibility to put the best face on their clients and their case. As advocates, that's their job and solemn duty. In so doing, they present themselves as advocates of truth and justice, yet at the same time, while engaged in this noble pursuit, the truth becomes blurred, if not forsaken altogether. I call that disingenuous. Necessary, encouraged, most always within the margins of legal propriety, but disingenuous nonetheless. We all know it goes on, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth just the same. When I sense duplicity in the words or actions of other people, my hackles go up.

It's my unqualified impression that your "provocative" style, as you describe it, reflects a love for confrontation and debate for debate's sake, sometimes beyond what I would view as constructive. I seem to recall Tom remarking unfavorably on the negativity in your posts. This devil's-advocate approach to fact-finding would be commendable, were it not for the disingenuous aroma that it carries with it. I think that tends to obfuscate the value of your contributions, which I know is considerable. This is not a courtroom, with the requisite wily tactics, but a forum for free and open discussion, and disagreement, with the overriding goal of ferreting out the truth, not winning a partisan argument. This isn't a contest between college debating teams, where style is often more important than substance, but instead, hopefully, a quest for answers to questions that continue to stump the experts.

I personally admire you, your many years in the legal profession, and your keen, insightful and perceptive mind. For that reason, let me apologize to you for my intemperate remarks and asperity. It's nothing personal, just my progressive slide into the bitter, cynical and jaded abyss of old age.

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

Bill, it is a testimonial to your flawed way of thinking that you think your discipline is deteriorating. Your discipline is quite clearly tighter than it has ever been. Reframe, pilgrim.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:02 am:

Much appreciated response, Bill. How about a thread on communcation, analytic and preseantation styles, or "Zodiac: Ways of thinking about the problem?" Or "Modes of proof: adversary systems vs empiricism". I have found that understanding how someone thinks about a problem is at least as important as knowing what he thinks about the same problem. Take this thread as a prime example. The fact that Lapumo and Ray have concluded that Allen is the guy based on cryptoanalysis and related deductions is almost meaningless as compared with how they analized the material and how they put it together. That to me is the source of all the furstration, skepticism and doubt about the validity of their conclusion. Presentaion of a conclusive opinion with barely a hint of the thinking behind it.

BTW, I agree with Alan to a great extent. Your own thinking about this case strikes me as far less biased and prejudiced than you claim. (Can't say the same for your politics, but hey, vive la difference.)

Finally, on your comments on the adversarial sytem of justice. i can certainly understand the perspective of an investigator, who is seeking the truth directly, on the advocates, who do so by adversarial argument. Hasn't it bee your experience, however, that judges and especially juries usually get it right when everyone is dong their job? It seems to me the result is more often damaged by one of the players leaving his role -- unethical excess by one advocate or another or advocacy by a neutral -- than by adversarial advocacy itself. I would offer Mark Furman's excess in the OJ case as a prime example of the latter(although the result was certainly aided by the weak FBI lab stature at the time and Marcia's bonehead glove-modeling move).

What do you think?

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:32 am:

Crude as it is, some of the initial thinking and findings are posted on the board in the cipher thread. Under "Did Zodiac give his name".
You have made no comment on them!

By Anon (Anon) ( - on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:24 pm:

Peter said: Ed: I don't fault them for going to the police either, but for buying into a patently silly request not to publish the report. It is not, apparently, evidence, but interpretation, a theory derived from evidence that we have all seen and are thoroughly familiar with. Like dozens of books that have been published on the JFK assassination or any number of other old, unsolved crimes. The only purpose served by not publishing it is to protect it from critical analysis. I think that if Ray and Lapumo aren't prepared to put up, this whole discussion ought to be relegated to the same dustbin as that occupied by that anonymous "prosecutor", who could never put up his/her theory of the case and wasted so much of our time and Tom's web space. Compelling, is it? Show me the money. "

Peter, you hopeless idiot... Gee, I wasted time with that thread? You posted to it on how many occasions? And you discuss it at least TWICE in this thread alone? Can't get over that one, can you? :)

Other than your posts citing incorrect legal terms, dozens of people posted to the thread. It seemed like a very popular post that let lots of people voice their opinions and share thoughts and ideas.

But I'm about to enlighten you and give you some insights into your personality that you'd benefit greatly from. Both here and in your private life.

You are doing the exact same thing in this thread as you were in my thread: being a pain in the ass. And here you are again, getting kicked in the flabby flanks by Ray for AGAIN being such an unpleasant person to discuss things with. I note with great envy how reserved, polite, and subtle Ray is in his posts. Obviously a gentleman. Make no mistake, that was a boot in the butt.

I seem to read this often on threads you participate in. You always disagree, and you univerally get under someone's skin and annoy them. Almost always taking a negative positoin on an issue. Are you correct on your theories? We may never know. Maybe the case gets a break through and we all find our answers, maybe not.

But why is it that SO MANY PEOPLE think you are a hopeless pain in the ass?! Apparently you only feel good when you are showing how smart and detail-oriented you are in a negative fashion. Seriously, it must suck having this trait. I hope you can put a sock in it with family or friends. Thankfully, I've never had to hang out with someone in private life who so consistently pisses people off. It makes your ideas less appealing and it makes people NOT LIKE YOU.

So here's my advice: just lighten up! Take it easy! Don't try so hard to impress us all, ok? Your disagreement and the mass volumes of hot air that accompany it is not going to solve any issue of get anything real done. Therefore peel off whatever you think is the truth enough space to not be such an ass all the time. Do you ever just let things go instead of running with an idea and trying to find SOMETHING about it you like?

I know you'd rather show us how smart you are by "challenging" us to back up our hopelessly stupid ideas. Here's a novel idea, one that'll serve you well: try to show people how smart you are by demonstrating your newfound skill at being agreeable.

Your pal,


By Warren (Warren) ( - on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 08:18 am:

With what I read about the turmoil in SFPD, I doubt we will hear anything from them regarding good ol' Uncle Zo for quite a while.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) ( - on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 08:42 pm:

Dear Anon,

Have we heard from you since the DNA under the stamp was examined? It did not belong to Allen. I won't bother looking around to see whether you have posted since then, but I wonder if you are still convinced that you could convict Allen? No, of course you could not. Pain in the a** or not, Peter was right and you were wrong.

By Anon (Anon) ( - on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 09:27 am:


I'd gladly start another "useless" thread on the subject of my opinion of ALA's guilt if you'd care to discuss it with me... I note that you seem to agree with me regarding Peter's little personality disorder. If you want to agree with Peter, that is of course your perogative. I'm just pointing out some systemic problems with the way he discusses things, that's all.



By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 10:39 am:


Explain to me again how it is that you know the Zodiac and nobody else must necessarily have left the DNA found beneath the stamp; otherwise I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make.


What did I tell you about 'character assassinations' here on the board? For all intents and purposes, Peter did win the original argument, despite the fact that I agree with you in principle that Allen is still the best suspect.

Peace fellas, peace.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) ( - on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 06:55 pm:


Ray argued here that there was a chance that the DNA under the stamp could have belonged to someone other than the Zodiac, basically through contamination. Although I think it is more likely than not that it belongs to Z, I can at least see the possiblity of what Ray says being true.

One thing they do know, however, is that the DNA under that verifiable Zodiac letter does not belong to Allen. Face the facts...this would make it MUCH harder to convict Allen, almost impossible. I mean, if that doesn't give one some reasonable doubt, I don't know what would. That's my point.

By Anon (Anon) ( - on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:24 pm:


ROTFL... Yeah, what DID you tell me about that... Hmmm, can't seem to remember :) What did I say in response? And then what?

Anyways, the 'argument' in my thread was that I thought I could convict ALA. Peter may have disagreed. You may have been persuaded by Peter. Great. And that makes me wrong why?

I'm not attacking his "character". Just pointing out that he's demonstrably a pain in the rear. I'm not saying anything about his "character", as the term is normally used.

Just love his constantly talking about the "useless" thread that he posted to EASILY over a dozen times. What a crack up!



By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 08:22 am:


Thanks for the acknowledgement and support, as well as your reminder on personal attacks. But, Anon is correct on one point: it wasn't "Character assassination". He called it a "personality disorder", so it was technically a psychological diagnosis. Important difference, I guess. Very subtle distinction for a guy (?) who thinks the fact that I participated in his discussion proves that it was not wasted time, overlooking the fact that the reason I participated was to elicit the argument as to how and why the conviction could be had, an explanation that was never forthcoming. Oh, well. It did seem like a worthwhile effort to begin with. I thought given enough chances, the guy (?) might actually come up with something. It just turned out to be wasted effort.

BTW: I'll keep repeating this as well, in the hope that it is not wasted: I agree that ALA is the best suspect.

And good call by Kevin on the DNA inference. It raises a easonable doubt under the usual jury instruction: if there is a reaonable explanation of any of the necessary proof other than guilt, that establishes reasonable doubt as to guilt. Is there a reasonable inference other than that ALA did the crime, but someone else licked the stamp?

By Sandy (Sandy) ( - on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 09:14 pm:

Kevin, I read your post about Ray and the Dna contamination story. I don't know that much about DNA , but I understood to be, contamination can degrade dna but it would not change it to look like someone else's.

By Kevin (Kevinrm) ( - on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 09:55 pm:


The arguement goes like this: let's say a very minute amount of the mailman's skin, hair, dandruff, or whatever, somehow got under the stamp when he was delivering it. Or, maybe even a minute amount of blood from Stein's shirt somehow got under or soaked through the envelope. Heck, maybe someone's dandruff from the testing lab drifted into the test. It wouldn't take much. Using the test that they did, it would replicate this DNA to a useable level. In other words, it's possible that a tiny amount of the wrong DNA was replicated, giving a false positive. I can see that as being "possible". So, from the one sample alone, you cannot absolutely say for sure that the DNA belongs to the killer due to the chance that the wrong DNA was processed. What the chances are of this happening are, I cannot say.

So, while you have the possibity of the wrong DNA being tested, the "lack" of Allen DNA is harder to explain away. If Allen were Z, he would have to have had someone else lick the stamp for him because his DNA was not there. Someone did lick that stamp though, because they found amylase enzyme (an enzyme in saliva). So, for Z to have been Allen, either contamination occured, or there was a 3rd party stamp-licker. I just don't see this as being very likely - just my opinion.