1235 users online (234 members and 1001 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
  1. #31
    The way I understood it the police had multiple sets of consistent fingerprints from the various crimes scenes, most particularly the taxi cab shooting.

    They also had DNA from the stamps on the cipher mailings.

    Also the initial accuser of Allen had a motive. Allen had molested his daughter.

    So I thought that this had pretty much ruled out Allen as a suspect.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by XcomSquaddie View Post
    The way I understood it the police had multiple sets of consistent fingerprints from the various crimes scenes, most particularly the taxi cab shooting.

    They also had DNA from the stamps on the cipher mailings.

    Also the initial accuser of Allen had a motive. Allen had molested his daughter.

    So I thought that this had pretty much ruled out Allen as a suspect.
    Allen indeed allegedly molested Cheney's daughter. That's pretty much a given as uncontested. However, it in no way rules out Cheney as a credible witness. It merely casts doubt on his motives.

    I want to repeat again and again. There IS NO chain of custody for any of the prints and/or DNA from anywhere.

    Evidently this is not well understood. Let me explain how this is done today. Let us suppose that one wishes to establish the paternity of a child. It only is necessary to swab the inside of the cheek of the mother, child and father. After this is done by the technician the swabs are placed inside a plastic envelope that is tamper proof (such as are used to mail order prescription medicines). it is an impossibility to get inside such an envelope without leaving telltale signs. On the other end where the lab receives the envelope it is opened and the samples compared to obtain a match or exclusion. The ONLY way to "beat the system" is to have someone on the inside (on either end) who would be amenable to being paid off to falsify the test results. That has in fact happened and I know of one such case where that person now models a pretty orange jump suit at Leavenworth in addition to a hefty penalty. DNA for all intents and purposes is 100% reliable with the sole exception being of identical twins. (I can elaborate further if necessary) Of course if the lab is sloppy or dishonest all bets are off. The simple remedy is to repeat the tests if there any suspected irregularities.

    NO chain of custody existed for any of the evidence taken from any of the envelopes or letters. There was no way to do this. Since it can't be established the prints and/or DNA are Zodiacs, the evidence is worthless. What I find appalling is how many people (having questionable motives) seem to repeat the patently false mantra that Allen has been excluded on the basis of DNA and print evidence. It is absolutely untrue. And I can't be more emphatic than that. If there is anyone who wishes to debate this point I would be most pleased to do so.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    However, it in no way rules out Cheney as a credible witness. It merely casts doubt on his motives.
    Which casts doubt on his credibility. His story also could be impeached as he was shaky on certain dates and such. Everything hinged on whether Allen told him the story before the Zodiac killings went public. Originally, he said that was the case. Later he was less certain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I want to repeat again and again. There IS NO chain of custody for any of the prints and/or DNA from anywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Evidently this is not well understood. Let me explain how this is done today.
    As a matter of fact I do understand chain of custody. I was under the impression that the police departments involved had followed the correct procedures, for their time, in collecting the evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    NO chain of custody existed for any of the evidence taken from any of the envelopes or letters. There was no way to do this. Since it can't be established the prints and/or DNA are Zodiacs, the evidence is worthless.
    If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that because they, in the 60's, didn't follow today's, '08's, evidence collection procedures, then any evidence is worthless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    What I find appalling is how many people (having questionable motives) seem to repeat the patently false mantra that Allen has been excluded on the basis of DNA and print evidence. It is absolutely untrue. And I can't be more emphatic than that. If there is anyone who wishes to debate this point I would be most pleased to do so.
    I would like to see links to law enforcement/legal sites that support your claims. I don't really see that there is anything to debate. Either the evidence is valid or it's not.

    Consider this:

    When Allen was a suspect, the crimes were fresh. The evidence that was collected had been collected (I assume) according to the accepted standards of the time.

    The police had fingerprints, palm prints and other physical evidence. All of this evidence was tried and true. None of it was controversial, like DNA can be.

    If they had this evidence, specifically the finger and palm prints, why wasn't Allen charged and convicted?

    If the prints from the cab matched Allen, then he was guilty. If they did not then Allen is an unlikely suspect at best.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by XcomSquaddie View Post
    Which casts doubt on his credibility. His story also could be impeached as he was shaky on certain dates and such. Everything hinged on whether Allen told him the story before the Zodiac killings went public. Originally, he said that was the case. Later he was less certain.

    As a matter of fact I do understand chain of custody. I was under the impression that the police departments involved had followed the correct procedures, for their time, in collecting the evidence.

    If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that because they, in the 60's, didn't follow today's, '08's, evidence collection procedures, then any evidence is worthless.

    I would like to see links to law enforcement/legal sites that support your claims. I don't really see that there is anything to debate. Either the evidence is valid or it's not.

    Consider this:

    When Allen was a suspect, the crimes were fresh. The evidence that was collected had been collected (I assume) according to the accepted standards of the time.

    The police had fingerprints, palm prints and other physical evidence. All of this evidence was tried and true. None of it was controversial, like DNA can be.

    If they had this evidence, specifically the finger and palm prints, why wasn't Allen charged and convicted?

    If the prints from the cab matched Allen, then he was guilty. If they did not then Allen is an unlikely suspect at best.
    Evidently I did not express myself well. I have never said that the bullets, casings, foot prints, letters, envelopes, etc., whatever were in doubt. I accept all those as completely valid.

    What is absolutely indisputable is that all DNA and fingerprints are worthless because there is no way to establish where or who they came from. At the best, they could only point in the direction of someone who might possess the fingerprints or DNA. It doesn't prove guilt OR innocence.

    I've been reading of this alleged exoneration of Allen for some considerable period of time and I find it very upsetting knowing the subject as I do. What I fear is that it will become to be part of popular folklore that is believed by the masses.

    Is there even one thing that could be said to have a known chain of custody? I know of none.

    DNA is not controversial.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Evidently I did not express myself well. I have never said that the bullets, casings, foot prints, letters, envelopes, etc., whatever were in doubt. I accept all those as completely valid.
    Okay. What about the missing section (large) of bloody shirt from the Stein murder? Would you accept that, as compared to the swatches they have in custody? They could verify that based on the fabric make up and the blood, against DNA from Stein's family.

    The reason I ask this is because I always figured the shirt and the guns (ballistics) would be the case breakers. The "smoking gun" as it were.



    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    What is absolutely indisputable is that all DNA and fingerprints are worthless because there is no way to establish where or who they came from. At the best, they could only point in the direction of someone who might possess the fingerprints or DNA. It doesn't prove guilt OR innocence.
    I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. I do agree that any successful "solution" would depend on multiple points of evidence not just DNA. You couldn't DNA the cipher stamps and convict solely on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I've been reading of this alleged exoneration of Allen for some considerable period of time and I find it very upsetting knowing the subject as I do. What I fear is that it will become to be part of popular folklore that is believed by the masses.
    Have you read the Zodiac article hosted at Crime Library?

    The author made a convincing case for ALA not to be the Zodiac. Also other suspects have been named although none as consistently as ALA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Is there even one thing that could be said to have a known chain of custody? I know of none.
    Of the Zodiac DNA evidence you mentioned? I agree. After years of repeated analisys and repeated testing they are very likely to be compromised. However, again as you said, any DNA evidence obtained could be exploited to produce other evidence. In other words give them somebody to look at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    DNA is not controversial.
    I did not phrase that well. What I meant to say is that DNA can still be exploited by defense experts, as in the Simpson case. Fingerprinting is simple. Lift the print, compare, match or not. Easy to do, easy to understand. But DNA is still mysterious to most people. Defense experts have convinced jurors that DNA evidence is misleading or unreliable.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by XcomSquaddie View Post
    Okay. What about the missing section (large) of bloody shirt from the Stein murder? Would you accept that, as compared to the swatches they have in custody? They could verify that based on the fabric make up and the blood, against DNA from Stein's family.

    The reason I ask this is because I always figured the shirt and the guns (ballistics) would be the case breakers. The "smoking gun" as it were.

    I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. I do agree that any successful "solution" would depend on multiple points of evidence not just DNA. You couldn't DNA the cipher stamps and convict solely on that.

    Have you read the Zodiac article hosted at Crime Library?

    The author made a convincing case for ALA not to be the Zodiac. Also other suspects have been named although none as consistently as ALA.

    Of the Zodiac DNA evidence you mentioned? I agree. After years of repeated analisys and repeated testing they are very likely to be compromised. However, again as you said, any DNA evidence obtained could be exploited to produce other evidence. In other words give them somebody to look at.

    I did not phrase that well. What I meant to say is that DNA can still be exploited by defense experts, as in the Simpson case. Fingerprinting is simple. Lift the print, compare, match or not. Easy to do, easy to understand. But DNA is still mysterious to most people. Defense experts have convinced jurors that DNA evidence is misleading or unreliable.
    Sure, I accept the swath of Stine's shirt as being genuine. Was there suspected blood from Zodiac mixed in on that swath or shirt? I'm unaware that there is, but even it there was another blood specimen, it doesn't establish it came from Zodiac. I am not sure I am getting your point.

    My whole point has been how does one say this or that serve to exonerate Allen?

    I have read through Crime Library several times but I never could see on what factual basis anyone could claim that any evidence could possibly state it was exonerating. You might want to look at these two links. Doesn't prove anything but these seem to be seriously considered. You decide.

    http://www.zodiackiller.com/ExorcistLetter.html

    http://revver.com/video/185865/hunti...iac-titwillow/

    This article was written by Mr. Hedger. I do not make any claim for his veracity as to the story of the two women who related the story. Make of it what you will. I do not know what, if anything, the police forces have done with this material. In any event it neither exonerates nor brings closure to the case. There is a very interesting tidbit in there that caught my attention. See if you can see it. I found it most intriguing to say the least.

    http://www.zodiackiller.com/LD2.html

    I don't think I have spoken to this yet, but the Director's Cut provides a perfect rationale for Stine's murder if it could be proven. If there ever was was something called a "smoking gun" it would surely be that.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Sure, I accept the swath of Stine's shirt as being genuine. Was there suspected blood from Zodiac mixed in on that swath or shirt? I'm unaware that there is, but even it there was another blood specimen, it doesn't establish it came from Zodiac. I am not sure I am getting your point.

    My whole point has been how does one say this or that serve to exonerate Allen?
    No, I wasn't trying to imply any Zodiac blood was on the shirt. I was just curious as to your opinion regarding it. As I mentioned, the trophies and the ballistics are, in my mind, the smoking gun evidence that would prove or disprove a suspect.

    In my mind Allen is a suspect, but not a strong one. I've read up on Zodiac but I'm by no means an expert.

    I'll check out those links. I think I've been to the one.

    Thanks.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by XcomSquaddie View Post
    No, I wasn't trying to imply any Zodiac blood was on the shirt. I was just curious as to your opinion regarding it. As I mentioned, the trophies and the ballistics are, in my mind, the smoking gun evidence that would prove or disprove a suspect.

    In my mind Allen is a suspect, but not a strong one. I've read up on Zodiac but I'm by no means an expert.

    I'll check out those links. I think I've been to the one.

    Thanks.
    I would agree that trophies found in a suspect's residence would indeed be the smoking gun but conversely absence of trophies does not imply innocence. "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence." (Donald Rumsfeld)

    My point has simply been that I would ask for any provable evidence that would exonerate him. I can't find it. To my knowledge all DNA (such as it is) fingerprints, etc., have never been traced to anyone. We don't know how they came to be there.

    The Lake murders is a case in point. The actual phone booth was found where Zodiac phoned the police. A reporter drove around Napa and found the actual phone booth with the hanging handset and furthermore there was a fingerprint that was so fresh and wet that it had to be dried to take an impression. The forensics expert took several hours according to the responding officer to search for any possible clues making this site potentially the most useful of all of the crimes. The print was never identified. What does that tell us? Since we cannot know how it came to be there, it tells us only that a print from someone was there but not from who or when it came to be there. It is not exoneration. There is no chain of custody. No officer or official was there to see Zodiac place his fingerprint on the handset. It might have been a jogger coming along picking up the handset and hearing someone on the other line decided to move on down the road. Where is the logic that Zodiac would be so careless to leave a wet fingerprint on a phone handset knowing all the while the site would soon be located? We will never know.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8
    Good movie but we now know who Zodiac is and HE IS alive. Look for him to be apprehended soon.

    Jenner Beach, CA Homicides -- 2004

    Gareth S Penn lived near Jenner Beach then.

    Gareth S Penn told me last year in a phone call that his mother would talk to spirits of the dead with a Ouija board.

    At Jenner Beach were found several pieces of driftwood with
    Devil/Evil faces drawn on them, both victims shot in the head.

    In early 2005 Penn moved to Seattle, WA where his son owns a
    restaurant.

    Summer 2006 two women Cooper/Stodden were murdered in a park near Seattle -- both shot in the head.

    Christopher J Farmer of Opord Analytical, an intelligence company, solved the Zodiac ciphers/riddles in 2007. They point to Penn as Zodiac.

    Mr. Farmer has also solved a cipher for the CIA and America's
    Most Wanted.

    Penn fits the profile of Zodiac -- he knows ciphers, binary code, map reading, and was in Army Artillery. He also is interested in the theatre and other things Zodiac wrote of in his letters. Penn is proficient with weapons. Penn lived in locations near all the Zodiac killings, just like Jenner Beach.

    On the Zodiac's Halloween Card there was a symbol used by
    Zodiac which is also used by Army Artillery, as I said, Penn was in Army Artillery.

    Zodiac wrote: If you figure out these ciphers you will know who I am and you will have me.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,437
    Don't hold your breath while you wait for the arrest of Gareth, cluznar.
    Order the book "Searching For Anna" directly from [URL="http://www.lulu.com/conte


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    65
    I just saw the movie for the first time last night after finding it on DVD. It did seem to be very factual and very well done. But being that it was based on the work of Graysmith, I knew it was going to point to Arthur Leigh Allen. It paints such a convincing picture that you scarcely believe Zodiac could have been anyone else but Allen.

    But there are problems:

    • To my knowledge, Mike Mageau never named Allen as his shooter. I had always heard that he maintained that he never really got a good look at him.


    • In the movie, Darlene Ferrin's sister states that Darlene called the mystery man "Lee" but, as far as I know, she called him "Paul."


    • In the movie, Melvin Belli's housekeeper stated that the mysterious caller told her that it was his birthday and that he had to kill again. I have never heard this. Since the call was allegedly received on December 18 and Allen was born December 18, it paints Allen most assuredly as the killer. But I have never heard of this before seeing the movie.


    • The composite described by the cops at the murder of Paul Stine and refined by Kathleen Johns who got probably the best look at him of anyone, was never shown in the movie and I had to wonder if that was because it looks nothing like Arthur Leigh Allen.


    The problem for me is that the descriptions people gave of the mystery man that harrassed Darlene Ferrin doesn't match Allen. I have seen of photo of him taken in 1966 and he was already balding and the man was described as having his "champagne-colored hair" piled high on top into a kind of "pompadour." You would think that anyone who saw both the mystery man and images of Allen would have immediately come forward to finger him but, to my knowledge, that never happened.

    If you put thick rim glasses on any photo of Allen, it simply doesn't look like the composite which is the best description we have of the killer.

    I still believe Cheri Jo Bates was Zodiac's first victim. The way he kept sending letters out bragging about it to anyone he thought would listen, tells me it was his first kill and that he was exceedingly proud of it. Allen would have been 33 years old in 1966. It's hard to believe Zodiac didn't start killing until that age. Serial killers start much earlier. Even if you go back to the murders of those two high school kids in '63, Allen was still 30--too old. Moreover, I don't believe those two kids were killed by Zodiac. There was too much braggin going on after the murder of Bates for it to have been anything but Zodiac's first kill. The movie has Allen stating that he spent a lot of time in Riverside in 1966 but I don't know if that's true. But I get the impression that the writer of "The Confession" was someone closer to Bates's age--late teens, early 20s--not a man in his 30s.

    As for Don Cheney's statements that Allen had told him before any of the murders occurred that he would hunt people down and send letters to the cops calling himself "Zodiac" just doesn't wash with me. I mean, if Allen said that then he is Zodiac. I just don't buy it. Too convenient.

    Let us not forget poor Richard Jewell who tried to foil a bombing in Atlanta and probably saved a few lives in the process. His former employers stated that he was a weirdo security guard who stopped people for no reason and when he left them to take the job in Atlanta, stated that he would foil a bombing and be a big hero. As a result, he became suspect #1. It was years before his name was cleared but by then the damage was done. Jewell died in '07 at age 44 or so and I will always believe all the pressure he was under as a suspect did him in. We have the same thing with Allen--a general weirdo who had people from his past saying he made statements that immediately causes close LE scrutiny. I remember watching an interview with Allen and he wept when describing how horrible it was to have the Zodiac killing pinned on him and he too died not long after.

    While the movie was often factual and very well done, quite entertaining, I just don't believe Arthur Leigh Allen is Zodiac and the movie comes close to slandering a man who can no longer defend himself.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Omori View Post
    I just saw the movie for the first time last night after finding it on DVD. It did seem to be very factual and very well done. But being that it was based on the work of Graysmith, I knew it was going to point to Arthur Leigh Allen. It paints such a convincing picture that you scarcely believe Zodiac could have been anyone else but Allen.

    But there are problems:

    • To my knowledge, Mike Mageau never named Allen as his shooter. I had always heard that he maintained that he never really got a good look at him.


    • In the movie, Darlene Ferrin's sister states that Darlene called the mystery man "Lee" but, as far as I know, she called him "Paul."


    • In the movie, Melvin Belli's housekeeper stated that the mysterious caller told her that it was his birthday and that he had to kill again. I have never heard this. Since the call was allegedly received on December 18 and Allen was born December 18, it paints Allen most assuredly as the killer. But I have never heard of this before seeing the movie.


    • The composite described by the cops at the murder of Paul Stine and refined by Kathleen Johns who got probably the best look at him of anyone, was never shown in the movie and I had to wonder if that was because it looks nothing like Arthur Leigh Allen.


    The problem for me is that the descriptions people gave of the mystery man that harrassed Darlene Ferrin doesn't match Allen. I have seen of photo of him taken in 1966 and he was already balding and the man was described as having his "champagne-colored hair" piled high on top into a kind of "pompadour." You would think that anyone who saw both the mystery man and images of Allen would have immediately come forward to finger him but, to my knowledge, that never happened.

    If you put thick rim glasses on any photo of Allen, it simply doesn't look like the composite which is the best description we have of the killer.

    I still believe Cheri Jo Bates was Zodiac's first victim. The way he kept sending letters out bragging about it to anyone he thought would listen, tells me it was his first kill and that he was exceedingly proud of it. Allen would have been 33 years old in 1966. It's hard to believe Zodiac didn't start killing until that age. Serial killers start much earlier. Even if you go back to the murders of those two high school kids in '63, Allen was still 30--too old. Moreover, I don't believe those two kids were killed by Zodiac. There was too much braggin going on after the murder of Bates for it to have been anything but Zodiac's first kill. The movie has Allen stating that he spent a lot of time in Riverside in 1966 but I don't know if that's true. But I get the impression that the writer of "The Confession" was someone closer to Bates's age--late teens, early 20s--not a man in his 30s.

    As for Don Cheney's statements that Allen had told him before any of the murders occurred that he would hunt people down and send letters to the cops calling himself "Zodiac" just doesn't wash with me. I mean, if Allen said that then he is Zodiac. I just don't buy it. Too convenient.

    Let us not forget poor Richard Jewell who tried to foil a bombing in Atlanta and probably saved a few lives in the process. His former employers stated that he was a weirdo security guard who stopped people for no reason and when he left them to take the job in Atlanta, stated that he would foil a bombing and be a big hero. As a result, he became suspect #1. It was years before his name was cleared but by then the damage was done. Jewell died in '07 at age 44 or so and I will always believe all the pressure he was under as a suspect did him in. We have the same thing with Allen--a general weirdo who had people from his past saying he made statements that immediately causes close LE scrutiny. I remember watching an interview with Allen and he wept when describing how horrible it was to have the Zodiac killing pinned on him and he too died not long after.

    While the movie was often factual and very well done, quite entertaining, I just don't believe Arthur Leigh Allen is Zodiac and the movie comes close to slandering a man who can no longer defend himself.
    Wow, good to see you are still around Omri, I hope you visit some of my posts.
    I dont think Artur was the killer, never did.
    I was never even interested in this case untill just over a month ago when became convinced my POI was giving me constant clues.
    I watched this movie a couple weeks back and was wondering this:
    Though I thought Cherri Bates was the first, is it possible the Lompoc murders and many of the nightstalker murders are Zodiacs? Lompoc happened in 1963, and was an exact like the berryessa lake murder.
    Zodiac is fixated on the halloween card #14, In 1963 my suspect would have been 14.
    Not that a 14 year old killer could have done this, just that he could have copied someone or ha some serious issues(couldn;t get a girl). I also believe there were several Zodiacs, but my POI is one of them. I AM SURE. Still no response from cold case. Tommorow morning I am taking a new line of action. I am going to visit the local authorities though I think I will be hushed up because my city is corrupt.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
    Posts
    4,565
    By a slight margin, that is my second favorite of the five Zodiac Killer inspired movies - two are good, two are dreadful and one I haven't seen.
    This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.


    Stan Reid

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by TimeCop View Post
    Wow, good to see you are still around Omri, I hope you visit some of my posts.
    I dont think Artur was the killer, never did.
    I was never even interested in this case untill just over a month ago when became convinced my POI was giving me constant clues.
    I watched this movie a couple weeks back and was wondering this:
    Though I thought Cherri Bates was the first, is it possible the Lompoc murders and many of the nightstalker murders are Zodiacs? Lompoc happened in 1963, and was an exact like the berryessa lake murder.
    Again, I think Zodiac crowed too much over Bates's murder for it to be any but his first killing. He didn't do that with the Lompoc killings and that doesn't make much sense. That first killing is special to a serial killer--the point at which he went from pipsqueak to badass, his way of saying, "I have arrived!" I think the similarities between Lompoc and Beryessa are coincidental. I think Lompoc was a revenge killing--some jealous guy who wanted the girl but couldn't get her--and Beryessa was simply a stranger--someone who hates seeing couples together because he is incapable of such a relationship.

    Zodiac is fixated on the halloween card #14, In 1963 my suspect would have been 14.
    Not that a 14 year old killer could have done this, just that he could have copied someone or ha some serious issues(couldn;t get a girl). I also believe there were several Zodiacs, but my POI is one of them. I AM SURE. Still no response from cold case. Tommorow morning I am taking a new line of action. I am going to visit the local authorities though I think I will be hushed up because my city is corrupt.
    I can't comment on your suspect as I have never heard of this person before. But your idea that there were several zodiacs has also occurred to me. Also I believe it is entirely possible that two people worked in collusion--one who killed and one who wrote the letters. That could have been his hint about his ability to look "completely different" when he goes on his little hunts.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the Florida Keys
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I never really followed the case at the time although I had heard about it many years ago. I truly enjoyed the movie and have my own copy. Recently I got the "Director's Cut" which has many interviews with surviving principles.

    I have a question for anyone with an answer. Does anyone know of a fact that could be said to exclude ALA? I've labored long and hard to find something but can't come up with it. Many people believe that Graysmith made several factual mistakes which may or may not be true, but leaving that aside, I'm unable to find a way to exclude him.

    He really looked so good to me as the Zodiac, for many reasons. I know they said the DNA did not match from the stamps, nor apparently did the finger and handprints. He has been the only person I have thought could be him. By the way, I was growing up, and was a teenager in Vallejo at the time he was killing, and I knew Darlene, and her family.


    Mary Sue Kitts
    Missing since July, 1974
    Age: 17 years old

    "She sleeps with the fishes"...Clarence Ray Allen
    "Clarence Ray Allen, Poster Child For The Death Penalty"!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Zodiac Killer
    By morf13 in forum The Zodiac Killer
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: Today, 02:41 PM
  2. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 12-12-2017, 01:19 PM
  3. zodiac killer
    By martin walkerdine in forum The Zodiac Killer
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 01:52 PM