Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It still an open case but according to some LE in Northern Cal. its really no longer allocated any investigation. No statute of limitations on murder if you can prove who did it.
A detective who worked on the case in 1969/70 had some interesting theories on the hood and disguise. One mentioned that of the list of over 1000 suspects, the person is prolly still on there, but was dismissed earlier by LE in Vallejo.
Very bizarre case. Library of case correspondence and the Halloween card:
wow, thanks for that link. i have mosied over there before but spent some time there this evening. LOTS of great stuff, especially the forums. alot of people on there seem to have been diligently studying this case and it seems a few of them are in contact with investigators, both current and from the past, and have even helped bring some new insight to the case. something to be said for armchair detecting after all!
wow, thanks for that link. i have mosied over there before but spent some time there this evening. LOTS of great stuff, especially the forums. alot of people on there seem to have been diligently studying this case and it seems a few of them are in contact with investigators, both current and from the past, and have even helped bring some new insight to the case. something to be said for armchair detecting after all!
You're welcome
Many older detectives on that case are on that forum. Its very interesting.
I also recently found this. Paul Avery was a renowned criminal reporter, and had much knowledge on this case. he divulged some info he received to the FBI and Vallejo PD.
There is more recent info on this. Avery was not accurately portrayed in the David Fincher film, which pinned Arthur Leigh Allen as Zodiac. Good film, but factually incorrect.
Avery died recently, but through FOIA Act, he did write to several LE factions, and had some very interesting knowledge about the suspect.
steve hodel seems a bit of a nutjob. for sure. basing the belief on your father being the dahlia killer on a bunch of photos of women who have a passing resemblance to elizabeth smart is a bit silly.
i REALLY believe it was arthur lee allen. if not him, someone very close to him. seriously, again, he was a chemist. he knew about DNA. he was just pompous enough to believe that future generations would still be trying to solve this and had to imagine a day when DNA would be quantifiable in criminal cases, and he wanted to give NO clues. the handprint- i mean, the guy wore gloves. he is gonna be that careful and take his gloves off (they were found in paul stein's cab) and THEN leave a handprint? no. i think those who believe that arthur lee allen wasn't the zodiac, i would love to hear WHY you think that, because boatloads of circumstantial evidence says otherwise.
so i spent my evening last night re-watching a bunch of docus about the Zodiac killer. this is a well worn subject but this is still a question worth asking.
i am of the belief that arthur lee allen was the zodiac. but those that don't most often use the excuse that the case against him was entirely circumstantial. then, they begin to mention their own pet suspect, and not ONE of the other suspects in this case has ANYTHING but circumstantial evidence against THEM. in fact, much LESS than allen had.
it seems that some people just don't want to believe for one reason or another that lee was the best suspect that has so far been brought to light. there is a mountain of yes, circumstantial evidence against him, and very little or flimsy evidence against anyone else. i don't understand how the naysayers have not arrived at that conclusion themselves. and, after all, were they any hard evidence against anyone it would probably be solved by now.
in one of the documentaries i watched there was a female law enforcement agent of some type who said she didn't believe that allen was the zodiac because she BELIEVED that the zodiac identified with grown women sexually, and was not a pedophile as allen was. she makes no attempt to back up her claim, and is in fact going on her own personal opinion.
i would really like to hear some cogent, logical alternatives because there may be something i am missing, but i would appreciate it if people stopped discounting allen in favor of other suspects of the whole circumstantial evidence basis.
so i spent my evening last night re-watching a bunch of docus about the Zodiac killer. this is a well worn subject but this is still a question worth asking.
i am of the belief that arthur lee allen was the zodiac. but those that don't most often use the excuse that the case against him was entirely circumstantial. then, they begin to mention their own pet suspect, and not ONE of the other suspects in this case has ANYTHING but circumstantial evidence against THEM. in fact, much LESS than allen had.
it seems that some people just don't want to believe for one reason or another that lee was the best suspect that has so far been brought to light. there is a mountain of yes, circumstantial evidence against him, and very little or flimsy evidence against anyone else. i don't understand how the naysayers have not arrived at that conclusion themselves. and, after all, were they any hard evidence against anyone it would probably be solved by now.
in one of the documentaries i watched there was a female law enforcement agent of some type who said she didn't believe that allen was the zodiac because she BELIEVED that the zodiac identified with grown women sexually, and was not a pedophile as allen was. she makes no attempt to back up her claim, and is in fact going on her own personal opinion.
i would really like to hear some cogent, logical alternatives because there may be something i am missing, but i would appreciate it if people stopped discounting allen in favor of other suspects of the whole circumstantial evidence basis.
The most persuasive circumstantial evidence against Allen is highly questionable, namely Don Cheney's claims. Some of the other "evidence" about Allen was manufactured by Robert Graysmith to sell books. I can chronicle several of those urban legends.
It is not true that there is more circumstantial evidence pointing to Allen than any number of other suspects. Visit any of the more popular Zodiac sites and you will read of suspects that amateurs have developed that have as much or more evidence. If you're interested, I can relate information about other suspects and you will probably jump to one of them as the next one who had to be Zodiac. The simple fact is that in a state as large as California, there are a number of individuals who had interesting coincidences between their lives and the events of the Zodiac crimes. They can't all be the Zodiac.
My hope is that the Zodiac has left or will leave something behind that is conclusive and the names and reputations of these other suspects can be cleared forever. I think it unlikely, because my hunch is that the Zodiac eventually moved past this and lost a desire to ever be publicly associated with his crimes, even posthumously, but I may be wrong.
MUCH of the "circumstantial" evidence against Lee is false. And/or has been misstated or embellished. If you had truly read enough and actually investigated the Zodiac Killings, you would know this. You are using one or two sources and running wild with it. The same as others, who have already made themselves look like idiots.
Arthur Lee Allen is the most investigated man in United States history. The FBI, Federal Department of Justice, California State Department of Justice, San Francisco PD, Vallejo PD, Napa County Sheriff's Dept, Solano County Sheriffs Dept, Santa Barbara PD and Sheriff's Dept, Modesto PD, and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Dept have ALL investigated Allen. NONE of them have been able to find one single solitary shred of PROOF he is the killer. In fact, they have found much proof HE IS NOT.
That does not include the THOUSANDS of amateur investigators. NONE of them, except for the "newbies" actually believe Allen is a worthwhile suspect.
So, for the last time: There is not one piece of physical evidence linking Allen to the Zodiac Killings. DNA? Nope. Not his. Handwriting? No one knows, however no expert has said the writings are his. Some have not ruled it out though. I could go on and on...
i agree and never have disagreed that there is no physical evidence against allen. implying that i would think the same as you if i were simply more informed is a leap.
codes? size 10 1/2 wingwalker shoes? a grudge against kids? injecting himself into the case or contacting law enforcement (the "i'm not your guy" letter he sent to toschi), the fact that he was stopped in the lake berryesa area with KNIVES in his car with blood on them the day of those murders, the fact that in every case of the physical evidence the evidence itself could be called into question- i.e as a chemist, and a very smart man, ALA might have foreseen his saliva being traceable in the future and probably got someone else to lick his envelopes, the print found on the cab was probably not his anyway, and the DNA has NOT exonerated him, it has only been said to be "inconclusive".....most people involved up close with the case believe it to be him, and personally as i have said before i trust guys on the force who make it their business to track these guys and not armchair criminologists.
this is NOT an argument (once again) about whether he is or isn't. bring me one actual piece of physical evidence or real circumstantial evidence (if that is not an oxymoron) regarding the other suspects. if you can go on and on, now is the time.
Circumstantial evidence is often the strongest there is. That's all they had against Lizzie Borden, and the jury stupidly acquitted her, but come on, who else was A) at the scene, and B) stood to benefit from the crime?
i agree and never have disagreed that there is no physical evidence against allen. implying that i would think the same as you if i were simply more informed is a leap.
codes? size 10 1/2 wingwalker shoes? a grudge against kids? injecting himself into the case or contacting law enforcement (the "i'm not your guy" letter he sent to toschi), the fact that he was stopped in the lake berryesa area with KNIVES in his car with blood on them the day of those murders, the fact that in every case of the physical evidence the evidence itself could be called into question- i.e as a chemist, and a very smart man, ALA might have foreseen his saliva being traceable in the future and probably got someone else to lick his envelopes, the print found on the cab was probably not his anyway, and the DNA has NOT exonerated him, it has only been said to be "inconclusive".....most people involved up close with the case believe it to be him, and personally as i have said before i trust guys on the force who make it their business to track these guys and not armchair criminologists.
this is NOT an argument (once again) about whether he is or isn't. bring me one actual piece of physical evidence or real circumstantial evidence (if that is not an oxymoron) regarding the other suspects. if you can go on and on, now is the time.
You're revealing that you don't know much about the case. Allen was not stopped at Berryessa. This was one of the urban legends spread by Graysmith, that Allen received a speeding ticket while driving away from Lake Berryessa. Completely false. Allen did claim while being questioned by the police that he had intended to go up to Berryessa the day of the attacks, but instead went to the ocean. There were never any knives found in his car. Allen later claimed he had bloody knives that day, on account of killing a chicken.
I have no idea where you came up with the idea that most investigators close to the case believe Allen was the Zodiac. Which specific investigators are you referencing?
Circumstantial evidence is often the strongest there is. That's all they had against Lizzie Borden, and the jury stupidly acquitted her, but come on, who else was A) at the scene, and B) stood to benefit from the crime?
Correct, but in this case, much of the circumstantial evidence against Allen has been revealed to be false. Unfortunately what you had was an opportunist seeking to sell books by making stuff up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
rep ++
A Reasonable Question about The Zodiac
