Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zodiac documentary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Zodiac documentary

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01...d-at-last.html


    LOL. except they already have zodiacs DNA.god I hate these pseudo-docus.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

  • #2
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01...d-at-last.html


    LOL. except they already have zodiacs DNA.god I hate these pseudo-docus.
    So many are made by people who seem to know nothing about the facts of the case they look at.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm just about to watch this series, should I not bother?

      I don't really know anything about the Zodiac killings, thought it might be a good primer for me.
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange


      "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        I'm just about to watch this series, should I not bother?

        I don't really know anything about the Zodiac killings, thought it might be a good primer for me.
        Hi dr.
        No watch it. But I would recommend just looking it up on Wikipedia to get the objective facts first. These types of ďdocumentariesĒ not there forte.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, I was watching this series, I think pt 3 was just on.
          I had to wonder if this was a legitimate documentary.
          What happened to Arthur Leigh Allen being the main suspect?

          There's been a number of 'fake' documentaries on this past year, just pseudo-scientific bull$hit. They've found another way of promoting fringe theories.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not overly familiar with this case but I have watched a documentary recently which it said they only had a partial DNA sample from the envelopes, which means you can rule certain people out but not conclusively rule someone as a match.

            And that is a match for the persons saliva that is on the envelope, not necessarily the killer.

            My info may be out of date or inaccurate, could anyone who knows a little more about the case confirm if the above is true?
            My opinion is all I have to offer here,

            Dave.

            Smilies are canned laughter.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think less emphasis was placed on Allen as a suspect after his DNA failed to match the partial DNA on the envelope.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                I think less emphasis was placed on Allen as a suspect after his DNA failed to match the partial DNA on the envelope.
                Thats what I read too, so they don't actually have the killer's DNA, they just assumed the envelope was licked by the killer. Normally it would be a reasonable assumption, but it is still not a fact.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                  I'm not overly familiar with this case but I have watched a documentary recently which it said they only had a partial DNA sample from the envelopes, which means you can rule certain people out but not conclusively rule someone as a match.

                  And that is a match for the persons saliva that is on the envelope, not necessarily the killer.

                  My info may be out of date or inaccurate, could anyone who knows a little more about the case confirm if the above is true?
                  Yes. Iím a tad dubious of the dna evidence as were talking 1969. So early in the science.

                  Allen IMHO was probably the zodiac. Iím about 80% convinced.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is talk of DNA on an envelope, but when did self-adhesive stamps become common in the US?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Robert View Post
                      There is talk of DNA on an envelope, but when did self-adhesive stamps become common in the US?
                      I donít know..but The dna on the envelope and stamps could basically be anyone who handled them. The zodiac could have been wearing gloves and or used a wet sponge pad like many people use. The zodiac was very meticulous and well planned out with everything so it wouldnít surprise me.

                      Plus itís late 60s when this happened and the dna they did collect was only partial dna anyway. I donít place much faith in the dna evidence in this case.

                      Not enough to rule anyone out, thatís for sure.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        There is talk of DNA on an envelope, but when did self-adhesive stamps become common in the US?
                        Hi Robert. Common? Early 1990s. There was an early experiment in 1974, but it didn't go well.

                        The motive for the self-adhesive stamp, by the way, wasn't convenience. It was to stop stamp thieves from steaming off stamps and re-using them.

                        "With the Christmas 1974 issue, the Postal Service experimented with a self-adhesive precanceled stamp. It was believed that the tightly bonded self-adhesive would not permit stamps to be soaked off. An additional security feature placed slits in the stamps to foil attempts to peel them off. Unfortunately, the stamps cost three to five times more to produce than regular postage stamps, they could still be soaked off and reused, and stamps in the hands of collectors started to self-destruct.

                        In 1989, the Postal Service again experimented with self-adhesive stamps, this time with emphasis on customer convenience. The new self-adhesives had a water-soluble adhesive and were produced on coated paper, so the effects of the adhesive would not be destructive. Introduced nationwide in 1992, self-adhesive stamps now are issued in formats that include booklets, coils, sheets, and souvenir sheets."


                        I have no idea if Allen was guilty, but this "negative" DNA evidence struck me as about as convincing at the DNA evidence found on the "Eddowes" shawl. The envelope had been handled for decades. Johnny Cochran would have salivated at the thought of this evidence being brought to a courtroom.

                        And supposedly it was proven that Allen hated the taste of postage stamps and asked others to lick them for him. I have no idea if that is true, but it's been claimed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks guys.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            The zodiac was very meticulous and well planned out with everything so it wouldn’t surprise me.
                            Ehh, I don't know about that, Abby. I would argue that the Zodiac was quite a reckless killer actually. Two of his victims survived the attacks, he allowed himself to be seen by several witnesses, left fingerprints behind, called the police and provided them with examples of his handwriting.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I got caught up with 3 episodes so far of the "Hunt for the Zodiac Killer" doc series, and thought it was pretty interesting, though the supercomputer that breaks codes and even wrote a poem about the serial killer is a bit futuristic. The comments about the Riverside and Santa Barbara killings are interesting, as well as the investigation of the woman who disappeared in Lake Tahoe.

                              I think they seem like serious detectives, and haven't seemed to use "pseudo-science" in their investigation at all. Sullivan seems likely for the Riverside murder, and Kane for the Tahoe one... But was either the actual Zodiac Killer?
                              Pat D.
                              ---------------
                              Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                              ---------------

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X