Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

zodiac

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Would you tell friends

    You would like to kill random couples
    You would taunt police by sending letters detailing crimes
    You would "sign" the letters using the cross hairs symbol from your watch
    You would call yourself Zodiac
    You would disguise yourself
    You would attach a flashlight to your gun in order to shoot at night
    You would fool women by alerting them something was wrong with their cars, and then loosen their wheel nuts later capturing them as they broke down

    Would you tell two friends this, and then go out and do exactly that?

    I believe this information was given in 1972, after the fact. Doesn't take a genius to work out what's going on here.


    i wouldnt obs, but then again im not a deranged serial killer lol.

    I ve followed true crime for many years and there are so many instances where killers tell other people what theyre going to do, and then go out and do just that.

    The friend don cheney who went to police (in 71, not 72) and told them all this and was also corroberated by another friend who was there at the time. they knew so much that matched up with what happened and stuff that only the police or killer (or someone who the killer told) would know, that they both were suspects breifly until thouroughly checked out and cleared by the police. they were never to have been found to be lying or having alterior motives.

    also, ALA wasnt even a generally known suspect at the time. he had been interviewed after the LB attack in 69 and then pretty much forgotten about until cheney and friend brought him back to the attention of the police and then all the subsequent stuff came out about him and he then became a well known suspect.

    so heres a guy who was interviewed very early in the investigation (before the series was even over!) and came to police attention twice independently-once because some one reported to police they saw him in the vicinity of the LB attack-and he was interviewed about a week after that!! and then again for a totally different reason of two people coming forward saying he confessed to them. both happening so early in the investigation only leads to the credibility of all involved.


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
      I attach a link to the "Zodiackillerfacts.com" website which forensically dismantles many of Graysmith's distortions, exaggerations and inaccuracies relating to claims he made about Arthur Leigh Allen in his books.

      It doesn't mean that Allen should not be considered as a potential suspect, what it does is force us to assess Allen on the basis of facts, not problematic utterances made by Graysmith.

      https://zodiackillerfacts.com/zodiac...rimed-suspect/
      well if it helps then forget about graysmiths book-ive just been going off basic facts of the case anyways.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        i wouldnt obs, but then again im not a deranged serial killer lol.

        I ve followed true crime for many years and there are so many instances where killers tell other people what theyre going to do, and then go out and do just that.

        The friend don cheney who went to police (in 71, not 72) and told them all this and was also corroberated by another friend who was there at the time. they knew so much that matched up with what happened and stuff that only the police or killer (or someone who the killer told) would know, that they both were suspects breifly until thouroughly checked out and cleared by the police. they were never to have been found to be lying or having alterior motives.
        Hi AN

        I was looking at a report whereby Cheney gave his statement in 1972. Never mind, the point I was making was that any member of the public would have been aware of the details Cheney gave, with the exception of the watch. The watch is problematic, it could be though that Allen's ownership of the Zodiac watch, and the fact that a killer known as the Zodiac existed was pure coincidence. Allen would have been aware of the crimes, and could have added the watch "evidence" as an added pointer to he being the killer. The dates pertaining to all of these activities are very perplexing. Why did Cheney wait more than 12 months to come forward? It doesn't add up.




        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          Arthur Leigh Allen was ex military-Navy. they use alot of ciphers in the navy.
          That Zodiak Watch is interesting too about him. The symbol used in the correspondence has to be a bullseye, or some kind of logo. As far as his training with Ciphers, people do them as hobbies too...something that perhaps no-one would know about him, and something he happened to have a knack for. He did fit the description of the guy who attacked the young couple in the park...and the man who survived that attack did give a description.
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-01-2021, 07:32 PM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            well if it helps then forget about graysmiths book-ive just been going off basic facts of the case anyways.
            Hi Abby, I wasn't trying to smash your case or some of the points you made.
            My problem is that Graysmith's fictions make it very difficult to assess a suspect, who to the best of my knowledge, the SF police have still not definitively ruled out.
            Last edited by barnflatwyngarde; 03-01-2021, 08:03 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              The friend don cheney who went to police (in 71, not 72) and told them all this and was also corroberated by another friend who was there at the time. they knew so much that matched up with what happened and stuff that only the police or killer (or someone who the killer told) would know, that they both were suspects breifly until thouroughly checked out and cleared by the police. they were never to have been found to be lying or having alterior motives.
              Hi again AN

              Just to add. If the information provided by Cheney was known only to the killer (ALA), the other friend, and the police then it was game over for ALA, because Cheney supplied a wealth of information with regard to the murders. Of course this would only be the case if Cheney was privy to the information before the event. I suspect this was not the case. The police don't seem to have closed the case after ALA's death. Can we then conclude they didn't take Cheney's information too seriously.



              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                Hi Abby, I wasn't trying to smash your case or some of the points you made.
                My problem is that Graysmith's fictions make it very difficult to assess a suspect, who to the best of my knowledge, the SF police have still not definitively ruled out.
                The evidence against Allen is quite extensive, as I said earlier I can understand why some are convinced it's him. Forensics would seem to rule him out. If it is him though, this case will never be solved, as I believe only forensic evidence will solve this case

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Observer View Post

                  The evidence against Allen is quite extensive, as I said earlier I can understand why some are convinced it's him. Forensics would seem to rule him out. If it is him though, this case will never be solved, as I believe only forensic evidence will solve this case
                  Yeah, Observer, I think that you could well be right.
                  I think that thehe Green River Killer case could well prove a template for the solving of many cold case murders.

                  In my own neck of the woods, DNA played a very interesting role in the Bible John murder case.
                  Unfortunately there was no definitive result, but anyone reading between the lines had a pretty good idea who the killer was.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                    Yeah, Observer, I think that you could well be right.
                    I think that thehe Green River Killer case could well prove a template for the solving of many cold case murders.

                    In my own neck of the woods, DNA played a very interesting role in the Bible John murder case.
                    Unfortunately there was no definitive result, but anyone reading between the lines had a pretty good idea who the killer was.
                    who???

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                      Yeah, Observer, I think that you could well be right.
                      I think that thehe Green River Killer case could well prove a template for the solving of many cold case murders.

                      In my own neck of the woods, DNA played a very interesting role in the Bible John murder case.
                      Unfortunately there was no definitive result, but anyone reading between the lines had a pretty good idea who the killer was.
                      that would be Tobin would it not BFW?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        who???
                        Hi Abby, I'll try and keep this brief, in the knowledge that I'm off topic here.

                        One of the police suspects at the time was an ex-soldier called John Macinnes, it is not known why he was suspected.
                        McInnes committed suicide in 1980 by cutting an artery in his upper arm.

                        In the 1990's McInnnes's body was exhumed in an attempt to compare his DNA with semen stains found on one of the victims, Helen Puttock.
                        From memory, his body was exhumed because DNA from one of McInnes's relatives showed many points of comparison with the semen stains recovered from one of the victims.

                        Unfortunately his body was so corrupted that no meaningful comparison could be made.

                        The official report on the DNA comparison attempt stated, "There is not sufficient evidence for the current DNA information to link John McInnes to the murder of Helen Puttock." (my emphasis)

                        Other factors linking McInnes to the murders is that a disheveled and muddied man with scratches on his face was seen getting off a bus in Sauchiehall Street in the centre of Glasgow.
                        McInnes had an aunt who lived in Sauchiehall Street.

                        Bible John had a military bearing.
                        John McInnes was in the army.

                        Both Bible John and McInnes were smokers.

                        Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one on the golf course.
                        John McInnes hasd scored a hole in one.

                        So that's about it!

                        No firm evidence that would convict in the court of public opinion, but I find the DNA factors in this case to be highly indicative.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                          Hi Abby, I'll try and keep this brief, in the knowledge that I'm off topic here.

                          One of the police suspects at the time was an ex-soldier called John Macinnes, it is not known why he was suspected.
                          McInnes committed suicide in 1980 by cutting an artery in his upper arm.

                          In the 1990's McInnnes's body was exhumed in an attempt to compare his DNA with semen stains found on one of the victims, Helen Puttock.
                          From memory, his body was exhumed because DNA from one of McInnes's relatives showed many points of comparison with the semen stains recovered from one of the victims.

                          Unfortunately his body was so corrupted that no meaningful comparison could be made.

                          The official report on the DNA comparison attempt stated, "There is not sufficient evidence for the current DNA information to link John McInnes to the murder of Helen Puttock." (my emphasis)

                          Other factors linking McInnes to the murders is that a disheveled and muddied man with scratches on his face was seen getting off a bus in Sauchiehall Street in the centre of Glasgow.
                          McInnes had an aunt who lived in Sauchiehall Street.

                          Bible John had a military bearing.
                          John McInnes was in the army.

                          Both Bible John and McInnes were smokers.

                          Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one on the golf course.
                          John McInnes hasd scored a hole in one.

                          So that's about it!

                          No firm evidence that would convict in the court of public opinion, but I find the DNA factors in this case to be highly indicative.

                          interesting barn
                          if they had emough of a match through relatives to exhume his body, thats pretty significant. unfortunatley though i think were in a similar situation with the zodiac re dna of the killer..just too early in the science, and not enough of good, or any samples.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            interesting barn
                            if they had emough of a match through relatives to exhume his body, thats pretty significant. unfortunatley though i think were in a similar situation with the zodiac re dna of the killer..just too early in the science, and not enough of good, or any samples.
                            Yeah Abby, that just about sums it up.

                            One of the problens in the Bible John case was that the DNA sample recovered from the victim wasn't stored under scientific conditions.

                            Let's hope that any DNA recovered from the Zodiac acase is stored properly.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one on the golf course.
                              John McInnes had scored a hole in one.


                              I posted the above in post #41.

                              I was wrong in saying that Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one, he in fact said that he had a cousin who had hit a hole in one.
                              To the best of my recollection, McInnes had a cousin who had hit a hole in one.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
                                Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one on the golf course.
                                John McInnes had scored a hole in one.


                                I posted the above in post #41.

                                I was wrong in saying that Bible John spoke of hitting a hole in one, he in fact said that he had a cousin who had hit a hole in one.
                                To the best of my recollection, McInnes had a cousin who had hit a hole in one.
                                Did anyone ever write a book on McInnes as a suspect Barn?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                                ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X