This in no way surprises me, but many seem to totally reject ALA as good for the crime. How can you? I’ve read extensively here and explored discussions many other places involving this case and ALA remains at the top of my list. I posted in another thread that ALA was the man. Again, just my my opinion, but there has been nothing I’ve ever seen or read that makes anyone else a better suspect. This case is so convoluted,by now fiction has become fact. I know people don’t want believe Allen did it for it would spoil the fun of sleuthing.
Most say it was wasn’t Allen because of…whatever…but the whatever’s I’ve heard are extremely weak. Everyone know’s there’s no DNA or much else on him, but we don’t have matches to any other suspect either. Sure there are other aspects
which make other suspects interesting…no doubt. But as I posted in another thread more roads lead, if not to ALA,then nearer to Allen than anyone else. Everyone say’s "circumstantial". Yep…but let’s turn this around for a moment…what if at some point police ran a search warrant on Ross Sullivan’s place and found a Zodiac watch, bomb making materials and such? And let’s say you had Cheney (dubious or not) and the others saying Sullivan told them he was going to be or was The Zodiac. Let’s say we had relatives of RS saying that he showed them ciphers/codes. Let’s say Sullivan had a leg problem (lumbering walk). Let’s say most law enforcement believed it was RS? Let’s say RS told police that he was going to Lake Barryessa that day, but changed his mind (possible bloody knife in car seat). Do I need to go on? I can if necessary.
Sure we can use circumstantial. But give me a suspect with as many "circumstantial" things that point to them…not one or two. Bawart always seemed credible to me and investigated the case. Are people saying he was was "paid off like Cheney" to claim Allen was probably Zodiac?
This case is just like so many mysteries. Like the JFK assassination. Oswald did it, but many will believe it was a conspiracy until the end of time. Most times things are what are they are. I hate to kill the party, but ALA was probably the Zodiac.
Face it.
Why did the cops clear him? I don’t really know if Cheney was paid off, or by whom, but if he was telling the truth, why didn’t the cops go forward with the case?
many seem to totally reject ALA as good for the crime. How can you?
Because this isn’t 2001…
I’ve read that ratter.com story a number of times, but what does it really say? More opinion. And as to the question of why the cops didn’t charge him? Check me on this, but it’s my understanding from numerous accounts that they were a week or two away from doing just that. Didn’t Bawart say they had a meeting scheduled with the DA to bring charges against him when he got the call from another LE authority saying he was looking at Allen dead on the floor?
Not being sarcastic, but when did the police oficially clear him? Was it in news conference…who held it…with which jurisdiction…is there a YouTube video of it or an article you can refer me to? If so I will certainly stand corrected.
SFPD cleared Allen back in 1971. After the yellow book came out, Bawart bought into it and wanted to charge ALA.
Not being sarcastic, but when did the police oficially clear him? Was it in news conference…who held it…with which jurisdiction…is there a YouTube video of it or an article you can refer me to? If so I will certainly stand corrected.
I think after the DNA with his brain tissue, they pretty much nixed him as Zodiac.
That will forever be the conundrum of anyone who fancies a particular suspect…back to DNA being unreliable and a suspect forever in the loop. The only way out of that is if they one day "catch" someone and there is a match to the "DNA" they have on file.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Here is a San Francisco Chronicle article saying the Allen "seems" to be cleared. But like Tahoe says people will believe that the DNA is unreliable, particularly if it rules out their suspect.
I agree using DNA from a stamp is not actually the real deal. Not compared to semen or blood from a crime scene, for example. I don’t think stamp saliva would stand up in court. Especially when Cheney apparently said he licked some of ALA’s stamps. But also, ALA was a pretty bulky man and did not match up with the description not only of Foukes but also the kids across the street at PH. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
If there were matches, I think that would seal the deal for anyone. Non-matches and people just aren’t convinced.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
I read where some Zodiac homicide detective (I think a San Francisco one, and my apologies for spacing on the name but if recall serves, it looked to be Italian in origin), said in a recent interview, basically, we’ll know who he is if he dies (whether as to him inferring up to that point of time of the interview, or wether he mean in memoriam, was unclear). (Which is, of itself, a rather peculiar statement in my opinion.I suspect that whenever anyone passes–and probably anyone on the planet–their DNA is samples and run against the unsolved crimes database. I mean they use our personal information in all kinds of intrusive ways, I can’t believe they would have any compunction about utilziing it to actually do something with some justification.
But as far as Cheney’s story, one thing that makes it immediately suspect is (correct me if I’m wrong) he actually said ALA asked him to lick some stamps for him, and he complied. Is this normal behavior?
I get the feeling the OP is a troll. "are people saying he was paid off like Cheney?" No one is saying that but you. And You already made a thread about this where I asked you about that and you didn’t respond.
No, I think the OP had a legitimate point. ALA is often not looked at as a real suspect, and why? I think it’s because basically LE in its infinite wisdom decided he was not the Z, or at least they never brought him to trial. They did have some circumstantial evidence against him—a lot.
what evidence is that?
I used to argue with people hundreds of times on the Zodiac movie board about this. They had no idea what circumstantial evidence means.
What you have is unsubstantiated testimony from people who have given ample reason to doubt their truthfulness, about scenarios that could apply to the type of person you assume the killer could be. In other words, they don’t give or ever even claim to possesses any knowledge or information about the commission of the actual crimes.
A victim describing the attacker as wearing a Zodiac watch, and Allen owning a Zodiac watch would be circumstantial evidence. A guy calling himself Zodiac in a letter, and then a guy having a watch that says "Zodiac" on it is not circumstantial evidence.
Cheney said Allen did it, after the fact. Allen was creepy. Those two things are all I have ever seen to establish him as a suspect. What else is there?
What about the (supposed) fact that he came home with bloody knives the day of the LB murders. Or he SAID he had bloody knives. Then also supposedly he actually used the word "tutwillo" in conversation. As for me, I don’t think ALA was the Zodiac. But apparently there were some coinicidences. He lived in Vallejo, for example. And why would Cheney make up the story? Monetary reasons? I don’t know.. I’m playing devil’s advocate to an extent. He did have a Zodiac watch he was apparently proud of.
