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.

Precisely.

When you take a closer look at the "mountain" of so-called circumstantial evidence, it amounts to very little in the form of actual evidence.

ALA was a child molester. That actually made him a good candidate back in the day: Z was considered a "sexual sadist". He was considered a "latent homosexual". He was considered a deviant of some kind or other. That goes a long way towards explaining the interest in ALA in an era with ideas about criminal behavior that are now largely – and in some ways completely – outdated.

A sexual deviant (that’s what ALA was, back then) who lived in Vallejo, owned a Zodiac watch and was a generally creepy character. And then Cheney comes along with his story. Before which – and after – ALA himself was bragging about being a Z suspect and playing it up in order to freak people out.

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.

The facts and evidence prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. As far as Arthur Leigh Allen, nobody should count him out because of a DNA test. On paper he is easily the best suspect, and there is no proof that the DNA they have even belongs to Zodiac. I’m not saying he was Zodiac or was involved, but nobody should be surprised if it were ever proven that he was.

Lee Oswald didn’t kill anybody. Shouldn’t ALA’s massive bulk alone eliminate him?

Lee Oswald didn’t kill anybody. Shouldn’t ALA’s massive bulk alone eliminate him?

Disagree on LHO: If nothing else, Oswald killed J. D. Tippit.

Agree on ALA: The best description we have of undeniable Z is the one the kids gave of the PH killer. This description was of a smaller than average man.

ALA was a child molester. This is a crime involving perversion and self-gratification. Zodiac (to clarify, the shooter at LHR, BRS, and PH) was essentially a hit man.

I’m lost. What does Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with Arthur "Lee" Allen?

It’s OT, but I’ll bite.

You can interpret the evidence as suggesting there were multiple assassins if you wish, but how can you argue that it proves Oswald was framed? You really think the evidence is not only insufficient that Oswald was in the schoolbook depository shooting at the president, but actually shows a different scenario from that?

The thing that made it easy for me to understand why people think there was a conspiracy is because the Warren Commission Report is wrong in several key places. If you accept that it is right, then you will see that it doesn’t match reality. I think that is something that most people who don’t believe in the conspiracy really understand. They think that is just what conspiracy theorists think, when it’s the other way around.

The only plausible conspiracy theory that I’ve heard is that Kennedy was accidentally shot by a secret service agent during Oswald’s assassination attempt and then they covered it up. It relies on an interpretation of the evidence that I don’t agree with, but it is at least based on the actual evidence and not anything else. But that also kind of hurts it, because it can’t account for the actions of anyone else who wasn’t part of the conspiracy, mainly Oswald. In that scenario Oswald was lying when he said he was a patsy, because even though it was true, he would have no way of knowing that. Jack Ruby had nothing to do with it, and most importantly the medical examiner that committed the errors in the Warren Report, actually did just legitimately make mistakes.

That actually preserves all the counter arguments against the conspiracy, and for me the fact that no one saw it happen pretty much kills it for me.

Wrong, multiple witnesses heard gunshots and/or smelled the smoke from behind the grassy knoll. One witness, Ed Hoffman, did see the shooting team handing the rifle off and escaping, from his viewpoint from above, on the triple overpass. The Warren Commission purposefully either ignored or distorted the testimonies of all these witnesses.

There’s no evidence that Lee Oswald shot anybody. He was a low level intelligence operative used as a patsy.

I think this discussion should be moved to this thread:

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=1080&start=30&hilit=kennedy

If the mods don’t feel like doing it, and members who have posted here don’t mind, I would be happy to repost the relevant quotes there so we can continue the discussion.

The book "Rush to Judgment" by Mark Lane reveals most of the lies and distortion of the crooked Warren Commission. When you say the WC "made some mistakes" that is being ridiculously charitable to this band of criminals who covered up the murder of the prez.

Mark Lane also made a movie, "Rush to Judgment", consisting mainly of interviews of the witnesses, to preserve the actual evidence as much as possible. You can still watch this movie for free on youtube. While checking some stuff before posting this post, I found out that Mark Lane just died this May at age 89. Another great American done gone.

Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window with the rifle. He’s the one that gave the description to police.
Multiple eye witnesses saw Oswald during the killing of The Police Officer.

OK, you can believe whatever you want. But check out the movie "Rush to Judgment" on youtube. Won’t cost you a dime.

As a person I could believe that ALA could be Z. That being said, I believe I recall the kids in SF, the witnesses, gave a thumbs down to ALA being the person they saw, and that Fouke’s also said that wasn’t the guy. Is that conclusive proof? It’s pretty strong, but ALA could have changed his look for that evening. But it’s ALA’s body that just doesn’t fit. He’s a big guy, no one ever said Z was a large person, stocky maybe, but around, 5′ 9", or shorter. You just can’t squeeze ALA down to fit that size. Z could have lost his stocky size by Stine, but he couldn’t lose his height. so that’s always been my biggest point of any evidence that ALA wasn’t Z ….A weird guy, for sure, could he pass the profile of Z, for sure. I recall when he passed at his folks home in ’91? Bawalt went to the house and into ALA’s room, the basement. And he came away with a ton of stuff, bomb making stuff, drawings on how to make bombs, guns of course, a lot of paper stock, but none of it matched what they had on record as Z used. But they came away with a lot of evidence that they probably wouldn’t find in any of our homes. but none of it matched what they had on Z. But it was 20+ years since Z so he would have upgraded, guns, card stock, etc. Bawalt was convinced ALA had murdered Darlene and shot Mike up and left him for dead. Thus that would make ALA, Z. I don’t know what or how Bawalt tied in the other known Z murders to ALA, or if he even did. He was responsible for Vallejo. ALA was a strange guy, he was also school teacher, so he wasn’t a stupid person at all, and he obviously could get along well with others in most cases. That to me is how I’ve always envisioned Z, someone who could operate right along side of you, but he had another side to him.

I would encourage anyone who has true interest in the Z case to go over to TV’s site, and on the message Board you’ll find 3 separate sections, there’s the oldest archived messages, then the next group of archived messages, and then the current message board. In this case look up known suspects and then ALA. And you will find a wealth of factual info, there’s also the endless theories, but interesting reads for sure. I would do this on each topic you have interest in. there’s a ton of stuff within those boards.

BayArea60’s

Right, ALA is also not a match as far as handwriting and DNA, we assume. Otherwise they would have nailed him. And yes, he was too bulky to be the Stine killer. The only other possibility is that he had an accomplice, and then he could have done the first two or three murders and had his buddy do the last one. In this scenario the buddy could have done the letters also.

But there’s no evidence of a buddy.

End of the World…

And I think if bulky and size eliminates ALA, it would eliminate him from BRS and LB as well. Neither MM or BH described their assailant as being large. MM said he was stocky, and I think he mentions around 5′ 8". BH doesn’t mention Z being large. I figure with a jacket on, and the Z symbol cowling/dickie whatever you call it, and a hood that wouldn’t make ALA any smaller. There’s ample video of ALA, I would think at some point LE would have brought Bryan in had him view it and give his opinion if that could be the guy who attacked them.

Bay Area—you seem to forget that the girl, Cecelia Shepherd, got a better look at the Z than anybody. She did talk to one cop before lapsing into unconsciousness, and she described him as larger. Check it out on the video "THIS IS THE ZODIAC SPEAKING."

Oh I don’t forget what Cecilia said at all. you need to take what she said in the context she was saying it. Collins had asked her to compare Z’s size to himself, he said he weighed about 165 lbs. I think it was, somewhere in there, Cecilia was saying Z was larger than Collins. Remember too Z was packing a lot of gear on him, and when Cecilia got a much closer look at Z he was larger than he would normally be. Bryan I think said he guessed Z to be around 225 lbs., but again Bryan only saw Z with a jacket on, the cowling over the jacket, the hood, and the belt with all the gear around his waist. that would tend to make anyone appear larger, heavier, than they truly are. Cecilia would have made a great witness, she was watching Z for quite a while, and gals notice lots of stuff. There’s a point in the video where Collins is asking Cecilia, I think his question was, if Z was carrying anything in his hands, a bag, etc. So he is referring to when she was watching Z across the peninsula, that’s what they had been discussing, so it was a critical point, but Cecilia, understandably answers to how Z looked when he came out from behind the tree. And Collins doesn’t pursue the question any further.