I actually believed Zodiac, when he said,"he used glue on his fingertips". He claimed he would never leave finger prints. Despite their DNA testing on what they had, and no finger print match. Arthur was the only suspect that I liked. I do not know if he did it, he just looked better then anyone else.There DNA test did not convince me, with what they had to work with.The descriptions given at LB, by Bryan Hartnell, and others that saw a man near the crime scene that afternoon, did not match the poi that Fouke and the kids described.

He claimed he always wore disguises, but there did seem to be a big weight difference between the two sightings.

I have no idea who Zodiac is, or was. The only one that ever looked good to me was ALA. If the saliva under the stamp was his, then the DNA proves it, if not his…then inconclusive in my opinion.

There have been so many dishonest people with their own agendas, throwing in the pot, and getting mixed up with good witnesses, and reliable LE reporting, you need a shovel sometimes to wade through it all. Also, unfortunately there were even LE with their own agendas as well, along with credible LE. It is more then likely he is/was someone no one had on their radar:)

Seriously in the end his DNA does not match and nor does handwriting and fingerprints. He looks nothing like the Zodiac sketch that the kids and Fouke seen at the time. Allen was balding at the time and had a huge wide face unlike the sketch. LE had a search warrant and raided his trailer and found no physical evidence in the end related to the Zodiac crimes. I guess Graysmith and parts of LE can’t admit to being dumb asses when it comes to catching Zodiac.

Just Cause this guy was very strange and a pedophile does not make him Zodiac! I’m not so sure Zodiac was as heavy as he was supposed to be. Graysmith makes sure over and over again in his novel to refer to Zodiac as the chubby killer. Why cause it fits his suspect ALA.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I guess it is easer for the community to accept creepy Allen as being the Zodiac oppose to someone whom is a pillar of the community or linked with law enforcement–which is in my opinion local cops pushed Allen as the Zodiac. My relative whom was mentioned in Graysmith’s book, absolutely didn’t believe the Zodiac to be Allen. She said "if a cop didn’t kill Dee, they know who did and covered it up.":?

Seriously in the end his DNA does not match and nor does handwriting and fingerprints. He looks nothing like the Zodiac sketch that the kids and Fouke seen at the time. Allen was balding at the time and had a huge wide face unlike the sketch. LE had a search warrant and raided his trailer and found no physical evidence in the end related to the Zodiac crimes. I guess Graysmith and parts of LE can’t admit to being dumb asses when it comes to catching Zodiac.

Just Cause this guy was very strange and a pedophile does not make him Zodiac! I’m not so sure Zodiac was as heavy as he was supposed to be. Graysmith makes sure over and over again in his novel to refer to Zodiac as the chubby killer. Why cause it fits his suspect ALA.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I guess it is easer for the community to accept creepy Allen as being the Zodiac oppose to someone whom is a pillar of the community or linked with law enforcement–which is in my opinion local cops pushed Allen as the Zodiac. My relative whom was mentioned in Graysmith’s book, absolutely didn’t believe the Zodiac to be Allen. She said "if a cop didn’t kill Dee, they know who did and covered it up.":?

Just to play devil’s advocate, wasn’t there another composite sketch of Zodiac, the one without glasses, that portrayed him as having a chubby face ? Also didn’t Hartnell say the Zodiac was over 200+ pounds and Mageau pick his picture out of a lineup and say that’s who shot me ? Also, the DNA found under the stamps, couldn’t have the person who mailed the letters to the press, have asked a postal worker to put stamps on the envelopes ? So of course the DNA didn’t match Allen’s. One last thought, I believe the Vallejo police were going to bring Allen in for questioning the same day Allen died of a heart attack. Living where he did, knowing the area well, the scuba diving in Lake Berryessa, anger towards kids after being accused of molestation, the letters stopping when he was put away for child molestation and starting again when he was freed. Just a lot of coincidences. Not a horrible suspect, but I tend to feel there are a lot of questions that can’t be answered as far as ALA being a suspect. But a lot of cops in different jurisdictions liked him a lot as a suspect.

Just to play devil’s advocate, wasn’t there another composite sketch of Zodiac, the one without glasses, that portrayed him as having a chubby face ? Also didn’t Hartnell say the Zodiac was over 200+ pounds and Mageau pick his picture out of a lineup and say that’s who shot me ? Also, the DNA found under the stamps, couldn’t have the person who mailed the letters to the press, have asked a postal worker to put stamps on the envelopes ? So of course the DNA didn’t match Allen’s. One last thought, I believe the Vallejo police were going to bring Allen in for questioning the same day Allen died of a heart attack. Living where he did, knowing the area well, the scuba diving in Lake Berryessa, anger towards kids after being accused of molestation, the letters stopping when he was put away for child molestation and starting again when he was freed. Just a lot of coincidences. Not a horrible suspect, but I tend to feel there are a lot of questions that can’t be answered as far as ALA being a suspect. But a lot of cops in different jurisdictions liked him a lot as a suspect.

A postal worker would have put the correct postage on, not the extra postage like Zodiac did.

the letters stopping when he was put away for child molestation and starting again when he was freed.

No offense Scott, but did you just see the movie or something?

In the movie it is stated “Police Search Allan’s trailer…Zodiac stops writing letters for three years. When Allan feels like he’s safe again, he continues writing letters. Then suddenly the letters stop. What happened? Allan is arrested, he’s in prison. The whole time that he’s in prison there are no letters. Then when he is released what happens? We get a new Zodiac letter.”

Pretty damning evidence if you only consider the dates given and not the rest of them. Here’s a time line with the dates that were omitted from that summary:

-April 1970 two zodiac letters sent

-June 26 Zodiac letter sent

-July 1970 two Zodiac letters sent

-October 1970 two Zodiac letters sent

Five months pass before a new letter is received

-March 1971 two more Zodiac letters sent

Another five months pass

-August 1971 Allen first questioned by police about Zodiac

Nearly a year later

-Sept. 1972 Police search Allen’s trailer

Two years pass

-1974 three Zodiac letters sent

A year later

-1975 Allan sent to prison

-December 1977 Allan released from prison

-April 1978 last Zodiac letter sent

As you can see it doesn’t look quite so incriminating when laid out like that. The explanation that Zodiac didn’t write for 3 years because Allan was scared that he was being investigated doesn’t add up to the fact that the Zodiac was silent for a period of time totaling almost a year before Allen was investigated. While it’s true that no letters were sent while Allan was in prison, neither were letters sent during the span of a year before Allan went to prison. The letter sent after Allan was released was sent nearly half a year later, not really synching it with Allan’s release unless you chose to only consider it in relation to that context. And even if you don’t put stock into the handwriting analysis that called that letter a fake, no other authenticated Zodiac letter was ever sent again, including the duration of Allen’s lifetime. If Allen the Zodiac declared “I’m back with you” and he was free to write, then why didn’t he? Again, no discernable reason that connects with Allen’s timeline.

In reply to themysterymachine (from another thread):

Firstly, you may very well be right about Cheney being an intelligent man. I retract my suggestion that he wasn’t very bright, that was a bit uncalled for. What I mean is that he seems confused and possibly a bit naive. Personally, I think there’s a good chance Allen was just messing with him, as he was messing with others over the years. Anyway, the big one here is chronology: When did the "Zodiac" conversation actually take place? If it happened after the Z case had become (big) news, it carries little weight for me. And Cheney seemingly didn’t remember when it took place. As such this conversation is neither here nor there.

Secondly, I agree that there are various circumstances which point to Allen – of course. And in terms of such circumstances he is clearly a better suspect than the others you mention (Gaikowiski and the rest of ’em). That doesn’t mean anything in itself, though. Many of the "suspects" in the case were developed by amateurs years after the fact – and MUCH of that is just flimsy-flamsy theorizing for my money. Allen was a suspicious guy, he had plenty to hide, he played up the Z angle on purpose for kicks…and there you have him: An interesting guy, the best suspect they ever had, but one who was ruled out on handwriting, ruled out on fingerprints, ruled out on DNA…and then we may start to question ALL of these points in turn, legitimately so, because ALL of them are…questionable.

For me, personally, the bottom line is this: I don’t think Z would have dropped hints as heavy as those Allen allegedly dropped to Cheney. I just don’t see him doing that. That’s my take on it, purely a personal opinion. Allen got a kick out of being a Z suspect and the reason he dropped these hints and kept messing with both the investigators and people he knew, was that he KNEW they had nothing substantial on him. And the reason, in its turn, why they had nothing on him was…that there wasn’t anything there. He wasn’t Z.

I have a hard time believing that Cheney just completely made up that story, and then stuck with it for years and years just to vilify Allen. No, I don’t think that Allen told him all that Zodiac stuff, but at least some of it is probably true. It’s probably true that Allen told people he was a big fan of The Most Dangerous Game, as he told police.

If Allen really did tell him about how he was going to be the Zodiac, why didn’t he come forward about it until years after the murders? Because the truth is that by his own admission that story didn’t leave much of any impression on him. The weird thing that is that he said he was reading about a murder that had nothing to do with Zodiac and for whatever reason that is what made him think of Allen and then remember that Zodiac story.

My personal theory is that the conversation did happen pretty much the way Cheney said it would, but the context was different. On a hunting trip Allen being the weirdo that he was probably did talk about hunting people and the Most Dangerous Game. Maybe he really did say he wanted revenge on children. Where does the Zodiac fit in? Allen had that Zodiac watch. If one of his friend’s had seen it after the murders, they almost certainly would ask about it, as anyone would. And wouldn’t you expect Allen to sarcastically say,"yeah, I’m the Zodiac!" That fits right in with his personality.

If all that happened, in retrospect it would make a lot of sense to think, "well, maybe he really is the Zodiac." And even if he isn’t, he certainly deserves to be investigated by police because of what he has been doing to children.

In reply to themysterymachine (from another thread):

Firstly, you may very well be right about Cheney being an intelligent man. I retract my suggestion that he wasn’t very bright, that was a bit uncalled for. What I mean is that he seems confused and possibly a bit naive. Personally, I think there’s a good chance Allen was just messing with him, as he was messing with others over the years. Anyway, the big one here is chronology: When did the "Zodiac" conversation actually take place? If it happened after the Z case had become (big) news, it carries little weight for me. And Cheney seemingly didn’t remember when it took place. As such this conversation is neither here nor there.

Secondly, I agree that there are various circumstances which point to Allen – of course. And in terms of such circumstances he is clearly a better suspect than the others you mention (Gaikowiski and the rest of ’em). That doesn’t mean anything in itself, though. Many of the "suspects" in the case were developed by amateurs years after the fact – and MUCH of that is just flimsy-flamsy theorizing for my money. Allen was a suspicious guy, he had plenty to hide, he played up the Z angle on purpose for kicks…and there you have him: An interesting guy, the best suspect they ever had, but one who was ruled out on handwriting, ruled out on fingerprints, ruled out on DNA…and then we may start to question ALL of these points in turn, legitimately so, because ALL of them are…questionable.

For me, personally, the bottom line is this: I don’t think Z would have dropped hints as heavy as those Allen allegedly dropped to Cheney. I just don’t see him doing that. That’s my take on it, purely a personal opinion. Allen got a kick out of being a Z suspect and the reason he dropped these hints and kept messing with both the investigators and people he knew, was that he KNEW they had nothing substantial on him. And the reason, in its turn, why they had nothing on him was…that there wasn’t anything there. He wasn’t Z.

Actually he did remember the date of the conversation. Because it was the last time he said that they spoke. I know it is in the film as well which somehow makes everyone believe it isn’t true, but according to Cheney it is. He started a new job in LA and moved, and that’s why he knew it was of a certain date. And it was right after the Blue Rock Springs killings. Before ANYONE had called himself "the Zodiac". And he did try and contact the police earlier on. And you have to wonder why the cops were already on to him BEFORE Cheney. Seems everyone forgets that. He had ALREADY been visited by the Vallejo cops. Hence the whole story of the bloody knife on the front seat on the day he was supposed to go to LB. They just haven’t been able to nail down why he was called to the attention of the cops. There is no record as to why.

It doesn’t bother me, the idea that someone would pontificate in the way Cheney said Allen did. A former friend of mine did the same thing. Note I said "former". She said she would like to try killing someone and would if she didn’t have a kid. I always pegged her as a sociopath anyway. I could find myself in a Cheney type situation myself. Think of all the loose lips that have betrayed their crimes. It is not an unthinkable scenario in the slightest.

And that being said, even if he did make it up, what’s with all the other stuff? He was definitely into bombs, He was from Vallejo, he admitted to coming from Lake B on the day of the murder with a freaking bloody knife on his front seat, he wore a Z watch (which is a little creepy- not evidence- but creepy)- he loved "the Most Dangerous Game" AND the Mikado, had all the skills that Z would have expected to possess including knowledge of code, possible surveying or navigational skills, matched the physical description…..even people who like other suspects often say, "but yeah, there are alot of weird coincidences with ALA". This whole "ALA being a good suspect is garbage" is a very strange bit of business. C’mon.

The thing that kills me (this thread is a great example) is how the most bizarre conjectures are treated seriously while it is somehow bizarre to still believe ALA was a good suspect. Guys like Gaikowski are treated as good suspects when, no matter what I read, it makes NO sense to me, but people love that guy. As I have said before, I will take the word of most of the detectives involved in the actual case over armchair detectives like myself any day. I have YET to hear any detective involved with the case say, "you know, it was so stupid that we haunted ALA so long, we were idiots". No, they don’t say that, because he was a good suspect, for very good reasons.

ANd again, I don’t think that one partial profile on one latter-day letter can rule out anyone. That is the main mistake in this case, IMO- ruling people out because of a possibly- meaningless handprint, DNA that doesn’t necessarily even come from Z, and handwriting which is anyone’s guess. Tired of people treating the DNA like it came from a rape victim and its just inexorably gonna solve the case. i mean, Z wiped down the cab after he left but somehow managed to leave a print. No DNA on the first few letters but one on one from way later. AND NO MATCHING PRINTS OR PROFILES ON ANYTHING. Get a matching print, one from the phone booth near the Vallejo PD, and match it with the cab, then it is going to mean something. Same with DNA. Otherwise we are doing the same stupid stuff that the cops did way back- treating this possibly meaningless evidence as some sort of biblical, unequivocal truth. That isn’t putting your head in the sand, its taking your head OUT of the sand and realizing this evidence has yet to earn the term. Its making the evidence worthy of its name. Could have came from some ambulance driver or some schmuck who used the phone. Putting all your faith in that evidence is what has helped this crime remain unsolved IMO.

Despite my rant I am not convinced ALA is it. But I do have a problem with a few of the prevailing party lines in Z forums which are 1-Graysmith is a scummy huckster and every word out of his mouth is a lie and b) that anyone who thought or thinks ALA was a good suspect is a silly twit. Not gonna fall in with groupthink on this one. I think he is still a good possibility but again, not totally convinced myself. I don’t think I am even convinced Gaikowski didn’t do it. It just seems so silly, like the Manson/z connection, which is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard, second only to Deb Perez (Kennedy). You can bet anytime you hear the words "my therapist helped me remember" you can be sure you are about to have to put your BS waders on.

I have a hard time believing that Cheney just completely made up that story, and then stuck with it for years and years just to vilify Allen. No, I don’t think that Allen told him all that Zodiac stuff, but at least some of it is probably true. It’s probably true that Allen told people he was a big fan of The Most Dangerous Game, as he told police.

If Allen really did tell him about how he was going to be the Zodiac, why didn’t he come forward about it until years after the murders? Because the truth is that by his own admission that story didn’t leave much of any impression on him. The weird thing that is that he said he was reading about a murder that had nothing to do with Zodiac and for whatever reason that is what made him think of Allen and then remember that Zodiac story.

My personal theory is that the conversation did happen pretty much the way Cheney said it would, but the context was different. On a hunting trip Allen being the weirdo that he was probably did talk about hunting people and the Most Dangerous Game. Maybe he really did say he wanted revenge on children. Where does the Zodiac fit in? Allen had that Zodiac watch. If one of his friend’s had seen it after the murders, they almost certainly would ask about it, as anyone would. And wouldn’t you expect Allen to sarcastically say,"yeah, I’m the Zodiac!" That fits right in with his personality.

If all that happened, in retrospect it would make a lot of sense to think, "well, maybe he really is the Zodiac." And even if he isn’t, he certainly deserves to be investigated by police because of what he has been doing to children.

Agreed. Except that Cheney claimed it was the phrase "the little darlings bouncing off the bus" that made him remember. I always thought it weird that he didn’t hear the Zodiac and think, "holy crap! Leigh said that to me!" But like I said in the other thread, engineer/ intellectual types can be surprisingly stupid that way. Just totally not there. Nutty professor types who can memorize every quadratic equation under the sun twelve times over and still forget to tie their shoes. One of my very best friends in the world is a software engineer and I swear, he is one of the stupidest people I have ever met, as well as being one of the smartest. Not very observant- he would make a terrible spy, things just go right past him. So that doesn’t surprise me too terribly.

Cheney claims that his last conversation predates the first appearance of the word "The Zodiac" in the papers in connection with these crimes. And also, it was NOT years til Cheney got a hold of the police. It was a little over a year. He went to the Pomona PD and they didn’t do anything. Cheney was still bothered by it and talked to Sandy Panzarella, who decided to get in contact with a good cop friend of his in Manhattan Beach, who got in touch with SFPD. They went to a whole lot of effort to do this. And it wasn’t just Cheney- there were other friends of Leigh who heard him talk crap about stuff. And his being fired from an elementary school dovetails nicely with this schoolkid number Z liked to play.

My BIGGEST problem, and really ONLY problem with ALA, is how the child molestation could possibly make psychological sense with being Z. The Zodiac and ALA the Molester just seem like two different entities. I can’t see a way that it makes sense on a psychological level. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t, it just doesn’t adhere to what we already (think) we know about serial killers. Z seems to have more of a terrorist psych than he does a serial killer. Lets face it- as a serial killer, Z is utterly tame in terms of the murders themselves, apart from LB.
But profiling is basically a numbers game, its statistics. Its "most of these dudes who display their victims like this wet the bed as kids because that was the statistics we came up with after interviewing all these murderers and crunching some numbers". And those numbers are made of of killers who were CAUGHT. How can you profile a killer who was never caught, and seems to be one of a kind? Dunno.

the letters stopping when he was put away for child molestation and starting again when he was freed.

No offense Scott, but did you just see the movie or something?

In the movie it is stated “Police Search Allan’s trailer…Zodiac stops writing letters for three years. When Allan feels like he’s safe again, he continues writing letters. Then suddenly the letters stop. What happened? Allan is arrested, he’s in prison. The whole time that he’s in prison there are no letters. Then when he is released what happens? We get a new Zodiac letter.”

Pretty damning evidence if you only consider the dates given and not the rest of them. Here’s a time line with the dates that were omitted from that summary:

-April 1970 two zodiac letters sent

-June 26 Zodiac letter sent

-July 1970 two Zodiac letters sent

-October 1970 two Zodiac letters sent

Five months pass before a new letter is received

-March 1971 two more Zodiac letters sent

Another five months pass

-August 1971 Allen first questioned by police about Zodiac

Nearly a year later

-Sept. 1972 Police search Allen’s trailer

Two years pass

-1974 three Zodiac letters sent

A year later

-1975 Allan sent to prison

-December 1977 Allan released from prison

-April 1978 last Zodiac letter sent

As you can see it doesn’t look quite so incriminating when laid out like that. The explanation that Zodiac didn’t write for 3 years because Allan was scared that he was being investigated doesn’t add up to the fact that the Zodiac was silent for a period of time totaling almost a year before Allen was investigated. While it’s true that no letters were sent while Allan was in prison, neither were letters sent during the span of a year before Allan went to prison. The letter sent after Allan was released was sent nearly half a year later, not really synching it with Allan’s release unless you chose to only consider it in relation to that context. And even if you don’t put stock into the handwriting analysis that called that letter a fake, no other authenticated Zodiac letter was ever sent again, including the duration of Allen’s lifetime. If Allen the Zodiac declared “I’m back with you” and he was free to write, then why didn’t he? Again, no discernable reason that connects with Allen’s timeline.

Just for the record, I agree with this. Z, tho prolific, wasn’t writing so often that a several month- or even years- gap between letters should be particularly significant. It is interesting in the sense of being able to state that someone COULD have written those letters according to a timeline, but its not as if the Z letters were some constant trickling and then they just suddenly and jarringly stopped now and again. That totally overstates the case on that. Just like it supposed to be a dead giveaway that Gaikowski worked all night on his "Good Times" paper on Wednesdays and no letter was ever mailed on a Wed! Whatever. I agree- its been given more weight than it should.

I’d like to know precisely why Allen was interviewed in Oct 1969 too. But we can perhaps surmise that someone he knew tipped the police about him based on, well, who he was combined with his habit of going to LB (possibly also combined with having seen “bloody knives” in his car).

Anyway, one way to look at Allen is this: Unlike any other popular suspect in the case, Allen was actually looked into pretty thoroughly: He was interviewed on several occasions, his prints and writing were checked, his property was searched multiple times, etc. And nothing came up. Cheney was interviewed too. If Cheney’s story had been absolutely convincing and compelling, I think it stands to reason Allen would have been charged there and then: What looks practically like a confession, related to a perfectly credible witness, is as close to a smoking gun as anything in the case. So, in my opinion, something about Cheney’s story was not absolutely convincing. It’s not like LE were reluctant to go for the jugular with Allen – they were waiting for an opportunity to do just that. But they didn’t – because the evidence simply wasn’t there.*

As for Graysmith, I personally think he deserves much of the criticism he’s been getting. The fact is that his partly fictional tome influenced the case directly. It turned myth into fact and inspired “witnesses” and others to come forward with useless stories which – undoubtedly – muddied the waters of the case. The reason why Allen was reinstated as a suspect was a clearly bogus claim made by an inmate with a grudge – who in all likelihood wouldn’t have dreamed about coming forward if Allen hadn’t been portrayed publicly as the Zodiac by Graysmith.** I’m not saying that Graysmith set out to write a tall tale, nor am I accusing him of having pursued the case all these years for the money alone – but I do believe he became blinkered to the point of seeing only what he wanted to see. Which is very dangerous for someone who is supposedly trying to solve a murder case.

* Part of Cheney’s account had Allen detailing how he would sabotage a victim’s car in a way which closely resembles the K. Johns incident. Personally I have a problem with that one. Firstly, there is plenty to indicate that Johns was not a Z victim. Secondly, Johns – who identified several others as her kidnapper, which may or may not say something about Johns’ memory – failed to ID Allen. Specifically, that is – she was adamant Allen was not the man who abducted her. This leaves us with a scenario in which Allen, as Z, "predicted" a crime he didn’t commit but which he nevertheless took credit for. Which is hard to believe. Cheney read about the Z case in the LA Times. Both the threat to school children and the Johns incident were reported by the Times before Cheney’s interview with LE in 1971. Doesn’t prove anything either way, but it’s not doing Cheney’s credibility any favors. And by that I don’t mean to call Cheney a liar, but rather that he could have been confused: He may have mixed up bits of what Allen actually told him with bits he, Cheney, had read in the paper and vaguely associated with Allen.

** Graysmith didn’t identify Allen by name, of course, but anyone who knew Allen would have known – and the "tipster" in question was an old acquaintance of his.

I’d like to know precisely why Allen was interviewed in Oct 1969 too. But we can perhaps surmise that someone he knew tipped the police about him based on, well, who he was combined with his habit of going to LB (possibly also combined with having seen “bloody knives” in his car).

Anyway, one way to look at Allen is this: Unlike any other popular suspect in the case, Allen was actually looked into pretty thoroughly: He was interviewed on several occasions, his prints and writing were checked, his property was searched multiple times, etc. And nothing came up. Cheney was interviewed too. If Cheney’s story had been absolutely convincing and compelling, I think it stands to reason Allen would have been charged there and then: What looks practically like a confession, related to a perfectly credible witness, is as close to a smoking gun as anything in the case. So, in my opinion, something about Cheney’s story was not absolutely convincing. It’s not like LE were reluctant to go for the jugular with Allen – they were waiting for an opportunity to do just that. But they didn’t – because the evidence simply wasn’t there.*

As for Graysmith, I personally think he deserves much of the criticism he’s been getting. The fact is that his partly fictional tome influenced the case directly. It turned myth into fact and inspired “witnesses” and others to come forward with useless stories which – undoubtedly – muddied the waters of the case. The reason why Allen was reinstated as a suspect was a clearly bogus claim made by an inmate with a grudge – who in all likelihood wouldn’t have dreamed about coming forward if Allen hadn’t been portrayed publicly as the Zodiac by Graysmith.** I’m not saying that Graysmith set out to write a tall tale, nor am I accusing him of having pursued the case all these years for the money alone – but I do believe he became blinkered to the point of seeing only what he wanted to see. Which is very dangerous for someone who is supposedly trying to solve a murder case.

* Part of Cheney’s account had Allen detailing how he would sabotage a victim’s car in a way which closely resembles the K. Johns incident. Personally I have a problem with that one. Firstly, there is plenty to indicate that Johns was not a Z victim. Secondly, Johns – who identified several others as her kidnapper, which may or may not say something about Johns’ memory – failed to ID Allen. Specifically, that is – she was adamant Allen was not the man who abducted her. This leaves us with a scenario in which Allen, as Z, "predicted" a crime he didn’t commit but which he nevertheless took credit for. Which is hard to believe. Cheney read about the Z case in the LA Times. Both the threat to school children and the Johns incident were reported by the Times before Cheney’s interview with LE in 1971. Doesn’t prove anything either way, but it’s not doing Cheney’s credibility any favors. And by that I don’t mean to call Cheney a liar, but rather that he could have been confused: He may have mixed up bits of what Allen actually told him with bits he, Cheney, had read in the paper and vaguely associated with Allen.

** Graysmith didn’t identify Allen by name, of course, but anyone who knew Allen would have known – and the "tipster" in question was an old acquaintance of his.

You gotta keep in mind that Leigh was known to have several different residences. Or should I say, he had another trailer in Bodega Bay, he had a boat, he registered a couple of other travel trailers that he kept (and it was rumored that he had another trailer in a friend’s back woods), as well as the basement at 32 Fresno in Vallejo. If any place of his needed searching, it was the basement where he had spent most of his time. But no, they searched the Santa Rosa trailer, only. They only searched the basement in Vallejo after he died. And what did they find? Pipe bombs, diagrams and recipes for bombs, two typewriters (one a Royal portable like the one used to write the CJ Bates letter), lots and lots of Zodiac clippings and video tapes marked "Z". And what kills me is that that famous interview he gave to the female TV reporter where he says "I’m not the damn Zodiac"? You can clearly see a freaking wig laying there on the table.
So the idea that cops searched everything and gave him the total how-do-you-do- they didn’t. They questioned him a couple times, decided that because his handwriting didn’t match and his fingerprint didn’t match, they couldn’t do anything.
Also, you cannot throw someone in jail just because an old pal of yours says you talked about killing people. If the law worked that way it would be terrifying. You need evidence or else everyone would be making stuff up about others and the cops would waste a whole lot of time. SO it doesn’t stand to reason that he would be charged just because of Cheney. No way. That isn’t how the law works. it might tip them off to look closer, but you can’t just charge someone on heresay. But it provides a hell of a foundation if you can make a case against him. If Cheney were just making stuff up, then why so many similarities between what we know about Z and Allen? If ALA were just a random guy caught in some weird revenge plot, then we wouldn’t be talking about him today. The cops probably dealt with hundreds of tipsters just like that. "My old man, yeah, he is the Zodiac, he is a total asshole and he beats me". They look into the guy, he doesn’t match the description and so on, and they move on. But even after the handwriting and stuff didn’t match Allen, they still couldn’t let him go. Too many coincidences. Or like Bawart said, "after a while, you are getting too many coincidences for it to be a coincidence." At some point all those coincidences, its gonna start being illogical to call it that. You have to call it circumstantial evidence. They just couldn’t land that final corroborating physical bit. Because Z was smart. As was Allen. Cops were used to dealing with normal crimes and the occasional schizo bungler who would walk around with blood on his hands. Z was just smarter. He was one step ahead.

I agree that Graysmith had tunnel vision. He had no training in detection. Alot of the moves he made were just plain stupid- going into the hardware store where he worked? I mean, I can understand wanting to do that, but its stupid. But to hang all of the stuff on ALA from Graysmith’s neck like he made it all up is just wrong. Its wrong. Tell Dave Toschi that. That guy has one Gold and Silver And Bronze commendations, he’s a great detective and he believed the Zodiac was Allen and he believed that before Graysmith. As did at least 3 other detectives involved (and I don’t include Bawart in that because he admits openly that he carried the yellow book around with him when he inherited the case). Graysmith found stuff out and told Toschi about it later, but to make it seem as if ALA is only a good suspect because of Graysmith’s tunnel vision could be more of a chicken-eggy thing. Did he have tunnel vision because ALA was such a good suspect? Or did he make him LOOK like a good suspect? Graysmith is no Lafferty. There was substance there in the suspicions against ALA. And if hadn’t written that book one wonders if this case would still be on ice. I am convinced it would still be a cold case. SO when people say "he’s a money grubbing blah blah blah" it really makes me sick. He made mistakes, but to say that he just made up a bunch of stuff is wrong in the extreme. Especially when its something I hear so often in a community who will go on a wild goose chase on the most spurious of reasonings (Gyke? In the code? Really? This is evidence? Bruce Davis/Ed Best/your neighbor matches the composite? ) but damn Graysmith because of his reliance on circumstantial evidence. Its like, people will believe what circumstantial evidence they want for the guy they like. But if they don’t like him, all you hear is, "BUT THE EVIDENCE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL!"

There also seems that pressure to "get in line" on that in every Z forum and I am too stubborn of a nonconformist to do so without being damn sure that I feel the same. And I am damn sure that I do NOT. ALA is STILL the best suspect and unfortunately, may remain so. Again, I am not at ALL convinced he did it. But there is some compelling stuff going on there. But you MUST keep looking at other suspects. Just to land on him and not either a-keep trying to pin it on him or b-keep looking for answers is foolish. You gotta keep searching. WHICH IS WHAT GRAYSMITH SHOULD HAVE DONE. It is SO frustrating to read through the book and it mentions dozens of suspects that sound GREAT and then it concludes with the old "his handwriting didn’t match". Drives me INSANE.

As to Cheney’s mentioning that ALA said he would take the lugnuts off the car? IMO, no matter how much I do believe that the heart of what he said is true, I just feel like that is not quite all there. I think he believes it- but it just seems a little silly to me. I think his memory was probably starting to play some tricks on him there. He actually says "I didnt remember as many details then as I do now" which is basically the complete opposite of how the human memory usually works. I don’t think he busted out with that until years later. And personally that sounds like a David Carpenter move. He could very well have been the one to do the KJ bit. I don’t believe that was Z at all either.
But according to Cheney his memory was stirred when he heard the threat to school children. That was the thing that made him remember. But I agree with you, I think he just got some stuff confused over the years and that’s why I think it is important to believe in his INITIAL stories, not all the stuff he told 20 years down the road.
Tom V said something compelling about why it doesn’t make any sense at all to go back and interview these people again and again and again decades later. Even tho he did just that with a couple, there is a pitfall there, that they will become keen to say what you want them to say. It isn’t a matter of lying- its just human psychology. Its why false confessions are obtained from repeated questioning. So I tend to discount most of what Cheney said later.

Oh, I think Cheney was perfectly capable of BSing. This is a fine example.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/Cheney2.html

If only someone had asked him about JFK!

MM:

Some further points (in no particular order) to consider here:

* Toschi, to the best of my recollection, ended up concluding that Allen looked great, but that "it just wasn’t there" (or words to that effect). So, I don’t think he ended up endorsing Allen as a suspect even though he certainly did so at one point.

* Certain facts regarding the evidence gathered at Allen’s properties are in question as far as I know: The typewriter being one of them. I can’t find the link now (and I don’t say this is gospel, so feel free to correct me), but I do believe it has been demonstrated that Allen’s typewriter was not what Graysmith claimed it was. Similarly, the infamous wing walkers: No wing walkers were found. This is another myth stemming from a simple mistake. The wing walkers were on a list of items LE were searching for – they were NOT on any list of items they actually found. Several reputable Z researchers have stated so, to the best of my knowledge, one of them being Mike Rodelli (who interviewed a LE representative originally assigned to the case and got this info directly from him).

* From where I’m sitting Cheney’s story remains problematic. And I maintain that if there had been zero problems with it, LE would have treated it differently back then. You can’t go to trial on hearsay, certainly not. But LE, Mulanax specifically, seems to have had doubts about this story from the very beginning. The extent to which Cheney and Allen had, let’s say fallen out with each other, is not crystal clear. Mulanax seemed to think Cheney had an axe to grind – and he had no reason whatsoever to be anything but sympathetic to Cheney (and his story) as such. I personally think LE would have pushed on much harder back in 1971 if they had found Cheney’s account truly compelling, but that’s just my opinion.

* There’s no connection between Zodiac and pipe bombs. One may ask what the hell Allen was doing with the latter (he claimed they belonged to someone else) but then again one may ask how likely it is that Z would have kept bombs of any kind around the house, knowing very well the cops were on his trail.

EDIT The pipe bombs weren’t found until the 1991 search of Allen’s place. So, the cops weren’t exactly hot on Z’s trail, I suppose. But this illustrates the point even better: Z issued a bomb threat of sorts in 1970. Allen was caught with pipe bombs (a completely different kind of device to the one Z threatened to use) more than twenty years later. It’s…well, not really compelling, is it? It shows that Allen was a shady character – but that had been well established a long time before this find was made.

* Lastly, as I’ve said before I agree 100% that Allen is a stronger suspect than many of the others who have been "flavor of the month" type "suspects" over the years. There is no doubt about that. But it doesn’t mean all that much. Some of the "suspects" made popular by their accusers are just plain ridiculous – and none of them are excellent, all things said and done. Allen, in that sense, is just the best of a pretty bad bunch – that’s what he was back then, and that’s what he still is. As for LE’s views on Allen as a suspect, they clearly regarded him as viable. But they too suffered from a lack of great alternatives. And Allen at least partly led them on, making it impossible for them to completely let him go. The latter is part and parcel of the Allen phenomenon – his undeniable fondness for playing games.

ADDED POINTS RE: CHENEY’S STORY:

It’s not necessarily a case of Cheney feeding outright lies to the authorities. Allen may very well have done all of the following in some form or other:

* Told Cheney that he might start killing people.

* Referenced “The Most Dangerous Game” (a very popular and well known story at the time, by no means something which would tie anyone conspicuously to Z).

* Made some sort of threatening remarks regarding school children after he got fired.

All of this he could have done prior to the Z case becoming big news.

Then we have certain facts:

* The Zodiac watch.

* Allen’s various weapons and his propensity for leaving them in his car.

* The fact that he was a generally shady and creepy character.

And all of this BEFORE Allen was brought in for questioning, linking him directly to the Z case – which was then about to become front page news. AFTER this point Allen could have (and did) play up the Z angle shamelessly to mess with and/or frighten people who knew him.

It’s more than possible that Cheney simply became convinced that Allen was Z – and that he consciously or subconsciously embellished his story when he talked to LE. The core of it was perfectly true – Allen was suspicious as hell, owned a Zodiac watch and talked about killing people – but the details were embellishments.