Probably cos they don’t have any suspects. Riverside tested theirs and got a no-match, didn’t they? Same with ALA in Vallejo. I’m sure they must have compared the Riverside/SF DNA and got a no-match too.

And i doubt they’d look to be testing possible POIs identified by us on forums, or those in "daddy was" books, without some hard evidence. Resources better spent on active investigations – especially if the DNA they have can only be used to rule people out.

If one jurisdiction ever gets a match on prints or a not-ruled-out by DNA result for a suspect, they will no doubt share their information with other Z PDs and the FBI.

I know you know all this though, and are just blowing off steam. It’s that dratted Z who’s to blame for all this!

Here is my issue with the arthur Leigh allen DNA:

It is known that Leigh would have others lick his stamps and envelopes for him, he claimed that the glue made him sick. So, if the DNA that cleared allen came from one of the zodiac envelopes chances are that their "zodiac DNA" is the DNA of whoever allen had licking his envelopes.

Allen was also cleared against the print found in stine’s cab, but again, Don Cheney claimed that allen would give others "silly-putty" to obtain their fingerprint impressions , so allen could have been leaving false prints…or the print could have came from elsewhere.

I am still not so quick to discount allen, and I have always been very suspicious of Don cheney. Cheney would describe in detail things that zodiac had done, for example he would say "Arthur told me that you can put a pen-light on a gun and use it to aim a gun in the dark", Don would go into great detail about things that "Arthur had told him", though I have never heard Arthur mention these things, only Cheney, and cheney goes into detail as if they were his ideas, not Allen’s. Maybe cheney was zodiac and he wanted to frame allen. …just thoughts to take with a grain of salt, nothing serious or Valuble, just baseless speculation.

I feel that there are many reasons why it shouldn’t be allen, but nothing is certian, in my mind he still has not been fully ruled out.

"Allen was also cleared against the print found in stine’s cab, but again, Don Cheney claimed that allen would give others "silly-putty" to obtain their fingerprint impressions , so allen could have been leaving false prints"

The problem with this is that the silly putty image would be the inverse of a fingerprint. Also, I don’t see how he could have carried it around without it moshing up – it is a kind of putty, after all.

Also, Z was seen to be wiping the outside of the cab down, as if trying to remove prints.

Zreasearch,

Don’t you see how that actually goes against your point? You’re arguing exactly why ALA is not a good suspect: a lack of evidence. How does it make any sense that the less evidence there is the more it proves someone guilty?

Because he said so?

If I said that I wouldn’t leave behind any evidence if I shot JFK, does that make you think that I was on the grassy knoll? That’s precisely the logic here.

"Allen was also cleared against the print found in stine’s cab, but again, Don Cheney claimed that allen would give others "silly-putty" to obtain their fingerprint impressions , so allen could have been leaving false prints"

The problem with this is that the silly putty image would be the inverse of a fingerprint. Also, I don’t see how he could have carried it around without it moshing up – it is a kind of putty, after all.

Also, Z was seen to be wiping the outside of the cab down, as if trying to remove prints.

Yeah, the print in the cab could have been a false print left by any number of sources, which again, means that clearing Allen using the print found in the cab should NOT discount allen as zodiac because we do not know if the print was even left by zodiac.

…As far as clearing Allen as a suspect based on DNA, we know that allen would have other people lick his stamps and envelopes for him, he claimed the glue made him sick. Don Cheney even cites incidents where Allen would have a pile of envelopes and stamps on the table and he would ask others to lick the stamps as well as the envelopes after allen had placed his correspondence in them. So clearing Allen as a suspect simply based on DNA found on a zodiac envelope is actually a somewhat hasty decision.

I was simply saying that most of the methods used to discount Allen as a suspect had some very severe potential flaws, and that as a result I am not fully willing to discount allen as a suspect.

Zreasearch,

Don’t you see how that actually goes against your point? You’re arguing exactly why ALA is not a good suspect: a lack of evidence. How does it make any sense that the less evidence there is the more it proves someone guilty?

Because he said so?

If I said that I wouldn’t leave behind any evidence if I shot JFK, does that make you think that I was on the grassy knoll? That’s precisely the logic here.

What are you talking about?

Your arguments are incredibly unclear and do not seem to apply to any of my posts in this thread.

If you would like to be more specific regarding:

·How the DNA from zodiac envelopes was sufficient enough to discount allen as a suspect when allen was known to have others lick his stamps and envelopes for him.

&

·How the finger print from stine’s cab was sufficient to discount allen as a suspect when we do not know the true source of the finger print or of it was even left by zodiac.

…Please feel free to do so, as it was these reasons why I felt that discounting allen may have been done a bit prematurely.

"
The problem with this is that the silly putty image would be the inverse of a fingerprint. Also, I don’t see how he could have carried it around without it moshing up – it is a kind of putty, after all.

Also, Z was seen to be wiping the outside of the cab down, as if trying to remove prints.

If you take the "silly-putty" impression of the fingerprint and pour plaster or rubber or plastic into it, you then obtain a plaster or rubber or plastic "finger" with an accurate finger print of whoever was touching the putty on it. By making a plaster or rubber or plastic cast using the putty fingerprint impression as a mold, the print obtained from the putty fingerprint impression mold’s cast would be correctly orientated. and would be fully accurate rather than in reverse. The putty is just a mold for further obtaining an object which would be useable to leave false finger prints.

…with all the fingerprint identification technology out there today one could take this as a lesson, don’t leave your finger print impressions on any substance that could be used as a mold for taking a cast of.

About wiping down the cab, As you mentioned, it appeared he was erasing prints, not leaving them, however he could have been erasing the prints of everybody who had touched the outside of the cab so that the only print found would be a fake print which he left there…

like zodiac said:

"If you wonder why I was wipeing the cab down. I was leaving fake clews for the police to run all over town with, as one might say, I gave the cops som bussy work to do to keep them happy. I enjoy needling the blue pigs". -zodiac

like you mentioned, how would wiping down the cab have been leaving fake clews?

Did he know that the children across the street were watching him and that they would mention this detail to the police? Or was he planting a fake print while removing the real prints of anyone else who had touched the outside of the cab?

…just some things to consider.

We have to assume that zodiac was fairly clever, and even if Allen was not zodiac it is possible that zodiac knew the same "little tricks", I mean, we know zodiac probably enjoyed old detective and "how to get away with murder" comic books, so it is possible that zodiac knew that one could get a finger-print impression on putty, then make a plaster or rubber cast of it, obtaining a "fake finger" with an unsuspecting individuals real finger print on it.

Again, so much is still unknown which leaves much room for speculation. While I feel that exploring all avenues of thought is essential in this case, one must also be careful to take such thoughts "with a grain of salt" unless there is substantial reasoning suggesting that one would do otherwise…

There wasn’t enough amylase present on the envelopes to suggest they’d been licked at all, let that alone that they’d been licked by Cheney or random acquaintances of ALA. So that story’s a non-starter.

Yeah, the cab thing is confusing. If he was wiping off prints, he sure did a lousy job:
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … play_media

Your arguments are incredibly unclear and do not seem to apply to any of my posts in this thread.

If you would like to be more specific regarding:

·How the DNA from zodiac envelopes was sufficient enough to discount allen as a suspect when allen was known to have others lick his stamps and envelopes for him.

&

·How the finger print from stine’s cab was sufficient to discount allen as a suspect when we do not know the true source of the finger print or of it was even left by zodiac.

…Please feel free to do so, as it was these reasons why I felt that discounting allen may have been done a bit prematurely.

If my wording confused you I will elaborate, but my arguments are perfectly clear.

I’m happy to address those statements and lay out the their conclusions precisely.

DNA was found on the Zodiac envelopes. Don Cheney claimed that Allen did not licks his stamps. DNA analysis was not a confirmed matched to Allen.

Your interpretation is the person whose DNA is on the letters is not the writer/killer, but the person, Arthur Allen, whose DNA is NOT on the letters is the writer/ killer.

According to your interpretation a lack of DNA evidence is suspicious toward Allen. By that reasoning every other person in the world is equally as suspicious. Using logic, the only person who would be considered suspicious should be the person who matches the DNA, not billions of people who do not match the DNA.

The prints on the cab are not a match to Allen. Your interpretation is that the person who left the fingerprints is not the killer, but the person, Arthur Allen, who did NOT leave the fingerprints is the killer.

Again you assert that a lack of evidence should be reason to consider someone a suspect, when logically the person who has the most evidence against them should be considered the suspect.

You are arguing that we should ignore the physical evidence at the crime scene in determining who the guilty party is. Don’t you know that is the exact opposite of how every police officer and court system works?

How far as you willing to extend this reasoning? Let’s say the DNA results and the fingerprints are a match for Zresearch. We also find the guns used by the Zodiac were registered under your name, they have your fingerprints on them, and GSR on your hands. You also have the Zodiac hood in your car, your handwriting matches the Zodiac letters, and you have the victims blood on your clothing.

You say, "Arthur Leigh Allen made me lick his stamps, he copied my fingerprints with silly putty, he registered the gun under my name and he took me to the firing range to shoot it with him, he copied my handwriting, and he borrowed my car and my clothes."

Are we supposed to believe you just because you say so? Or should we believe what the evidence shows instead of what people say that they did?

If you think that you can convict a person by saying, "Look Jury, I know that none of the evidence matches my client. You should ignore that and find him guilty anyway." Then I would love to have you as a prosecutor if I was a criminal.

I was simply saying that most of the methods used to discount Allen as a suspect had some very severe potential flaws…

That is your primary error, in thinking that it requires a very strong method to discount Allen, or anyone else, as a suspect. It requires a very weak method, in fact, any method at all will do. The onus is on finding a very strong method to CONSIDER him a suspect in the first place.

I don’t need to prove why his DNA and fingerprints are not there. They do that themselves simply by not being there. Why would I have to prove a negative? YOU need to prove a positive and show me what IS there and why I should consider it.

There wasn’t enough amylase present on the envelopes to suggest they’d been licked at all, let that alone that they’d been licked by Cheney or random acquaintances of ALA. So that story’s a non-starter.

Yeah, the cab thing is confusing. If he was wiping off prints, he sure did a lousy job:
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … play_media

So you are saying that allen was NOT cleared by DNA from a zodiac envelope?

DNA seems to clear only Zodiac suspect / New-found evidence may allow genetic profile of ’60s killer
Mike Weiss, Chronicle Staff Writer Published: Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Genetic traces from envelopes that contained the serial killer’s apocalyptic and police-taunting letters in the 1960s appear to have cleared a school teacher and child molester whom Vallejo police and others once identified as the Zodiac.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/DNA … 784268.php

As for "duckking", again, another barley coherent and vastly irrelevant rant which contains more incongruous and incohesive palaver than productive debate points or ratiocination on your part.

I am honestly not trying to be impolite, but I feel if you can not contribute anything productive or remotely on topic than perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree and move on.

…which is what I am choosing to do now.

I don’t need to prove why his DNA and fingerprints are not there. They do that themselves simply by not being there. Why would I have to prove a negative? YOU need to prove a positive and show me what IS there and why I should consider it.

Perfectly stated, duck. Bravo!

Even in the famous books about magic, the wizards understand that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim:

So you are saying that allen was NOT cleared by DNA from a zodiac envelope?

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/DNA … 784268.php

OK, let me rephrase that: if Zodiac asked people to lick envelopes for him as a matter of practice, there should have been more amylase/DNA than what they allegedly found on a single stamp in 2002. That’s based on comments made by Alan Keel and other folks who were involved with the tests that were done in the ’90s. If there was more to it, I’ve not seen the proof.

There’s also the fact that Cheney made so many batsh*t crazy claims that I can’t possibly take him seriously. I find it easier to believe he was the Zodiac, to be honest.

The whole "Is the 2002 DNA legit?" debate is another can of worms that has been hashed out ad nauseam…there is plenty to read out there. I’m reading an old ZK.com thread right now. Did Kelly really call Oswell and ask him not to contact the lab? Times sure have changed…

EDIT: This thread. SOMEBODY contacted the lab about Bruce Davis, which annoyed the detectives, apparently. And someone else called about Ted… http://www.zodiackiller.com/mba/gzd/805.html

So yes, stuff like this might be why LE plays hide and seek.

than perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree and move on.

…which is what I am choosing to do now.

Ok, sure go ahead and do that rather than addressing any of my points. You’re right in the sense that my ranting has nothing to do with this topic, but neither does the entire conversation about ALA which you brought up.

Considering that you busted out your thesaurus for that last post, I find it unbelievable that you truly cannot understand what I’m trying to say. That is what I find to be insulting. I have no hard feelings whatsoever about disagreeing in general.

Why did you put my username in quotations before? That is typically used to denote sarcasm or irony. That was something that a deranged stalker of mine did, who incidentally begin harassing me when I argued with him about Allen, because he thought it was highly amusing to suggest that using a silly alias like everyone else on the internet somehow counted as a criticism against me.

So you are saying that allen was NOT cleared by DNA from a zodiac envelope?

Wait, so you are saying that he WAS cleared by DNA?

That was my ENTIRE point: No DNA/ fingerprint matched = Cleared. If you agree with that, then I guess you really did not understand what I was saying. huh.