Here is a question that might gets some minds started …. was Darlene Ferrin present at the Lake Herman Road murder?
According to the police interview with her babysitter, Ferrin said she had been with her stalker when he killed someone. I know if it is up for debate. But if her stalker were Zodiac, then what would the other possibilities be? It would have to be the LHR shooting. Or there would have to be more earlier victims.
Thoughts?
There’s a lot of speculation and BS surrounding that. I don’t think there’s any way to know how much, if any of that is true.
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
Betty Lou Jensen.
*ZODIACHRONOLOGY*
My two cents:
Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, only one man’s take on things, everyone’s take is equally valuable. So, don’t shoot me now. Be gentle. Here goes:
The idea that Darlene Ferrin was a witness to the LHR attack is ludicrous. It’s based on nothing whatsoever and is generally entertained by conspiracy theorists and other nutcases.
Could be wrong, though.
Thank you.
My two cents:
Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, only one man’s take on things, everyone’s take is equally valuable. So, don’t shoot me now. Be gentle. Here goes:
The idea that Darlene Ferrin was a witness to the LHR attack is ludicrous. It’s based on nothing whatsoever and is generally entertained by conspiracy theorists and other nutcases.
Could be wrong, though.
Thank you.
It’s fine to have that opinion. But given that you have:
a) reports of two people in the car at LHR.
b) the babysitter statement that Darlene reported seeing her stalker kill someone and that she appeared afraid of him, and
c) Decent evidence that Darlene might have known her killer.
It’s not airtight by any stretch. But I don’t see it as ludicrous.
I don’t think we have anything resembling decent evidence that DF knew her killer. So there’s that, for one thing.
This was two people though, so "someone" wouldn’t really fit.
“…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
Where is she supposed to have been, to be in a position to witness the LHR attack? Riding shotgun with Z?
Where is she supposed to have been, to be in a position to witness the LHR attack? Riding shotgun with Z?
Would have had to have been–otherwise we have someone else (other than Darlene) who didn’t report the murders.
“…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
Yes, and there it is. I don’t buy it. And I don’t see any reason whatsoever to buy it either.
The stories about Darlene began flourishing years after the events. Her friends and family were all questioned immediately after she was murdered and nobody said a thing about her being in peril, stalked by sinister persons, being a witness to a murder, being part of a drug running operation or an occult society – or anything else.
It all reeks of something bovine creatures are known for dumping.
