Howdy, I’m PurpleBoy,

What is the general consensus with regards to the Zodiac? I’ve read in so many different places how people have their own opinions on who the person might be. Some think the murderer might still be alive, but to be honest I think the beast is probably dead and rotting in hell’s fire. What would posses a person to build such a macabre murderous plot?

Welcome, Purple. I can’t speak for everyone but I think the general consensus is that there is no general consensus. Zodiac would likely be in his 60s, 70s or 80s at this point so if he’s still alive, his time is running out (as is the time for anyone hoping to see a live person arrested). I honestly don’t think there is any majority favorite any longer in regards to suspects. There are a handful of better-known suspects and at least dozens of others that may only be favorites only to the person who discovered them. I think we also have a lot of very different ideas in regards to motivations, number of victims etc., which makes this case both intriguing and frustrating. I do think we all generally agree that Zodiac was a jerk although I’m not even sure I’d want to put that to a vote.

So… there you have it. Read, ask questions, formulate your own opinions. There’s plenty of work here to keep you bussy.

I agree with Entropy, in his thread, he puts the whole case into focus. This case is like a bag of fire works that you accidentally catch on fire, and everything ignites, and all the fireworks shoot off in every direction.

There are so many suspects & so many cryptic clues. Zodiac did all that he could to get caught, from writing lots of letters, to talking with Victims at the crime scene, to getting witnessed by kids & cops as he left a crime scene, and yet, here we are, no closer to solving the case.

In short, Zodiac is everybody, yet, he is nobody. Although we may not see the case solved, you will at least find some good conversation and debate here, along with some interesting theories and suspects

But then, why do people name suspects? Some are so sure that their chosen suspect is Zodiac it frightens me. Man, do people not worry about being sued? Surely if I name someone, that individual could sue the pants out of me?

But then, why do people name suspects? Some are so sure that their chosen suspect is Zodiac it frightens me. Man, do people not worry about being sued? Surely if I name someone, that individual could sue the pants out of me?

Sure could…unless he’s dead.

If you have a person of interest (POI), you should always presume that you could be wrong and proceed accordingly, IMO. Considering the number of suspects discussed, you probably ARE wrong. I’m not so much concerned about lawsuits but we’re talking about suggesting that somebody brutally killed at least 5 people. For that reason, ideas about a POI should be related carefully, IMO, even if you are 100% positive that your POI is Zodiac.

I personally don’t have any suspects. Many others have and name them. From reading on different places and wiki, I think some of the suspects are dead but some are still alive. A one Arthur Allen is dead, but others are not. What if the ones alive could in fact be the murderer? Man, this is starting to scare me. I better be careful and not name anyone if I I find someone who could be the murdering individual.

But then, why do people name suspects? Some are so sure that their chosen suspect is Zodiac it frightens me. Man, do people not worry about being sued? Surely if I name someone, that individual could sue the pants out of me?

If you are interested here’s a thread that covers the legalities of what you can say about a person.

http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=763

Just for saying a mean thing about someone doesn’t mean they can sue you. You must make a statement that falls under a specific legal purview and requires specific actions in order to be tried. Most if not all of the information here does not apply.

But just because we are not legally bound by ethics doesn’t mean we don’t have a moral obligation. The general policy here is to not post full names of living "suspects" and identifying photos.

Personally I try not to post names that haven’t been released by authorized media and/or outside of trusted groups, like this site.

Can anyone tell me the address for the "Swindles" case, they lived 9 blocks away I think from the ocean beach boardwalk. They lived in a cottage I think. Does anyone have the address for the cottage?

Also I need pictures of the Johnny Ray if anyone knows how I can get better pictures? Only thing I have seen is the news article.
Anything that relates will help me thanks

Can anyone tell me the address for the "Swindles" case, they lived 9 blocks away I think from the ocean beach boardwalk. They lived in a cottage I think. Does anyone have the address for the cottage?

Also I need pictures of the Johnny Ray if anyone knows how I can get better pictures? Only thing I have seen is the news article.
Anything that relates will help me thanks

The info you want Perp,should be here:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=110&p=6405&hilit=swindle#p6405

Perp, One of the articles about the Swindles quotes their landlady, Maria Smith. I looked up Maria Smith at Ancestry and was able to find her in a 1959 San Diego CA city directory.

She is listed as being connected to the Paradise Court Apartments. It gives two separate addresses, one that is quite a way from the beach area and the other is quite close to where the Swindle’s were killed. Looking on a Google map it does look to be a little further than 9 blocks but not by much and it could have been less built up then than it is today.

I’m thinking that Maria Smith managed both establishments.

I’m actually very surprised by the name of the apartments, Paradise Court!!!

Here’s some images.

The 1959 Directory listing.

A Google map showing the distance between the Voltaire St. apartments and the Silver Spray apartments where the couple was found.

A street view of the Voltaire St. apartments.

The articles about the murders are here-

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=110

Just a few random thoughts after reading a bunch of this information. Apologies if these items have been covered elsewhere.

Is there any hard evidence connecting Dick Gaik to the crimes? The vast majority of evidence outlined on the ZodiacKiller website just points to his work in the "Good Times" newspaper. I think his published writing of the period is pretty easy to discount as radical leftist hippie propaganda, that sort of inflammatory, anarchist language really was pretty typical of that type of publication and not particularly indicative of anything more sinister. Even well-regarded counter-culture writers like Robert Anton Wilson, Leary, WS Burroughs etc flirted with these subversive concepts, and the violence inherent in them. To me Gaik’s writing isn’t necessarily espousing violent revolt, he’s more commenting on it in a sort of Gonzo journalism, HS Thompson style, as both a part of the zeitgeist and an observer of it.

Furthermore, I think specific linguistic similarities between Z’s letters and the "Good Times" articles can be attributed to the fact that both these men were (in effect) published Bay Area writers and it’s not unlikely that they were reading, or at least vaguely familiar with each others work. Zodiac’s letters, his persona, and his peculiar writing tics became a part of the popular culture, as did the angry teenage screeds of Gaik and innumerable others writing for leftist zines in the 60s, it’s no wonder that, consciously or subconsciously, Z’s letters influenced Gaik a bit (and/or the reverse). Also, though Z is obviously a sociopathic killer, he can also be seen as a symbol, a harbinger, of anarchy and societal collapse (as I think he saw himself), the idea of an "Exterminating Angel" (this is the title of a film by satirical Spanish auteur Luis Bunuel, if I’m not mistaken Gaik reviews this or another Buneul film[can’t remember] at some point), who by words and deeds is able to shake the middle-class to its core would have obvious appeal to far-left radicals.

Also is there any indication that Z meant for his victims to survive the attack at Lake Berryessa, at least long enough to describe his appearance to police? Why would he go to the trouble of making such an elaborate costume only to reveal himself in full regalia to the victims who he would kill soon after? Z was proud of his work, a preening peacock, his insignia shimmering woozily in the fading light. For the first time in his life our killer’s outer appearance matched the monster within; now at last he was ready to show himself, his true self, to the world. Z relishes not so much the act of killing itself (I don’t know if he enjoys killing per se, is it more of a means to an end for him?), but the ensuing chaos surrounding his crimes and correspondences. With this attack he was continuing to mythologize himself, it reminds one of the old legend that after Little Big Horn, the Sioux and Cheyenne left one of Custer’s men alive, not out of mercy, but to spread the horrific tale. Could the Zodiac be operating under these principles?

There are people here that know alot more about Gaik than me, but as I recall, there are no substantiated connections for Gaik in southern CA, as a matter of fact, I think he was either back East or out of the country when Cheri Jo Bates case happened, and her case has been linked to the Zodiac by many.

Jaw, you’ve probably read this but here’s what Tom Voigt feels are the strongest points for Gaikowski as a suspect:

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

…And a few more that Tom or others feel are "Nails in the Coffin":

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/forums/ … 5okKuDD-Ul

I would invite you to judge for yourself how strong the evidence is.

Also is there any indication that Z meant for his victims to survive the attack at Lake Berryessa, at least long enough to describe his appearance to police?

I’ve heard it suggested but I find it very hard to believe that Zodiac had any desire for Hartnell or Shepard to survive considering that he stabbed them deeply with a long-blade knife six and ten times and left them tied up in rather isolated location. He had no idea how long it would be before somebody found them.

Why would he go to the trouble of making such an elaborate costume only to reveal himself in full regalia to the victims who he would kill soon after?

Not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Why would Z bother with the elaborate costume if he didn’t expect his victims to be alive to give a description of him? I tend to believe that the costume was part ritual, part disguise. if something went wrong (which it ultimately did with Hartnell surviving), it would help protect his identity at the same time.

J33 – my thruppence.

Is there any hard evidence connecting Dick Gaik to the crimes?

Nope.
Say, is there any hard evidence at all? Well, there’s a lot of differing descriptions, MO’s and weapons. And lots of different fingerprints.
Oh, and the letters!

….is there any indication that Z meant for his victims to survive the attack at Lake Berryessa…

That’s been wondered about before. Stabbing someone nearly to death is a bit of a fine art, seems to be the general consensus. Was the attacker at Berryessa practising it? It certainly seems unlikely. Well, to me at least.

Z was proud of his work, a preening peacock, his insignia shimmering woozily in the fading light. For the first time in his life our killer’s outer appearance matched the monster within; now at last he was ready to show himself, his true self, to the world.

Urm, yes. Very poetic. (Are peacocks mostly black?)
Anyway – and yet, then, unlike the Red Dragon in that Harris novel, he changed his mind about the panto costume and shot a cabbie in the head.
Ain’t that odd?