knowing the physical descriptions of zodiac, does Allen match up well? He was losing his hair in 1968 and probably had even less hair in 1969, he was about 6ft tall and zodiac has been described form 5"8 to 6ft. His voice didn’t sound like the man (Vallejo pd dispatcher) spoke with according to her years later. Also zodiac has been described as having hair that came down to his forehead, Cecelia Sheppard described him before she died as she was interviewed by deputy Collins of napa. Allens handwriting doesn’t match according to authorities, but I have to admit I have seen some similarities. On Tom voights website in the Arthur Leigh Allen personal file, he writes on his job application the word "calif" just as zodiac abbreviated in his letters. Allen does this on several occasions , I’m wondering how common this is among Californians. Also officer Foukes , the police officer who saw a man matching the same description as the kids who witnessed zodiac wiping down Paul stines cab,said Allen was not the man he saw, Allen was to heavy and face was to round. Officer foukes described the man with glasses and a crew cut as having a widows peak, Allen had thinning hair and was not a widows peak, look at his 1968 class photo on voights website. Kids who saw a man (likely zodiac") wiping down Paul stines cab- as having reddish brown hair, crew cut , glasses , 170 pounds. Allen was like 60 pounds heavier. Is it possible Allen had someone carry out the crime?don Cheney , Ralph spinelli both implicate Allen. So does Robert graysmith. Do you guys think he is innocent ? How likely is it that the case will be solved ever ? I am hopeful but realize hope only goes so far
Arthur Leigh Allen was never a good candidate for Zodiac, not only for the reasons you have given, but because he was eliminated by DNA, his fingerprints didn’t match any of the retrieved fingerprints in the case, including the Stine taxicab prints, the Napa payphone prints and the palm print recovered from the Exorcist letter. The hair retrieved from the Stine letter stamp was not consistent with Allen’s hair. Robert Graysmith unfortunately has fell into the trap, that many biased Zodiac hunters do, when they have a pet suspect, refuse to admit they were wrong. Robert Graysmith questioned the DNA evidence because of contamination and storage, pouring doubt on its validity. Imagine the DNA hadn’t eliminated Allen and had kept Allen in the frame, what do you think Graysmith would have said then. Yes, you’ve guessed it, he would be warbling and hailing the DNA test from the chimney tops. This is what happens when you cherish a favored suspect, your impartiality to every debate is skewed. You answer questions with your suspect in the back of your mind. Robert Graysmith committed two further sins of the ‘pet suspect syndrome’. He attempted to circumnavigate the problem of the DNA by claiming somebody else licked the stamps. Imagine the Zodiac didn’t want to risk depositing saliva on the stamp and envelope during his sending of 20+ letters. What would a remotely intelligent person do. Use water, a damp cloth or such-like. But Allen would supposedly travel miles to get Cheney to lick the items – utterly ludicrous and nobody with half an ounce of common sense really believes this. When this fails to convince however, another option rears its ugly head, maybe Allen had a partner in crime. This is utterly ridiculous fantasy, concocted to maintain some credence to a book, that’s shelf life was coming to an end. Most people have realized Allen was not the Zodiac Killer, if you follow evidence. But if you have staked your whole career on demonizing one individual, then the graciousness of admitting you were wrong, is not a virtue possessed by many.
Robert Graysmith did much for the Zodiac case, but unfortunately is sullying his name with this constant denial of reality most of us actually live in. The Zodiac case sadly is full of Robert Graysmith’s.
UK said it best, but I would like to add…
Spinelli got time off his sentence for implicating Allen. Had Spinelli really known/thought back in the day Allen was Zodiac, one would like to think he would have said something. Zodiac threatened children after all. But he waits…waits until he has something that might get him less prison time. Convenient.
Allen beat up Spinelli back in the day, but he would then confide in Spinelli about being Zodiac? Nah…
“…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
UK said it best, but I would like to add…
Spinelli got time off his sentence for implicating Allen. Had Spinelli really known/thought back in the day Allen was Zodiac, one would like to think he would have said something. Zodiac threatened children after all. But he waits…waits until he has something that might get him less prison time. Convenient.
Allen beat up Spinelli back in the day, but he would then confide in Spinelli about being Zodiac? Nah…
Very true, and Donald Cheney has constantly evolved his stories over the years. A continually evolving story must be treated with great scorn. The truth is constant and rarely keeps flowering. Ralph Spinelli was a career criminal and a criminal’s testimony should be treated with little regard, and no regard when offered an incentive.
The Zodiac case sadly is full of Robert Graysmith’s.
I agree with everything you said but that statement above really strikes a chord with me. So true.
Soze
I respect what you folks are saying but I think ALA is still in the mix as the Zodiac (or a member of Team Zodiac) as Michael M identified his photograph. Also somebody phoned in a suspicion of ALA shortly after the Berryessa attack. So that adds two possible verifications to Cheney and Spinelli testimony. The circumstantial evidence, ALA’s own words and his ideal location to commit the crimes makes him still a contender in my book.
ALA was a very intelligent man who was probably smarter and better educated than the investigators he matched wits with. He very well could have out-foxed Tosci, Bawart, Narlow and the rest.
I also wouldn’t so quick to dismiss the Team Zodiac idea. The two sketches of the Zodiac look completely different to me. I also believe a young man stated he was chased in a car by two men on the night of the 1968 murder. Is it a weak argument? of course it is: just like most everything else in this case. There’s not much hard evidence to go on.
Chances are ALA wasn’t the Zodiac. Chances are there was no Team Zodiac. But would it surprise you if ALA turned out to be Zodiac and that he had a partner.
I spoke with Bill Crowe who was chased in 1968 the night of the murder of Jensen and Faraday. He told me that he didn’t get a close enough look at the person but he recalls that he thinks he may have described a man with short hair and glasses as I prompted him because it said this online. I asked if he could identify Allen or exclude him, but he said he didn’t get a close enough or good enough look. He was aware that detectives Conway and Bawart thought it was Allen who was the zodiac. In response lets theorize Allen was the zodiac, and had a partner, this means they both would have to keep a secret to this mess. so far no one has come forward and admitted to being responsible alongside Arthur Leigh Allen. Im also not sure about someone phoning in a tip shortly after the lake berryessa attack on allen. I have thought before that allen makes a pretty great suspect but then why didn’t his voice sound like the man who phoned and took credit to Nancy Slover? Also officer Foukes who saw a man with a crew cut and glasses ruled out Allen as the man he saw, the reason I think this was the zodiac is because the kids who witnessed a man wiping down the cab described the man as 5-9-5"9 170 pounds, glasses , and a crew cut. the man foukes saw wasn’t far off from that description. Also just to mention, compaction tests related to lake berryessa aren’t that reliable according to Ed Oneill a zodiac expert, as he investigated the murder of domingo Edwards and he was 200 pounds and his foot prints barely made a dent. just food for thought. also, Allen was clearly losing his hair around the time of the zodiac killings, zodiac was described on more than one occasion as having hair. although descriptions may not be accurate all the time I presume.
If Arthur Leigh Allen’s DNA was not excluded from the partial DNA sample they have from the letters, his voice sounded like the phone calls, he had a crew cut and widows peak, Donald Fouke had thought the Jackson Street man looked like Arthur Leigh Allen, the three teenagers had made a sketch looking like Allen, and his handwriting looked similar to Zodiac’s so it couldn’t be excluded, Robert Graysmith and people like him would be absolutely convinced Arthur Leigh Allen was Zodiac. The fact that none of the above are true however, has not made one bit of difference, they still believe it’s Arthur Leigh Allen. My point being, that whether the evidence points towards their suspect or away from their suspect, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. They still believe it was Arthur Leigh Allen regardless. It’s an unwinnable argument, when somebody has already set their mind around a particular subject. I hope Mike Rodelli will forgive me for using Kjell Qvale as an example.
Mike went on a documentary to check Kjell Qvale against the partial DNA they had for Zodiac. Qvale was ruled out as the donor, but I believe Mike (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) still believes Qvale is Zodiac. Then there is no point in going on a documentary to check Kjell Qvale’s DNA against Zodiac. If you get the answer you want, then it bolsters your belief. If you don’t get the answer you want, you either dismiss the validity of the DNA sample or you create a new theory to circumvent the DNA importance. Then the point of going on the documentary in the first place is pointless, the person going on had already made their mind up in advance. You will hail science if it favors your argument. You will dismiss the science if it doesn’t favor your argument. You can never fail, and this is junk science. It is important to follow the evidence to find a suspect, not metamorphosize the evidence around a suspect, cherry picking as you go.
Equally if you believe the DNA they have on file is not Zodiac’s or it has been compromised, then checking your suspect’s DNA against it doesn’t mean anything. If it rules in your suspect, you cannot claim it to promote the suspect either.
I like Mike as a Zodiac researcher, I put him high on my favorite list and this is not a personal attack, it’s just that I believe heavily immersing oneself into a particular suspect will always skew the way you interpret the evidence. It creates bias, partiality and selectivity in not viewing evidence free from a preconceived notion.
