Wasn’t me. It was in posts from the old forum which were moved in bulk by a few of us. I obviously moved that thread which is why my name appears as heading it. The actual post was by Mike R. Here’s a link to the thread and the post (along with a few of the responses).

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=438&hilit=1971

mike_r, Subject: Re: What is everyone’s opinion of the Tarbox suspect? Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:55 pm

Hi-

I just learned (and pardon me if somebody else already nailed down this time line) that Robert Tarbox and Michael A. Aquino, Jr., who was a biggie in the Satanist movement, lived in the same building (2640 Leavenworth) in different apartments at the same time. This is from the 1971 Polk’s Guide.

Mike

Image
Image
tahoe27, Subject: Re: What is everyone’s opinion of the Tarbox suspect? Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:59 pm

mike_r wrote:
Hi-

I just learned (and pardon me if somebody else already nailed down this time line) that Robert Tarbox and Michael A. Aquino, Jr., who was a biggie in the Satanist movement, lived in the same building (2640 Leavenworth) in different apartments at the same time. This is from the 1971 Polk’s Guide.

Mike

Searching Michael Aquino Jr. (sorry…I didn’t know who he was) I found this. Would this guy (on left of course) be Michael Jr or was Dad into it to?

Image

Image
Image
Seagull, Subject: Re: What is everyone’s opinion of the Tarbox suspect? Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:07 pm

I believe that is the same Aquino that Mike R is referring to, La Vey looks awfully young in that pic.

Image

mike_r, Subject: Re: What is everyone’s opinion of the Tarbox suspect? Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:00 am

Hi-

That could be Aquino because he claimed that Sammy Davis, Jr. was into Satanism, or something like that. However, I don’t know that LaVey was into the business of "evil," per se. I heard he was more of a showman. Even Aquino founded something called the Temple of Set, which sounded like a self-realization group more than a sinister bunch. However, I know there has been a lot written about Aquino and I don’t know everything about his past.

Mike

I have posted this several times in the past and I find it odd that LE has not yet claimed this Robert Tarbox BANK OF AMERICA SD Box
to find out if Robert Tarbox possibly had placed info on the identity of that "zodiac" /Merchant Marine
who visit him back in 1970’s

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
PROPERTY DETAILS SCREEN
Date: 2/19/2021 Source: INT Property ID: 6128618
Owner(s) Name: TARBOX ROBERT
Reported Owner Address: 1090 MONTGOMERY
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133
Type of Property: SD Box Contents
Property Reported: See " * " below
Reported By: BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA RETAIL OPERATIONS #3684

I have posted this several times in the past and I find it odd that LE has not yet claimed this Robert Tarbox BANK OF AMERICA SD Box
to find out if Robert Tarbox possibly had placed info on the identity of that "zodiac" /Merchant Marine
who visit him back in 1970’s

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
PROPERTY DETAILS SCREEN
Date: 2/19/2021 Source: INT Property ID: 6128618
Owner(s) Name: TARBOX ROBERT
Reported Owner Address: 1090 MONTGOMERY
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133
Type of Property: SD Box Contents
Property Reported: See " * " below
Reported By: BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA RETAIL OPERATIONS #3684

Very odd indeed. This is a great find, Foreigner. I hadn’t seen this post before. But then again, I’ve been a bit absent from the forum the last few years.

Mr. Tarbox claimed that "attorney-client privilege" prevented him from identifying the "Zodiac" individual who confessed to him.
That explanation rings hollow.
If an attorney becomes aware that his/her client is (or may be) dangerous to other people, then "attorney-client privilege" cannot prevent the attorney from reporting it to law enforcement. That is an ersatz exception to the privilege.
Knowing that your client is a wanton serial killer (yet uncharged) would meet the threshold where the client is dangerous, so "attorney-client privilege" does not apply.
Tarbox should have known that. Or was Tarbox that bad of an attorney?

Mr. Tarbox claimed that "attorney-client privilege" prevented him from identifying the "Zodiac" individual who confessed to him.
That explanation rings hollow.
If an attorney becomes aware that his/her client is (or may be) dangerous to other people, then "attorney-client privilege" cannot prevent the attorney from reporting it to law enforcement. That is an ersatz exception to the privilege.
Knowing that your client is a wanton serial killer (yet uncharged) would meet the threshold where the client is dangerous, so "attorney-client privilege" does not apply.
Tarbox should have known that. Or was Tarbox that bad of an attorney?

I agree.

The standard for keeping client communications is a bit more stringent than that principle announced above. Where I practice, a lawyer cannot divulge confidential communications unless it is divulged in order to stop future threats of violence. As a criminal defense lawyer I’ve had many people tell me their body counts. I cannot divulge that info. If they make a credible claim about future bombs in a public building, then I gotta act on that.

The standard for keeping client communications is a bit more stringent than that principle announced above. Where I practice, a lawyer cannot divulge confidential communications unless it is divulged in order to stop future threats of violence. As a criminal defense lawyer I’ve had many people tell me their body counts. I cannot divulge that info. If they make a credible claim about future bombs in a public building, then I gotta act on that.

I find that extremely difficult to believe. In fact I’m am so dumb struck with incredulity, I even doubt your own claim of being a lawyer. The Zodiac was an active serial killer and terrorist who threatened an entire city and held their police force hostage, he threatened to blow up a school bus.

I cannot imagine a higher standard for "threats of future violence" than the actions of the Zodiac. Are you seriously contending that simply because an active terrorist and serial killer claimed that he had decided to stop, that this was a high enough standard for Tarbox to maintain confidentiality? That’s almost as insane as Tarbox’s claims.

Who exactly would go after a retired lawyer for the revealing the name of the worlds most famous serial killer? Who? What are they going to do? It’s political, can you imagine the public uproar if someone actually tried to bring something against Tarbox over this, he’d be more likely to get an award than a slap on the wrist. Seems to me the best motive for him not revealing the name is because it’s a delusional tale, rather than because he feared reprisal. It’s nonsense.

He did more damage to his professional reputation and legacy by remaining silent, than he ever would have by revealing a name.

Everything that Tarbox said and did makes him look like a crank. He talked freely about the encounter, took out an advert and claimed to be moved by a desire to exonerate ALA. The whole thing is inconsistent and frankly kooky. His interpretation of the law seems about as plausible as sovereign citizenship and his tale as plausible as Erich von Däniken story.

Replaceablehead, you have a problem with believing that there are lawyers on this board, shame! Hell the Zodiac himself could be on here. You never know who’s lurking.

The standard for keeping client communications is a bit more stringent than that principle announced above. Where I practice, a lawyer cannot divulge confidential communications unless it is divulged in order to stop future threats of violence. As a criminal defense lawyer I’ve had many people tell me their body counts. I cannot divulge that info. If they make a credible claim about future bombs in a public building, then I gotta act on that.

I agree with you.

Tarbox claim has to reference zodiac branded boats used by military to get ashore….zodiac may be of australian, new zealan decent???? (may be a foreigner???)…hell, one of trails i have thought on over the years….who the hell knows on that – no fact(s)

I was just thinking…Zodiac said in the 340 that he wasn’t afraid of the gas chamber (talk is cheap, I know), but this guy who scared Tarbox wasn’t even aware that the death penalty was on the table until Tarbox told him? Then did a complete reversal and walked out? That was always shakiest part of the story for me, now it seems even shakier.

The standard for keeping client communications is a bit more stringent than that principle announced above. Where I practice, a lawyer cannot divulge confidential communications unless it is divulged in order to stop future threats of violence. As a criminal defense lawyer I’ve had many people tell me their body counts. I cannot divulge that info. If they make a credible claim about future bombs in a public building, then I gotta act on that.

And if I am not mistaken – Tarbox said "the seaman seemed genuinely to want to stop killing"….. so it sounds like the client at least was trying to claim he was not going to kill anymore … no future threat so there would be no legal right/obligation to report for Tarbox.

Makes me wonder if the client knew that he needed to add that claim in order for Tarbox to keep the meeting discussion confidential. (Not saying in any way that this person was really Z as he claimed!)

I was just thinking…Zodiac said in the 340 that he wasn’t afraid of the gas chamber (talk is cheap, I know), but this guy who scared Tarbox wasn’t even aware that the death penalty was on the table until Tarbox told him? Then did a complete reversal and walked out? That was always shakiest part of the story for me, now it seems even shakier.

I am interested in the Tarbox episode but must admit I haven’t dug into it. What’s the dates? Is it possible he wrote the cipher about the time of Tarbox and the Dunbar show?

Sorry. I really don’t know.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/na … y/1856405/

I hope I posted the link correctly. It’s interesting to me that Tarbox is quoted as saying he didn’t disclose this information earlier because of attorney-client confidentiality. My regard for him as a lawyer has increased dramatically. Now, it’s still a violation of the rules of ethics to disclose it the way he did (i.e., as an 82-year-old retiree, presumably with no hopes or desire of returning to practice, and to exonerate ALA). But it is surely the result of a balancing if the equities of the situation.

I guess I keep forgetting that the disclosure was made years after the purported meeting. So, to address the point above, it appears that there is no definite date for the meeting.