RAYMOND GRANT-THE WHITE CHEVROLET IMPALA

7/15/2017

Although we disagree on the mechanics of the crime, Raymond Grant does raise some interesting issues regarding the Lake Herman Road timeline and discrepancies in certain eyewitness testimony, particularly that of Robert Connelly and Helen Axe.
With just a cursory glance at the police report, it becomes immediately apparent that if we take it at face value, either the eyewitness recollections are incorrect, or a strange sequence of events occurred that night, heaping more suspicion onto the white Chevrolet Impala than ever before. Raymond Grant has emphasized these points in his book 'Zodiac Killer Solved,' and whether you agree or disagree with his overall take on the Zodiac murders, he does make some incredibly insightful and valuable points. Firstly, we will focus on the white Chevrolet Impala and take the initial eyewitness testimony at face value.

This is what Robert Connelly stated in the police report "They said that when they arrived there (LHR turnout) at 9.00 pm a white 4-door hardtop, a '59 or '60 Impala, was parked there, and also, a truck coming out of the gate. This coincides with information from Bingo Wesner that when he came out of the gate he saw the same Impala and also saw the red pick-up truck go by". Bingo Wesner, a local sheepherder, also stated in the police report "he was checking his sheep at approximately 10:00 pm and he observed a white Chevrolet Impala Sedan parked by the south fence of the entrance to the pumping station. He also observed a red Ford pick-up truck with wood side boards in the area".

Instantly we see, that despite the police report stating these two coincide, there is a one hour discrepancy. Raymond Grant believes that Robert Connelly's estimate of 9:00 pm is out by one hour - it should be 10:00 pm - with the facts bearing this out.
If the white Chevrolet Impala had parked in the turnout just prior to 9:00 pm, and had remained there throughout until 10:00 pm, then the account of William Crow is patently false. He stated in the police report that "He and his girlfriend were in the Lake Herman Road area between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm on 12/20/68. He was driving his girlfriend's sports car and he was testing it out and adjusting the motor. He was parked in the open area by the pump station and he observed a blue car, possibly a Valiant coming down the road from Benicia towards Vallejo. They passed his location, stopped in the middle of the road and he saw the white lights of the reverse come on and the car started backing up towards them. Mr Crow put the car in gear and took off at a high rate of speed and the car followed him at a high rate of speed. They did not attempt to gain on him, but when they got to the turn off towards Benicia, William Crow turned towards Benicia and the other car went straight ahead. The subjects were both Caucasians and there is no further identification on the car or the subjects". If the white Chevrolet Impala was there, then clearly William Crow, based on this account, failed to notice it for upwards of 30 minutes - and considering he was parked in the turnout, that doesn't seem likely.

Click for details

However, William Crow would later dispute this statement to police "I never told the sheriff who interviewed me that the car I encountered was a Valiant. As I recall, as I was attempting to describe the car, the sheriff came up with a “Valiant”. In the years that have passed, when I have shared the events of that night, I have described the car as a four-door light-colored Chevy. I could not see the passenger seat, but the driver was a man with short hair and glasses. I did not see his specific facial features".

This being the case, it highlights the significance of a white Chevrolet Impala circulating the area in and around the turnout that night. If Robert Connelly's recollection of a white Chevrolet Impala being present in the turnout at 9:00 pm was correct, which appears unlikely, then the Chevrolet Impala would have parked in the turnout sometime prior to 9:00 pm, leaving at some point before William Crow arrived at 9:30 pm. It would then return, spot William Crow and his girlfriend just before 10:00 pm, chase them down the road, before returning to the turnout and being spotted by Bingo Wesner at 10:00 pm. But on both occasions, just prior to 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm, the occupants of the white Chevrolet Impala would have had to vacate their vehicle, because Robert Connelly and Bingo Wesner implicitly stated the vehicle was unoccupied. If the Chevrolet Impala contained our killer or killers, then it could be argued they were coasting the area by foot and by car, searching for victims by whatever means. Raymond Grant highlights this important period of time in 'Zodiac Killer Solved', involving a 'holding area'. I won't elaborate on his explanation, as it wouldn't be fair to reveal potent sections of his book without permission. If he chooses, he can outline his ideas in the comments section below. However, it does address this critical timeline of events.

This above example of the timeline appears extremely convoluted, and the police report of "information from Bingo Wesner, that when he came out of the gate at 10:00 pm he saw the same Impala and also saw the red pick-up truck go by", makes much more sense, bearing in mind William Crow's testimony of a light-colored Chevrolet chasing him down the road just before 10:00 pm. The three recollections coalesce around 10:00 pm that night. This critical period would suggest that the occupants of the white Chevrolet Impala spot William Crow, chase him along the road, return to the turnout and vacate their vehicle just prior to 10:00 pm. At which point, Robert Connelly and Bingo Wesner spot each other and the unoccupied Chevrolet.

Raymond Grant also questions the account of Helen Axe at 10:15 pm and 10:30 pm. Her account is detailed in the police report: "Miss Axe reports that she and her boyfriend, a sailor, were driving on Lake Herman Road. They passed the area of the pumping station, she recognized the Rambler and the victims, Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday. Stated that when she went by about 10.15 pm, the car was facing in towards the gate and when she returned about 15 minutes later after having gone to the end of the road and then came back, the car was turned around and the front was facing the field, a little to the side. There is some conflict in this statement and Miss Axe has consented to bring her boyfriend to the office to clarify the actual position of the car. The first time she stated when she called, that the car was backed in. Nothing this discrepancy the RO contacted her by telephone".

Her account raises questions. For her account to be correct, the white Chevrolet Impala driver would had to have returned to the turnout just prior to 10:00 pm after chasing William Crow, with the occupants then vacating their vehicle so that Robert Connelly and Bingo Wesner saw it unoccupied. They would then had to have returned to their vehicle minutes later, driven away, without passing Helen Axe's vehicle, to be replaced in the turnout by the Faraday Rambler by 10:15 pm. Raymond Grant, understandably takes the position that Helen Axe likely saw the white Chevrolet Impala, not the Faraday Rambler. It returned to the turnout just shy of 10:00 pm, the occupants vacated the vehicle, and according to Bingo Wesner was "parked by the south fence of the entrance to the pumping station". A short time later, circa 10:15 pm, Helen Axe passed the turnout and viewed the Chevrolet Impala in the same position as viewed by Bingo Wesner, also "facing in towards the gate". Unless of course, we contend that the Faraday Rambler arrived just before 10:15 pm and parked in the identical position as the Chevrolet Impala previously - as viewed by Bingo Wesner. Fifteen minutes later, at approximately 10:30 pm, Helen Axe had returned up Lake Herman Road, by which time the occupants had returned to the Chevrolet Impala and repositioned it facing the road. It is a plausible line of investigation and is merited by the details of the case. The scenario presented by Raymond Grant would indicate that the white Chevrolet Impala had a much more pivotal role in the proceedings on December 20th 1968 than first imagined, and place this vehicle in the turnout much closer to the murders than ever before. The question is, how long did it remain in the area? This presentation just scratches the surface of Raymond Grant's Lake Herman Road timeline, and I have attempted to skirt around the issues presented in 'Zodiac Killer Solved', without giving too much away. To read the full story...

ZODIAC KILLER SOLVED ON AMAZON

Some proponents of a lone Zodiac, have a killer who knew the area of Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs Park fairly well - enough to know the area was frequented by courting couples, and a rich hunting ground in rural territory. The white Chevrolet Impala, if it contained the assailant or assailants, may have been observed by not only Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner, but also William Crow and Helen Axe, in what can only be described as unusual behavior in an isolated, cold and dark turnout for at least 30 minutes.

Bearing in mind the murders happened as little as 40 minutes later, with James Owen the last person to drive past the turnout before the murders occurred, his testimony is crucial. In the police report, dated 12/21/68, he was unable to furnish a description of the vehicle alongside the Rambler, which means ruling out the Chevrolet Impala is not possible. He stated "he saw two cars parked near the entrance to the pumping station. He stated the car parked nearest was a 1955 or 1956 station wagon, boxy type, neutral in color. The other was parked to the right and abreast of the station wagon. The cars were about ten feet apart. He stated he could not give a description of the make or color of the other car". But he added an extra crucial detail in his 12/24/68 interview, in that "he did not see anyone in the cars or around them". Earlier in the night, Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner all observed an unoccupied white Chevrolet Impala parked in the turnout. Fast forward 75 minutes, and the same scenario, but this time two unoccupied vehicles and apparently nobody in the turnout. If this was the Chevrolet Impala, then its owners certainly appeared to have a habit of exiting their vehicle in a desolate turnout, on an extremely cold and dark night. But does this indicate a connection?

Click for details

Raymond Grant makes a valid point about vehicle recollection, particularly regarding color. It was pitch black that night and vehicle colors can easily be misinterpreted. This takes us to page 52 of the police report and Stan's identification of a blue Chevrolet Impala at 10:30 pm: "Stan, a 14 year old described a 1963 Chevrolet Impala, blue in color, with two persons, driving from Lake Herman Road on to Columbus Parkway, heading towards Blue Rock Springs". Raymond Grant highlights this in 'Zodiac Killer Solved', but here I will deviate from his version, to a killer or killers roaming Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs Park for potential targets.

If Helen Axe and her boyfriend had passed the Lake Herman Road turnout and Chevrolet Impala at 10:30 pm, heading towards Vallejo, then this vehicle may have pulled out and tracked the couple along the road, in not identical but similar fashion to William Crow and his girlfriend. If the occupants were searching for courting couples, they may have been waiting for the couple to possibly park up, which failed to materialize. Traveling from the turnout to Columbus Parkway takes about 4 minutes. This would place the Chevrolet Impala at the intersection of Lake Herman Road and Columbus Parkway at approximately 10:34 pm, aligning perfectly with Stan, who observed the same make and model of vehicle "at approximately 10:30 pm".

Three courting couples may have been targeted that night, with David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen the unlucky victims. The attack at Blue Rock Springs Park and Lake Berryessa may have employed similar tactics. The Chevrolet Impala with two persons, according to Stan, was last seen "driving from Lake Herman Road on to Columbus Parkway, heading towards Blue Rock Springs". Had the occupants traveled to the Blue Rock Springs parking lot to lie in wait for unsuspecting couples, which proved fruitless, before heading back towards Lake Herman Road sometime around 11:00 pm? An approximate journey time of six minutes, would have the Chevrolet Impala returning to the ill-fated turnout just after the Yours and raccoon hunters had left the Marshall Ranch and just prior to James Owen driving past on his way to the Humble Oil graveyard shift. The rest is well documented.

Raymond Grant's has highlighted some important overlapping timelines in the Lake Herman Road eyewitness recollections. His book 'Zodiac Killer Solved' covers all the 'Zodiac' crimes, with a different slant to the conventional understanding perceived by most, but without doubt punches holes in many widely held misconceptions.

40 Comments

Drew

7/16/2017 09:49:44 am

This was very helpful! I feel like I may know less now than when I started reading it, but nonetheless thanks for tackling all of these troubling details and discrepancies that I have never been able to wrap my head around.

Richard

7/16/2017 12:51:49 pm

Your welcome Drew! Ray Grant and I have differed on many things, but I do understand where he is coming from regarding certain issues in this crime. I personally don't believe in three or four assailants committed this crime, but if there was one of the Zodiac murders (excluding Riverside) that may point to more than one killer, this would be it. The 9.50-10.35 pm timeline encompassing Bingo Wesner (not Wesher), Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser, William Crow, Helen Axe and 'Stan' the 14 year old, all merge nicely into one flowing and consistent timeline that makes sense. This may very well have been the Chevrolet Impala throughout this sequence, but it is far from the only possible scenario of events that night, despite what some people will have you believe. This however is a plausible avenue of investigation. If say Helen Axe was correct in viewing the Faraday Rambler, the whole scenario falls down, it's a matter of judging eyewitness reliability and their statements. To me, the biggest thorn in the side of one shooter or assailant, is the ballistic evidence from one of the bullets and the missing casing, likely towed away from the crime scene inside the Rambler. Until this is recovered, which is unlikely, this question will remain. There also is a missing bullet, never logged by police or at autopsy. This too means that two shooters or assailants could never be ruled out. I am not advocating the two or more assailant theory, but I hope I am honest enough not to rule it out. Sometimes Drew the more you delve into this case the more questions you can create. There certainly isn't one definitive answer.

Richard

7/16/2017 01:29:07 pm

Both Bingo Wesner and Robert Connelly describe the white Chevrolet Impala unoccupied in the turnout circa 10.00 pm. The occupant/s of the vehicle were clearly somewhere. The Chevrolet was checked off as being owned by anybody in Lake Herman Road. If it was there for a protracted period, then it's an unusual place to vacate your vehicle on a pitch black night with a temperature as low as 22 degrees Fahrenheit. One never mentioned detail is why Robert Connelly felt the need to bring to the police's attention some activity going on at the nearby Dotta Ranch. Bearing in mind the viewing of the 'suspicious' Impala parked up, I am assuming the police would have followed up this lead. Was the 'activity' at the Dotta Ranch in some way connected with the Impala. It could be argued that the occupant or occupants had parked up their Chevrolet in the remote turnout with a view to targeting a local ranch or had some ulterior motive, but were driven from the area by the presence of the raccoon hunters. My guess is the police thoroughly investigated this avenue regarding the Dotta Ranch activity and likely found nothing. But the reason Connelly highlighted this as to police officers is interesting.

Drew

7/16/2017 03:36:12 pm

Thanks Richard. Grant certainly has an impressive knowledge of the case. The exchanges the two of you have had on this matter and Riverside has provided a rich and valuable commentary on the police reports for hobbyists like myself.

I think digging in and exploring alternate theories regarding testimonies is all that can be done at this point, at least online. Since almost nothing is completely certain in the case I am intrigued by all kinds of theories, especially from those who have dedicated decades to the mystery.

I doubt that I have anything to contribute to this dense dialogue you and Ray have going, so thanks for your patience. I'm still trying to figure out how police believed that a drug related situation could help make the crime seem less contrived and why the drug angle has been so widely discounted.

If he (or they) who occupied the Impala were picked up by another vehicle and driven away, perhaps to take part in a drug deal, could that explain the temporary absence of the Impala occupant(s)? Could it also suggest a scenario wherein a conflict with the parked teenagers arises with the criminals on their escorted return to the Impala?

Is this the kind of scenario you believe the police were initially entertaining? Other than rumours that David had words with a drug dealer is there any more to the drug angle?

Richard

7/17/2017 04:24:21 am

I am sure the police entertained every possibility, including the drug angle, and discounted it. There was a drugs bust nearby that night as you know, involving Pierre Bidou and Steve Armenta, but I don't believe it had any bearing on the murders from the information I have read. David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen certainly had no direct involvement from the testimony of family and friends, simply two extremely young kids who fell foul of a sick individual or individuals. Nobody knows for certain the significance of the Chevrolet Impala, but so close the the murders it has to be considered top and center. Remember that if the occupants of the Chevrolet were just innocent people who just happened to be in the area, then they certainly failed to come forward, despite widespread publicity. They may have feared incrimination in the crime, or they may be the actual participants in the crime. If William Crow's extended testimony is accurate and true, then the heat on the Chevrolet Impala ratchets up a notch, especially if this vehicle was randomly searching for couples to attack. The fact that the occupant/s vacated the vehicle for a measurable period of time is open to question. Ray has his version. As for me, I am not fully convinced on a reasonable hypothesis yet, maybe soon.
The fact that I believe at least one person was constant throughout the four confirmed attacks, the idea that Faraday and Jensen stumbled into drug dealers, who then went on to become serial killers and write 20+ letters sounds unlikely, unless we contend Zodiac just claimed this crime rather than participated in it. However this was ruled out by the specific details he/they gave of the crime, particularly BLJ's body position in the turnout, which tallied perfectly with what Stella Medeiros stated. Even Ray has changed his view on this crime regarding some details, which I noticed on a forum post the other day, so I suppose I may too, if I read something convincing enough. I try to keep an open mind. Cheers for your input Drew, keep it coming !

Drew

7/18/2017 12:39:10 pm

Hi there, I'm not certain where the pumping station was in relation to Gate 10. Was it operational in 1968? I would like to get a sense of what has changed about the location. It seems the guard rail was added later. Landscape aside has the immediate crime scene area been greatly altered to your knowledge?

Richard

7/18/2017 01:06:58 pm

Russell Butterbach on the 2007 Zodiac documentary stated "The car (Rambler) was heading east, near a place where they had a pumping station or something down below." The turnout itself was wider and the fenced gate was situated further back from the road, compared to the guard rails now.

Richard

7/18/2017 01:11:47 pm

Here are two images Drew
http://www.zodiacciphers.com/uploads/4/9/7/1/4971630/editor/capture7.jpg?1490604760

http://www.zodiacciphers.com/uploads/4/9/7/1/4971630/published/48.jpg?1490801460

Drew

7/18/2017 01:33:04 pm

Thank you Richard! I never knew whether that pumping station had any relevance to the case. The details were jumbled in my mind and for the longest time I thought there was a nearby gas station that offered an explanation for the Impala.

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 09:20:02 am

Richard, thanks for the free advertising of my books, and thanks to all for the kind words. I will respond to the comments more or less as I read them.

“With just a cursory glance at the police report, it becomes immediately apparent that if we take it at face value, either the eyewitness recollections are incorrect, or a strange sequence of events occurred that night”

Again, this is true of pretty much every single investigation that features eyewitness testimony. Witnesses get some details right and some details wrong, and not only do different witnesses disagree with one another on specifics, but the same witness invariably varies his own accounts from statement to statement. Mike Morford says that James Owen’s statement discrepancies make him suspicious, but if that’s the case, then every witness who gave multiple statements about Lake Herman Road should be considered a suspect, since Robert Connley and Peggy Your and William Crow all gave accounts that vary somewhat from statement to statement. It’s a demonstration that Morford just isn’t familiar with witness statements.

“He was driving his girlfriend's sports car and he was testing it out and adjusting the motor. He was parked in the open area by the pump station and he observed a blue car, possibly a Valiant coming down the road from Benicia towards Vallejo.”

William Crow has since stated, in the Søren Korsgaard book, that he NEVER said that the car was BLUE, in addition to NEVER saying that it was a Valiant. ‘BLUE VALIENT [sic]” is what the responding officer wrote down, not what Crow actually said. His description of the car, per Howard Davis’s account, remains “a light-colored Chevrolet.” BLUE VALIANT is yet another example of Zodiac case folklore that has taken on a life of its own.

“If the white Chevrolet Impala was there, then clearly William Crow based on this account failed to notice it for upwards of 30 minutes, and considering he was parked in the turnout, that doesn't seem likely.”

William Manchester, when writing about the Kennedy assassination, has pointed out that reconciling witness statements often comes down to numbers. Crow says his car was the only one in the turnout (circa 9:35pm), and Wesher says he saw Connley AND the parked white Chevy Impala circa 10pm. Connley says he was there at 9pm and saw the white Chevy Impala and a truck coming out through Gate #10. So it’s 2 to 1. And, as I’ve pointed out, Connley had likely been drinking at Gasser’s house prior to heading out to Lake Herman Road. Wesher was doing what he presumably did every night at about the same time, which was tending his sheep. So I believe Crow and Wesher and not Connley, with regard to the time. Frankly, I think the whole idea of taking eyewitness testimony AT FACE VALUE is ridiculous; it has to be reconciled with other statements and with what we know about the specific circumstances.

“Raymond Grant highlights this important period of time in 'Zodiac Killer Solved', involving a 'holding area'. I won't elaborate on his explanation, as it wouldn't be fair to reveal potent sections of his book without permission.’

Richard, feel free to quote from the book at will, as long as you cite the book as the source. I’m not in this to make money. Parenthetically, I prefer ‘Ray Grant’.

“This critical period would suggest that the occupants of the white Chevrolet Impala spot William Crow, chase him along the road, return to the turnout and vacate their vehicle just prior to 10.00 pm. At which point Robert Connelly and Bingo Wesner spot each other and the unoccupied Chevrolet.”

Correct. Keep in mind that it would have been EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for a car traveling west on Lake Herman Road at a normal speed (the limit, 35mph) to have stopped jast past Crow’s car, particularly on a night when it was 22° and the road would have had surface frost. Since the headlights of the car would not have shown into the turnout, the occupants would only have spotted Crow’s car at the last moment in pitch dark conditions. At the very least, one would have expected such a car to skid partway down that hill, but it didn’t. Which tells us that that car was just crawling along, and had likely come from someplace nearby (as I say in my book, a holding area about 50 yards east).

Again, I add Frank Gasser’s account of having come out through Gate #10 (circa 10:20pm, going by a logical timeline beginning at 10pm for the hunters making their way up through the brush on the hillside) and shining his flashlight into the parked white Chevy Impala. I will concede it’s not in the police report, but Gasser’s account does away with the Helen Axe (actually, her sailor boyfriend’s) identification of the car as the Rambler.

“The white Chevrolet Impala, if it contained the assailant or ass

Mike Morford link

7/19/2017 06:18:38 pm

Ray, I'm very familiar with the reports & witness statements, I have them all(unredacted)and have read them dozens of times. Bottom line is, the only witnesses that ultimately matter are the Yours, the hunters, Owen, and Stella Borges. The hunters left the scene just after the Yours,and no white Impala at the time. Owen came upon the scene, and no white Impala at the scene but rather a dark car lacking in chrome(hard to mistake a white Impala with that), and moments later Borges finds the bodies, no white Impala. Not saying I don't want to know more about the white Impala, but in the 5-10 minute window from where the hunters left to when Borges found the bodies, nobody saw ANY white Impala anywhere on that road. So perhaps Ray, YOU may want to read the reports more closely and spell the witnesses last names correctly before you go accusing me of not knowing the reports or timelines.... It's CONNELLY by the way

Ray Grant link

7/19/2017 11:59:32 pm

“Ray, I'm very familiar with the reports & witness statements, I have them all(unredacted)and have read them dozens of times.”

And you’re an absolutely incompetent reader of anything that comes in front of your eyes. Case in point: It says, on my Twitter page, that “I’m The World’s #1 AMATEUR Criminologist,” and you read that as my saying I’m the World’s #1 Criminologist, period. I’m guessing that you didn’t do very well in school?

“Bottom line is, the only witnesses that ultimately matter are the Yours, the hunters, Owen, and Stella Borges.”

Wrong. All the witnesses matter, because the Rambler can’t be established on the road before 10:55pm that night when the Yours came by. And Peggy didn’t see the kids inside the car, because one’s headlights don’t shine into the Gate #10 turnout when one is traveling west, because the road veers right and down the hill. And she wouldn’t have seen the kids on the way back because she was looking out the back window of her own car to see if the hunters were following them. I think she saw the Rambler because other witnesses saw it; I’m sure she didn’t see the kids inside it.

“The hunters left the scene just after the Yours,and no white Impala at the time.”

The Yours passed the turnout heading east circa 11pm. The hunters passed the turnout heading east circa 11:05pm. The Rambler was there, the white Chevy Impala wasn’t. That’s consistent with my own timeline. If you haven’t already read my books, send an email address to my inbox at [email protected], and I’ll gift you both books through Amazon.

“Owen came upon the scene, and no white Impala at the scene but rather a dark car lacking in chrome(hard to mistake a white Impala with that),”

I think the gist of Owen’s statement is that he didn’t particularly notice the other car. I’m guessing Owen didn’t particularly notice either car, but he did remember TWO cars being parked in the turnout, and since the Rambler was probably still parked there the next morning when he came by, he identified it as one of the cars. I wouldn’t put too much stock in “dark car lacking in chrome.”

That’s like Tahoe27 insisting that the car William Crow saw was BLUE, because that’s what he supposedly said in the police report in 1968. And we find out, years later, that Crow told Søren Korsgaard that he didn’t say either BLUE or VALIANT, both descriptions were provided by the responding officer. But Tahoe27 has insisted all these years that a BLUE car couldn’t be mistaken for a “light-colored Chevrolet.”

“and moments later Borges finds the bodies, no white Impala.”

Well, if the killers were driving a white Impala, it would have been gone by then, right?

“Not saying I don't want to know more about the white Impala, but in the 5-10 minute window from where the hunters left to when Borges found the bodies, nobody saw ANY white Impala anywhere on that road.”

You’re just playing with words; you’re not looking at the evidence.

11:05pm Hunters drive past Gate #10 and see Rambler parked there.

11:07pm Zodiacs park white Impala to right of Rambler.

11:09:25pm Owen drives past, sees two cars but doesn’t particularly note either one.

11:10pm Zodiacs fire first shot into David Faraday’s head

11:13pm: After killing Betty Lou, Zodiacs turn Rambler engine on + leave passenger door open

11:14pm Zodiacs drive white Impala out of turnout and head east

11:14:30pm Stella Medeiros drives by and sees the bodies

“So perhaps Ray, YOU may want to read the reports more closely and spell the witnesses last names correctly before you go accusing me of not knowing the reports or timelines.... It's CONNELLY by the way”

Anytime you want to debate me on a level playing field, allow me access to your board and we’ll go at it, point for point. And you’ll lose, because I know the reports and the case infinitely better than you do. You just don’t have the guts.

The police report says CONNLEY. Graysmith’s book says CONNLEY. Mike Butterfield’s book says CONNLEY. I asked you in November 2013 to provide me with a source for your spelling, and you refused. Here’s the link:

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/6792/Helen-Axe?page=3 - .WXAr04qQwxf

So the three most reliable sources say CONNLEY, and CONNLEY it is. If you want to provide a source for your spelling, the ball is in your court.

Richard

7/20/2017 02:16:09 am

If we are talking about spelling errors Ray, stop referring to Bingo Wesner as Bingo Wesher. His name is WESNER. Check the ancestry records. He was 32 years of age in 1968. He is 81 now and lives in Lovelock. Nevada, where he works as a Dairy Farmer and Rancher.

Richard

7/20/2017 02:18:49 am

Don't forget to credit me when you amend your book.

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 09:21:44 am

“The white Chevrolet Impala, if it contained the assailant or assailants, may have been observed by not only Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner, but also William Crow and Helen Axe, in what can only be described as suspicious behavior, in an isolated, cold and dark turnout for at least 30 minutes.”

Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT throwing out Helen Axe’s statement; I’m merely questioning her identification of the car as the Rambler. Everything else I’m keeping.

“Traveling from the turnout to Columbus Parkway takes about 4 minutes.”

I think 6-7 minutes is more like it, particularly since Helen and her boyfriend were looking for a place to park. I put Stan’s sighting at 10:37pm.

“Had the occupants traveled to the Blue Rock Springs parking lot to lie in wait for unsuspecting couples, seemingly unsuccessfully, before heading back towards Lake Herman Road sometime around 11.00 pm.”

If you assume the occupants were trolling for victims, why would they park their car in the Gate #10 turnout circa 9:50pm, walk away from the car into pitch darkness, and then return circa 10:30pm? If you’re trolling for victims, why would you take a 40-minute hiatus right in the prime part of the night? Particularly when parking your car in the turnout would only discourage couples from parking there? I think it likely that Helen Axe and her boyfriend ended up in Blue Rock Springs Park that night, so why wouldn’t the trollers simply follow them to their eventual destination?

You act as if the Impala occupants were preoccupied with trolling for victims. But their behavior suggests otherwise. The encounter with Crow circa 9:40pm and their parking in the turnout for 40 minutes suggests, instead, that they were preoccupied with the turnout itself. In other words, they wanted to kill the victims there, and they wanted to make sure that they had access to that turnout when the time came.

“but without doubt punches holes in many widely held misconceptions”

Sad to say, as I point out in my recent review of the Mark Hewitt book, those misconceptions have become part of the accepted folklore about the case.

https://tinyurl.com/ybw5zbwz

“If say Helen Axe was correct in viewing the Faraday Rambler, the whole scenario falls down, it's a matter of judging eyewitness reliability and their statements.”

The problem is, Helen Axe wasn’t even looking at the turnout when they passed at 10:15pm. She initially told police she saw the car facing outward, and then when challenged in person about seeing it facing inward at 10:15pm, admitted it was her boyfriend who saw it then. She’s just not a reliable witness. Suggesting that a scenario backed by the accounts of 4 witnesses (Crow, Wesher, Connley, and Gasser) somehow “falls down” if you factor in Helen Axe is just being perverse. Again, if you insist on playing the Devil’s Advocate, people like myself (not that there’s anyone else like me) aren’t going to take you seriously.

“There certainly isn't one definitive answer.”

I think there is. Two victims can’t both have GSR on them unless you assume Betty Lou just stood there and watched while David was forced up against the car and shot in the side of the head. And this would have been after the killer had presumably fired two shots into the car, so she would have known he meant business.

And you continue to act is if each detail must be looked at in isolation, without regarding all the other details.

Betty Lou Jensen had a full bladder, which is to say, she needed very badly to urinate. And yet, since the Rambler could not have been parked in the turnout prior to 10:50pm or so, that means David relocated the car further AWAY from her house. And they had an 11pm curfew. And he was an Eagle Scout. And the whole point of the date was to ingratiate David with her parents. And David still had the class ring he told Sharon Henslin he was going to give Betty Lou clutched in his fingers.

“It could be argued that the occupant or occupants had parked up their Chevrolet in the remote turnout with a view to targeting a local ranch or had some ulterior motive, but were driven from the area by the presence of the raccoon hunters.”

Another example of the patented Richard Grinell “Let’s Isolate Each Detail As If It Fell From The Sky” Approach. Had there been burglaries in the area? Why were the local police focused on drug traffic, if local ranches were being targeted? If there were two murders in the turnout that night, where a car had been parked for no apparent reason for 40 minutes, wouldn’t it make sense to assume first that the suspicious activity had something to do with the homicides, and not some vague ulterior motive of a crime that police weren’t even thinking about? Why not assume they were extraterrestrials who liked to meet on

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 09:23:11 am

“It could be argued that the occupant or occupants had parked up their Chevrolet in the remote turnout with a view to targeting a local ranch or had some ulterior motive, but were driven from the area by the presence of the raccoon hunters.”

Another example of the patented Richard Grinell “Let’s Isolate Each Detail As If It Fell From The Sky” Approach. Had there been burglaries in the area? Why were the local police focused on drug traffic, if local ranches were being targeted? If there were two murders in the turnout that night, where a car had been parked for no apparent reason for 40 minutes, wouldn’t it make sense to assume first that the suspicious activity had something to do with the homicides, and not some vague ulterior motive of a crime that police weren’t even thinking about? Why not assume they were extraterrestrials who liked to meet on a pitch dark rural road and look up at their home planet in the sky?

“I doubt that I have anything to contribute to this dense dialogue you and Ray have going, so thanks for your patience.”

Just remember that Richard is the dense one, even if he’s corrected me on several occasions, such that I had to amend details in my book.

“If he (or they) who occupied the Impala were picked up by another vehicle and driven away, perhaps to take part in a drug deal, could that explain the temporary absence of the Impala occupant(s)? Could it also suggest a scenario wherein a conflict with the parked teenagers arises with the criminals on their escorted return to the Impala?”

David was found with 85¢ in his pocket. If you have a situation where you have no drugs and no money (Darlene Ferrin had 13¢ on her when she died), you probably don’t have a drug deal. The cheapest retail drug deal in 1968 would have been to buy a “nickel bag” of marijuana, which cost $5. And no drug dealer in his right mind would kill anyone for that. And, by the way, no drug dealer in his right mind would kill David because he’d confronted him in public, because that would just bring serious heat down on ALL the local drug dealers. I suggest that people who take the drug angle seriously (Thomas Horan, for example) check out a movie by the Coen brothers, No Country For Old Men. The drug deals in that movie are more realistic than anything you read about on a Zodiac message board.

“Even Ray has changed his view on this crime regarding some details, which I noticed on a forum post the other day, so I suppose I may too, if I read something convincing enough.”

What forum post? I’m banned from Morf’s board and Voigt’s board. Unless you’re talking about the Amazon reviews?

Richard

7/18/2017 09:43:18 am

"Just remember that Richard is the dense one, even if he’s corrected me on several occasions, such that I had to amend details in my book."
Thanks Ray, I won't bite.

Richard

7/18/2017 09:47:09 am

Rich “It could be argued that the occupant or occupants had parked up their Chevrolet in the remote turnout with a view to targeting a local ranch or had some ulterior motive, but were driven from the area by the presence of the raccoon hunters.”
Ray "Had there been burglaries in the area?"
Who said anything about burglaries. Targeting does not = thievery.

Drew

7/18/2017 01:26:40 pm

Hi Ray, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is empowering to get this kind of information. Your Amazon review of Hewitt's book was also helpful.

I am not inclined to believe the drug angle but as I have not yet logged thirty years of research I am still entertaining old theories. I agree that it would be bad business strategy to kill the teenagers over a few words. Further, Richard has pointed out that if drugs were involved then that would mean that the whole Zodiac campaign was an afterthought.

There are absolutely more logical explanations than drug related violence. However, I would like to explore your comparison to the situation in No Country. I don't see why we should expect the unarmed victims of a murderous drug deal to have money or drugs after the event? Wouldn't the offender(s) just take the cash and leave them with the change? Again, I'm just curious about the comparison. Thanks

Drew

7/18/2017 02:00:11 pm

Richard or Ray, recently I read about the police statements (four statements I believe) that suggest that David was found halfway in the passenger side of the car. If we assume that this is the case does that significantly change the narrative?

I am also curious about theories regarding the promise ring in David's fingers. Do you think it is more likely that David was interrupted in the act of giving it to Betty Lou or that he was offering it to the killer whom he believed (or hoped) was just interested in robbing them?

Drew

7/18/2017 02:09:34 pm

Have I read correctly that Betty Lou's dress had gun shot residue on it? Does that mean that she received the first bullet while exiting the vehicle and still managed to move twenty-eight feet?

Richard

7/18/2017 02:39:27 pm

I personally believe Drew that Faraday was discovered with his feet close to the right rear wheel, his head facing south-southwest, The compass directions on the police sketches are slightly off. But Pierre Bidou did state David Faraday was half-in, half-out of the passenger side door on no less than four occasions, in the newspapers and documentaries. I don't know how he could make such a fundamental error as the body position of David Faraday. I suppose most people will attribute it to memory. The ring, who knows, there are several likely answers, but I am sure Ray knows the true answer.
Betty Lou Jensen's dress had GSR by the uppermost hole on her dress indicating this was the first shot that struck her that night. It had to be fired at her from very close proximity. She then managed to run a further 33 feet approximately, apparently falling backwards to approximately 28 feet away from the rear of the Rambler. The order the bullets struck her back can be estimated with a fair degree of certainty using the post mortem details, and thereby working out the trajectory of the bullets.

Drew

7/18/2017 02:47:07 pm

Thanks Richard, much appreciated

Richard

7/18/2017 11:08:09 am

Ray:"If there were two murders in the turnout that night, where a car had been parked for no apparent reason for 40 minutes, wouldn’t it make sense to assume first that the suspicious activity had something to do with the homicides."
Dense Rich: Nobody knows for certain whether the Chevrolet Impala had one occupant that night, more than one, members of a New Orleans brass band or two chihuahua's and Shirley Bassey. The point being nobody knows who was present in that vehicle that night, not you, nor I. It is definitely a vehicle of high interest and may have been integral to the murders. It is possible but not certain. There were no sightings of it from at least 10.35 pm onward. Was it the vehicle parked to the right of the Faraday Rambler when James Owen passed. Quite possibly, but who would go as far as definitely. That is something I cannot claim. If it wasn't involved in the murders, then there is an alternative reason for its presence that night. Surely even you understand that concept.

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 07:28:21 pm

Rich “Who said anything about burglaries. Targeting does not = thievery.”

If you’re going to play the Devil’s Advocate, at least suggest a plausible alternative. Maybe they were traveling salesman? Maybe they parked in the turnout with the intent of selling their wares to the nearby houses? Maybe their sample case opened up and spilled all their samples on the ground in the pitch darkness of the brush, and it took them 40 minutes to locate everything, feeling around on the ground for the samples? Maybe they didn’t come forward because, being traveling salesmen, they had moved on, and were unaware of the murders?

How silly do you want this to get?

“Hi Ray, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is empowering to get this kind of information. Your Amazon review of Hewitt's book was also helpful.”

Thanks very much. If you would like free Kindle copies of both my books, just message me your email at [email protected] and I will gift them to you through Amazon.

“I don't see why we should expect the unarmed victims of a murderous drug deal to have money or drugs after the event? Wouldn't the offender(s) just take the cash and leave them with the change?”

David started out with $1.55. I suggest in my book that he probably stopped for gas between leaving the house circa 7:30pm and arriving at the Jensen home circa 8pm. Two gallons of gas, in 1968, would have cost 70¢, thus leaving him with 85¢. Darlene, as far as I can tell, never had the money to buy drugs, fireworks, or anything else that night. She.was found with 13¢, and remember, we do have a live witness in her case, therefore no drug deal gone sour.

“I am also curious about theories regarding the promise ring in David's fingers. Do you think it is more likely that David was interrupted in the act of giving it to Betty Lou or that he was offering it to the killer whom he believed (or hoped) was just interested in robbing them?”

A high school class ring wouldn’t have had much street value. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just offer their abductors the car? If David still had the ring, it seems clear that he hadn’t had enough time alone with Betty Lou to give it to her, which is consistent with my scenario that they were abducted as soon as they pulled over, likely in BRSP. If David hadn’t had enough time alone with Betty Lou to give her the ring, that pretty much throws the “consensus” view of the murders out the car window.

“Have I read correctly that Betty Lou's dress had gun shot residue on it? Does that mean that she received the first bullet while exiting the vehicle and still managed to move twenty-eight feet?”

She had GSR NEAR the uppermost bullet hole, not in it. So the GSR did not “ride” the bullet, since then it would have been IN the hole. That was also the first shot, right at the limit for depositing GSR on a target (about five feet). If she had been fired AT with an earlier shot that missed, she would have had much more GSR on her back. Again, there was no blood in the car, which argues against either victim (especially David) being shot while inside it, and Betty Lou was almost certainly shot AFTER David.

“The ring, who knows, there are several likely answers, but I am sure Ray knows the true answer.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! To be honest, I would LOVE to hear a plausible theory as to how David still had the ring in his hand after supposedly cuddling in the car with Betty Lou for at least an hour. By PLAUSIBLE, I mean a theory that one does not pull out of one’s arse.

“Betty Lou Jensen's dress had GSR by the uppermost hole on her dress indicating this was the first shot that struck her that night. It had to be fired at her from very close proximity.”

Again, now we’re getting somewhere!

“Dense Rich: Nobody knows for certain whether the Chevrolet Impala had one occupant that night, more than one, members of a New Orleans brass band or two chihuahua's and Shirley Bassey. The point being nobody knows who was present in that vehicle that night, not you, nor I. It is definitely a vehicle of high interest and may have been integral to the murders. It is possible but not certain. There were no sightings of it from at least 10.35 pm onward. Was it the vehicle parked to the right of the Faraday Rambler when James Owen passed. Quite possibly, but who would go as far as definitely. That is something I cannot claim. If it wasn't involved in the murders, then there is an alternative reason for its presence that night. Surely even you understand that concept.”

I don’t understand the concept of putting up a website which looks at all sorts of scenarios, and then pleading NOLO CONTENDRE when someone presses you about what you actually think. Circumstantial scenarios are, by their very nature, not absolute. We don’t have video of what

Drew

7/19/2017 07:53:45 am

Ray, that is a really kind offer! Thank you!

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 07:29:37 pm

“Dense Rich: Nobody knows for certain whether the Chevrolet Impala had one occupant that night, more than one, members of a New Orleans brass band or two chihuahua's and Shirley Bassey. The point being nobody knows who was present in that vehicle that night, not you, nor I. It is definitely a vehicle of high interest and may have been integral to the murders. It is possible but not certain. There were no sightings of it from at least 10.35 pm onward. Was it the vehicle parked to the right of the Faraday Rambler when James Owen passed. Quite possibly, but who would go as far as definitely. That is something I cannot claim. If it wasn't involved in the murders, then there is an alternative reason for its presence that night. Surely even you understand that concept.”

I don’t understand the concept of putting up a website which looks at all sorts of scenarios, and then pleading NOLO CONTENDRE when someone presses you about what you actually think. Circumstantial scenarios are, by their very nature, not absolute. We don’t have video of what happened that night. But it’s a little ridiculous to just throw up our hands and say that there must be an alternative reason for the presence of the white Chevy Impala.

And it’s ridiculous because there IS a “consensus” view of the murders, and of the Zodiac murders generally, that doesn’t make any sense. Zodiac hobbyists have insisted for years (not decades, since they haven’t been around that long) that David and Betty Lou were cuddling in the car in the Gate #10 turnout for about an hour (they weren’t, because the Rambler wasn’t seen there until 10:55pm by Peggy Your, who saw their car, not them).

No one saw their car in the turnout until 10:55pm. No one saw THEM after 9pm, when they drove away from Sharon Henslin’s house. Several witnesses put the white Chevy Impala in the turnout from circa 9:50pm until circa 10:30pm. So you have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated Zodiac hobbyists who believe that something that clearly WASN’T there WAS there the whole time (David and Betty Lou inside their station wagon) while meanwhile ignoring the significance of something that WAS there for 40 minutes for no apparent reason (the white Chevy Impala).

So if everyone takes for granted a circumstantial scenario that is clearly not true, and ignores a clear fact for which there is no explanation (the presence of the white Chevy Impala), should we just throw up our hands and call it even? Don’t think so.

As with my Riverside scenario, I don’t base my conclusions on one detail. I look at everything that happened and ask what the most likely explanation is.

1. No one saw David and Betty Lou after 9pm. Peggy Your says she saw them in the car, but under circumstances that aren’t possible. One’s headlights do NOT shine into the Gate #10 turnout when one is traveling west, and don’t even illuminate anything in the turnout when passing. She may have thought she saw the kids, but she was mistaken. And no one else who drove by saw them, either.

2. Helen Axe and her boyfriend saw the white Chevy Impala, not the Rambler. Connley, Gasser, Wesher, and Crow all gave testimony consistent with the Impala being parked in the turnout, not the Rambler, and they were looking at it around the same time as she.

3. If the Rambler wasn’t seen on the road until 10:55pm (by Peggy Your as she drove by, consistent with other testimony), then it must have been parked someplace else. Which means David had to relocate the vehicle, likely pulling into the turnout circa 10:50pm or slightly earlier. The most likely place for David to have been parked earlier, per Sharon Henslin’s account, was Blue Rock Springs Park. Which means David would have to drive AWAY from the Jensen home and pull into the turnout at a time which virtually guaranteed he’d miss the 11pm curfew. As soon as he pulled onto Lake Herman Road off Columbus Parkway, wouldn’t Betty Lou have said, “Wait! What are you doing?” Because he’d have been jeopardizing their relationship by not obeying her parents. Plus we know that Betty Lou was “bursting for a pee” about then.

4. And then there’s the little detail that the car engine was lukewarm when Benicia PD arrived, consistent with the killers turning the engine on just prior to leaving the turnout, AFTER murdering David and Betty Lou. If they turn the engine on circa 11:13pm, it would be lukewarm circa 11:22pm when the cops got there. On the other hand, if we assume David turned the engine ON when another car pulled in circa 11:07pm, then we have to assume that he turned the engine OFF when he originally pulled in, circa 10:50pm. Why would he do that, on a night when it was 22°? And if he did do that, and they were cuddling in the car, the windows would have been frosted over (from condensation of one’s b

Ray Grant link

7/18/2017 07:31:15 pm

4. And then there’s the little detail that the car engine was lukewarm when Benicia PD arrived, consistent with the killers turning the engine on just prior to leaving the turnout, AFTER murdering David and Betty Lou. If they turn the engine on circa 11:13pm, it would be lukewarm circa 11:22pm when the cops got there. On the other hand, if we assume David turned the engine ON when another car pulled in circa 11:07pm, then we have to assume that he turned the engine OFF when he originally pulled in, circa 10:50pm. Why would he do that, on a night when it was 22°? And if he did do that, and they were cuddling in the car, the windows would have been frosted over (from condensation of one’s breath collecting on the window pane) when the witnesses passed by, but they weren’t. Because no one was in the car when the Yours and the hunters drove past (11pm and 11:05pm).

Richard Grinell acts as if one scenario is as good as another. But that’s not true, because there is a prevailing CONSENSUS view, and that view of events is clearly wrong. David and Betty Lou were never seen alive after 9pm, and their car was never seen again until 10:55pm, and yet they were just as clearly murdered IN THE TURNOUT circa 11:10pm-11:14pm. That scenario is consistent with their being abducted, and since we know that CHeri Bates was abducted (as were Shelly Holmboe, Kathleen Johns, Donna Lass, and Joan Webster—Paul Stine was an abductee by profession, and Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard were abducted but then kept at the primary crime scene), and we’re likely dealing with the same group of people, the abduction of David and Betty Lou is the most plausible explanation. And, as I’m at pains to point out here, it’s the ONLY plausible explanation.

Mike Morford link

7/20/2017 04:11:05 am

Name: Robert M Connelly
Birth Date: 14 May 1941

Name: Bingo G Wesner
Birth Date: 5 Dec 1935

Ray, here you go. I will not tell you where these guys live now, but these are the witnesses in the report. The spelling is correct as I have it. I have communicated with both of them. I know you will not admit to yourself(or anybody else that you are wrong)but, I hate to say it...YOU ARE! I'll leave you with my favorite Brad Pitt pondering: https://media.giphy.com/media/w3WMVd8P8mELe/giphy.gif

Richard

7/20/2017 02:27:29 pm

I would like you to answer a question about your book Ray.
December 20th 1968 was an extremely cold evening and night. You stated in your book that while the couple were leaving Betty Lou's parents "when Betty Lou came out, David helped her with her white fur coat." David Faraday was old-fashioned and courteous, and it would be natural for him to help her putting on her white coat. It makes sense she would bring a fur coat, it was extremely cold.
They arrived at Sharon Henslin's house at 8.20 pm and left at 9.00 pm. The Rambler had been idle for 40 minutes on a very cold evening. David, I'm sure would have been the perfect gentleman and aid Betty Lou in putting on her white fur coat again. The journey time from 926 Brentwood Avenue to Blue Rock Springs is 5 minutes. Not enough time for the vehicle to warm up substantially, and certainly no reason yet for Betty Lou to remove her fur coat to attract David's attention. You state they were trailed to Blue Rock Springs and were abducted immediately, just like Riverside, before they had time to take the keys out of the ignition.
When the Rambler was discovered after the murders, her white fur coat was lying on the left side of the rear seat. Are you claiming the devilishly cunning abductors removed the fur coat off her person, and placed it on the back seat to give the impression the couple were in the act of courtship and the appearance that Betty Lou had of her own volition removed the fur coat. Or is it not more likely she did actually remove the fur coat in the act of courtship, something she never would have done had she been kidnapped.

Ray Grant link

7/20/2017 11:28:43 pm

“If we are talking about spelling errors Ray, stop referring to Bingo Wesner as Bingo Wesher. His name is WESNER. Check the ancestry records. He was 32 years of age in 1968. He is 81 now and lives in Lovelock. Nevada, where he works as a Dairy Farmer and Rancher.

Don't forget to credit me when you amend your book.”

I always do.

“Name: Robert M Connelly
Birth Date: 14 May 1941

Name: Bingo G Wesner
Birth Date: 5 Dec 1935

Ray, here you go.”

I asked you for the information about Connelly 3 1/2 years ago and you refused to provide it. I’ve already cited my 3 very credible sources for the CONNLEY spelling (the police report, Graysmith, and Mike Butterfield). If a researcher asks a source for information, and that source refuses to provide it, such that the wrong information ends up getting published, it’s not the researcher’s fault. And you’re the one who started the fight with me and made it personal.

“I will not tell you where these guys live now, but these are the witnesses in the report.”

Why would I want to know where these guys live now? I’m the one who keeps saying we have more than enough information already to figure out what happened. And you’re the one who keeps acting as if we don’t have enough information, such that we keep having to interview witnesses who were interviewed almost five decades ago.

You still don’t understand the significance of what Robert Connelly said way back in 1968, before you were even born (I was 17 at the time). Connelly says he was on Lake Herman Road at 9pm, which is impossible. How could he have seen Bingo pulling out through Gate #10 at 10pm if he parked in the Marshall Ranch turnout circa 9pm, and drove east back to Gasser’s ranch after 11pm? Did he run back down the hillside, get back in his truck, drive east past Gate #10, turn around, and then drive west again just so he could make the rendezvous at 10pm?

And, again, you’re the one who harassed a cooperative witness and then accused him of being the Zodiac Killer after he died. I’ve never done anything like that.

“I know you will not admit to yourself(or anybody else that you are wrong)but, I hate to say it...YOU ARE!”

Well again, I asked you for the information and you wouldn’t give it to me. That’s not the same thing as being wrong.

As for my not admitting when I’m wrong, as usual you’re completely full of crap. Here are two examples from my book where I cite Richard Grinell:

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell has pointed out, however, that the route taken by the police after their encounter with the man on Jackson Street is consistent with the Zodiac's account that he misdirected them, since they did not proceed immediately to Cherry Street but instead headed west to Arguello Boulevard.”

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell, who is the proprietor of the ZodiacCiphers.com website, raised the possibility of two Zodiacs sitting in the back seat of Paul Stine's cab in July 2016. I had already suggested that scenario in the June 2015 edition with the male/female Zodiacs, but Richard's idea is that there were two male Zodiacs, which might explain how the teenagers saw a man in his 20s, and Donald Fouke saw a man 35-45.”

Back to Richard Grinell:

“The journey time from 926 Brentwood Avenue to Blue Rock Springs is 5 minutes. Not enough time for the vehicle to warm up substantially, and certainly no reason yet for Betty Lou to remove her fur coat to attract David's attention. You state they were trailed to Blue Rock Springs and were abducted immediately, just like Riverside, before they had time to take the keys out of the ignition.”

Again, to be clear, I don’t know how or where the abduction was effected. I propose Blue Rock Springs Park because that’s where Sharon Henslin assumed they were going after the conversation earlier with David.

“When the Rambler was discovered after the murders, her white fur coat was lying on the left side of the rear seat. Are you claiming the devilishly cunning abductors removed the fur coat off her person, and placed it on the back seat to give the impression the couple were in the act of courtship and the appearance that Betty Lou had of her own volition removed the fur coat. Or is it not more likely she did actually remove the fur coat in the act of courtship, something she never would have done had she been kidnapped.”

And now you’re assuming the abduction lasted five minutes, when in fact it would have lasted about two hours. I suspect that the abductors would have kept the teenagers inside the station wagon in the holding area between 9:20pm and circa 10:45pm-10:50pm, when they then moved the Rambler to the Gate #10 turnout. So the kids would have been inside a warm car (with the lights turned OFF), and it’s quite possible Betty Lou simply removed her fur coa

Ray Grant link

7/20/2017 11:30:07 pm

“When the Rambler was discovered after the murders, her white fur coat was lying on the left side of the rear seat. Are you claiming the devilishly cunning abductors removed the fur coat off her person, and placed it on the back seat to give the impression the couple were in the act of courtship and the appearance that Betty Lou had of her own volition removed the fur coat. Or is it not more likely she did actually remove the fur coat in the act of courtship, something she never would have done had she been kidnapped.”

And now you’re assuming the abduction lasted five minutes, when in fact it would have lasted about two hours. I suspect that the abductors would have kept the teenagers inside the station wagon in the holding area between 9:20pm and circa 10:45pm-10:50pm, when they then moved the Rambler to the Gate #10 turnout. So the kids would have been inside a warm car (with the lights turned OFF), and it’s quite possible Betty Lou simply removed her fur coat and lay it on the back seat herself. It’s also possible that, by the time the abductors moved the kids from the Rambler to the white Chevy Impala circa 10:45pm-10:50pm, in preparation for parking the Rambler in the turnout, Betty Lou forgot about her fur coat until it was too late. Since the Impala had just returned from the Blue Rock Springs Park area (see the diagrams in my book), the Impala would also have been heated, so she may have forgotten about the fur coat (she had other things to worry about) until she was ordered out of the car or out of the trunk in the Gate #10 turnout circa 11:10pm.

Yet another example of Richard Grinell focusing on one detail to the exclusion of the circumstantial context, and then saying, “Look, since she took off the fur coat at some point, they must have been cuddling in the car.”

But if they were cuddling in the car all that time, why would they relocate to the Gate #10 turnout circa 10:40pm-10:50pm, when that meant driving AWAY from her house and guaranteeing that they’d exceed the curfew? David was an Eagle Scout; he would have been particularly conscious of such deadlines.

If they were cuddling in the car all that time, why did David still have the class ring in his fingers? Why hadn’t it passed between them already?

If they were cuddling in the car all that time, why did David shut the car’s engine OFF when he pulled into the Gate #10 turnout? And if he did that, why weren’t the windows of the car frosted over from condensation from their breath? That happens in a matter of minutes in an unheated car on a cold night.

Richard

7/21/2017 01:57:49 am

Ray "If you were actually familiar with criminal cases, you’d know that the suspicious witnesses are the ones who keep repeating the exact same story over and over again. A normal witness varies his account as different impressions of what he remembers occur to him. And we see that in the police reports from the other witnesses who gave multiple statements—none of them is exactly the same."
This may be true, in the fact that certain eyewitnesses/suspects who keep regurgitating a seemingly scripted answer, it smacks of rehearsal. But you often hear quoted by many police investigators the contrary argument, in that the truth is always the truth, and it is never difficult to remember the truth. Remembering a concocted story is always more difficult, because often it is conjured up on the fly, and is an imaginary creation of sorts. I have heard arguments for and against both. While I agree with you Ray, there is no hard and fast rule.

Richard

7/21/2017 02:08:14 am

"Yet another example of Richard Grinell focusing on one detail to the exclusion of the circumstantial context."
I focus on all the details, not one. It is the combination of the details that builds the picture. You go into minute detail throughout your book, down to the nearest 30 seconds (James Owen 11.09:30). The stray casing. I won't go on. Details and timelines are crucial to any investigation.

Richard

7/21/2017 02:12:24 am

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell has pointed out, however, that the route taken by the police after their encounter with the man on Jackson Street is consistent with the Zodiac's account that he misdirected them, since they did not proceed immediately to Cherry Street but instead headed west to Arguello Boulevard.”

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell, who is the proprietor of the ZodiacCiphers.com website, raised the possibility of two Zodiacs sitting in the back seat of Paul Stine's cab in July 2016. I had already suggested that scenario in the June 2015 edition with the male/female Zodiacs, but Richard's idea is that there were two male Zodiacs, which might explain how the teenagers saw a man in his 20s, and Donald Fouke saw a man 35-45.”

Thanks Ray, I do appreciate it. But I didn't realize you took the second one seriously.

Ray Grant link

7/21/2017 02:36:56 am

But you often hear quoted by many police investigators the contrary argument, in that the truth is always the truth, and it is never difficult to remember the truth. Remembering a concocted story is always more difficult, because often it is conjured up on the fly, and is an imaginary creation of sorts.”

I’m saying that incidental details like the ones Morf is focusing on (the hearing of a gunshot right at the end of the encounter, the spacing of the cars) will vary, while the general gist of the statement will stay the same. In other words, the witness’s overall impression will remain the same, but the peripheral impressions will vary because they weren’t as strong to begin with. People who stage a murder will usually rehearse a version of events and keep repeating it.

You go into minute detail throughout your book, down to the nearest 30 seconds (James Owen 11.09:30).”

WRONG! Assuming James Owen left 1735 Mini Drive in Vallejo at exactly 10:54pm (since his cuckoo clock was six minutes fast), and assuming he was driving the speed limit (since he used Lake Herman Road to get to work on a regular basis), he would have passed the Gate #10 turnout at exactly 11:09:25pm. And I only use that precise time because I decided if I rounded it off, it might introduce further imprecision.

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell has pointed out, however, that the route taken by the police after their encounter with the man on Jackson Street is consistent with the Zodiac's account that he misdirected them, since they did not proceed immediately to Cherry Street but instead headed west to Arguello Boulevard.”

“Zodiac researcher Richard Grinell, who is the proprietor of the ZodiacCiphers.com website, raised the possibility of two Zodiacs sitting in the back seat of Paul Stine's cab in July 2016. I had already suggested that scenario in the June 2015 edition with the male/female Zodiacs, but Richard's idea is that there were two male Zodiacs, which might explain how the teenagers saw a man in his 20s, and Donald Fouke saw a man 35-45.”

Thanks Ray, I do appreciate it. But I didn't realize you took the second one seriously.

I probably should also have given you credit for correcting me about the killer firing into the left rear wheel well, which is what Graysmith says he did. But, as you pointed out, the bullet found there was actually from the shot fired into the window. But once I took out the Circle The Car Scenario (again, Graysmith’s idea), there didn’t seem any point in bringing up the wheel well.

Still, I did nod my head to you twice and mentioned your website.

Where are the two articles about the itinerary of Pierre Bidou and Steve Armenta? I looked at the list of article titles and none of them jumped out at me.

Richard

7/21/2017 03:06:32 am

http://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-news/lake-herman-road-the-false-timeline
Have a bash at this one!

Mike Morford link

7/21/2017 05:10:50 am

Ray....take a deep breath. This is going to be hard for you to accept, but you have to try. Sit back. Are you relaxed?? Are you ready? YOU ARE WRONG!!! Once again.
http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR4.html

Do you see the 11:14PM time written on the sketch in the link above? In his report, Owen found stated that he left his home at about 11:15pm. His clock which would put him on the scene at 11:20 or so. Police checked his clock and found out that it was 6 minutes fast, and that he had really left at about 11:09pm putting him there at about 11:14-THE TIME NOTED ON THE SKETCH. The 11:14PM time noted is the time that he was at the scene AFTER they adjusted for the clock being wrong. You have made the huge mistake of taking 6 minutes off of the already-corrected time. Again Ray, it's okay. Breathe you are only human. Humans make mistakes no matter how smart they are(or aren't)

Mike Morford link

7/21/2017 05:33:42 am

Here is the corrected and accurate Lake Herman Rd timeline from a post that I made in January,2013 on my old site.

Re-Evaluating the Lake Herman Rd Timeline,shows how tight the window was for Z to strike-

10:50-11:00, the 2 hunters head to their truck,they say it was about 11:00,maybe 10:50-10:55. They say that the walk takes about 3-5 minutes to get to the truck,which would place them at the truck between 10:53 at the earliest and 11:05pm at the latest.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR21.html

Next,the hunters say that after they got back to their truck(10:53 to 11:05),they saw a car come in and turn around and leave(this was Mr & Mrs Your), The two hunters say that they sat there in the truck for about 5 minutes as it warmed up:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR24.html

So this means that the hunters left the area at 10:58 at the earliest,and 11:10 at the latest.

NOW,this is the only true window that zodiac could arrive on scene ,police say the window is 6 minutes,as I demonstrated here,it could be as little as 4 minutes.

11:14pm,Owen's view. He told them he passed by at around 11:20,but his clock was 6 minutes fast,so he was actually there at 11:14 or so:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR4.html

11:14-11:20,the time police think it happend:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR6.html

11:14-11:15,Borges is sure she arrived there at this time:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR19.html

BUT, notice the police have adjusted for her clock being one minute fast. That would put her there almost on top of Owen, hence my reason for being suspicious of him. Later, for some reason, they change Stella's arrival time to 11:20pm.

If both Borges & Owen are correct,there simply is NOT enough time for Z to come along,and do the crime,and get away without being seen.Police find that her clock is off and is one minute fast,meaning she really got there a minute sooner,at 11:13-11:14. Now this creates a major problem,there is ZERO way that zodiac could have come in,attacked and left unseen if both Owen & Borges are correct. Owen would HAVE TO BE Zodiac.

BUT, this is why I believe they changed Stella's time to finding the bodies to 11:20, because she raced off and found Benicia Officer Pitta and he entered the time she found him in his report as 11:25pm

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=925&fullsize=1

So, police are left with a 6 minute window of Owen being at the scene at 11:14 & Borges finding the bodies at 11:20

This time of 11:25 is the main reason that I think police shifted Stella Borges time that she arrived on the scene.Borges claimed that she saw the bodies,amd immediately raced off for help at speeds of 60-70mph until she saw Pitta in his police car. It should have taken her no more than 5-6 minutes to run into Pitta. If she was correct in her time estimate,she should have run into Pitt at 11:19-11:21,or thereabouts. Since she didnt run into him until 11:25,it seems the police have assumed she really found the bodies at 11:20 or so.

Borges & Pitta raced back to the murder scene:

11:28pm, Pitta arrives at the murder scene:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=925&fullsize=1

12:05am,Lunblad arrived on scene:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/LHRPR2.html

To anybody not familiar with this case, or new to it, or trying to verify the right timeline, THIS IS the correct timeline.

Drew

7/21/2017 11:53:06 am

Great thread! What do you think we can learn about the objective(s) of the killer(s) from this timeline?

If the abduction scenario is not correct, and the drug bust irrelevant, does that suggest that the Gate 10 turnout was chosen merely for convenience by someone who knew the area? Could the imprecise yet very interesting Mt. Diablo radian design suggested by Zodiac have been chosen after this crime? I believe that all of the Zodiac letters were at least primarily a distraction campaign, but I feel certain about almost nothing in this case.

RAYMOND GRANT-THE WHITE CHEVROLET IMPALA

Leave a Reply.

Archives