THE WHITE CHEVROLET IMPALA [PART 2]

4/21/2016

In the following we shall examine once again the timeline of the Lake Herman Road murders, specifically focusing our attention on the Chevrolet Impala spotted by at least seven eyewitnesses in the run up to the murders. This 'rogue' vehicle 'appeared' to be circling the area of Benicia and Vallejo, in particular the region of Blue Rock Springs Park and Lake Herman Road, suggestive of a killer or killers cruising the area on the lookout for victims. It is fairly reasonable to regard this vehicle as our starting point to identity the murderer/s of Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday on December 20th 1968. Its location in the hours before the crime on a dark, freezing cold night, the whereabouts of its occupants and the vehicle's possible movements along the lonely stretch of Lake Herman Road, only serve to ask the very real question, could this be the responsible? There is of course nothing to ascertain that the same Chevrolet Impala was viewed by all the eyewitnesses, but it's a distinct possibility. It is easy to cherry pick which witnesses we believe are correct or not - and if they saw and heard what they stated - so in this instance, we will try to create a plausible timeline of events sticking as closely to the eyewitness statements as humanly possible and see what manifests as a result.

1959 Chevrolet Impala 4 Door Hardtop

Let us start with the two local raccoon hunters Frank Gasser and Robert Connelly, who were in the vicinity of Gate #10 [the turnout] on that fateful night. These are statements from the police report.

[1] "Connelly and Gasser have been identified by Deputy Villarreal as raccoon hunters who were in the area of the Benicia Pumping Station and who have been identified by Mrs Your. They had their 1959 pick-up truck, red in color, with wood side-boards, parked inside the field of the Marshall Ranch. In this interview it was learned that they were hunting in the area from 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm".
[2] "Mr Connelly was asked to pinpoint his activities closer on that day. He states he went to the Gasser Ranch at 6.00 pm. They sat around a while and didn't leave until several hours later. They arrived in the area of the pump station around 9:00 pm".
[3] They said when they arrived there at 9:00 pm, a white 4-door hardtop, 1959 or 1960 Impala was parked, and also, a truck coming out of the gate. This coincides with information from Bingo Wesher [sic], that when he came out of the gate, he saw the same Impala and also saw the red pick-up truck go by".
[4] Bingo Wesner stated; "Last night 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".

It can be seen that on four separate occasions, 9:00 pm is confirmed as the time of the hunters arrival by Gate #10. The white Chevrolet Impala is further tagged at 10:00 pm, while Bingo Wesner is tending his sheep.

The next witnesses are William Crow and his girlfriend.
[5] "Were in the Lake Herman area between 9.30 pm and 10.00 pm on 12/20/68. He stated 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 Owen 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. When they got to the turn off towards Benicia, Owen turned towards Benicia and the other car went straight ahead. The subjects were both Caucasian".

What is crucial here, is that William Crow was in the area "between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm", and he mentions no white Chevrolet Impala in the turnout of Gate #10 (the very turnout he was parked in). The white Chevrolet was present in the turnout at 9:00 pm, confirmed by three eyewitnesses, Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner. However, it had apparently disappeared while William Crow was in the area - or had it? Well, not if it was the vehicle that chased him toward Benicia. William Crow would later state in an interview, that the Valiant he supposedly saw, was suggested to him by the interviewing detective. This is what he later claimed actually happened, with two interesting changes to his recollections.
[6] "I sped up. The car behind me also sped up, and at one point as I was looking over my shoulder, the car behind me came up on my side with its right front fender near the driver’s rear quarter panel and appeared to be moving toward making contact. I shifted to a lower gear and hit the gas. There is a fork in the road where one continues toward Benicia and the other more towards the freeway toward Vallejo. The other car was clearly chasing me and I waited until the last moment and then turned off. The larger car behind me could not make the turn. I went down approximately two hundred yards and stopped in the middle of the road. The other car had stopped shortly after the turn-off. Each of us sat there in the road. Again, youthfully stupid, I yelled about kicking his ---. After some moments, the other car turned around in the roadway and went back down the road from which we had come. I kept making macho statements, but not totally without some sense about me, I drove home. I did not see the car again. 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. 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".

The interesting change is the "light-colored Chevy", that would now tie in nicely to the previous eyewitnesses - especially considering the location - although William Crow now appears to be favoring a single occupant. However, what does tally, is the timeline. If we take the time given by William Crow as accurate, he is now at the Reservoir Road intersection (shown here) at approximately 10:00 pm. If the "light-colored Chevy" then turned around as William Crow stated, and headed back towards Gate #10 in the direction of Vallejo, then it could conceivably have parked back up in the turnout by approximately 10:01 pm. This concurs nicely with Bingo Wesner observing the white Chevrolet once again at "approximately 10:00 pm" while tending his sheep. If this was the same vehicle throughout, then it parked up sometime around 9:00 pm or before, had left the turnout prior to William Crow arriving at 9:30 pm, but then returned from the Benicia end at approximately 9:59 pm, before chasing William Crow and resettling in the Gate #10 turnout just after 10:00 pm.

The white Chevrolet Impala could not have remained in the turnout for more than 10 minutes or so, after 10:00 pm. The next eyewitness to come forward was Helen Axe. Here is the police report;

[7] "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".

This tells us that between 10:01 pm and 10:15 pm, the white Chevrolet has once again exited the turnout - and during the same window of time, Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday have arrived at the turnout and parked up - which will ultimately become a scene of tragedy in about one hour from now. If Helen Axe is correct, this has a great impact on the statement of Officer Pierre Bidou, who was executing a drugs seizure at 'The Cottage', located 0.4 miles west of Gate #10 at the recreation area. In other words 0.4 miles towards Vallejo from the turnout. See here for location. Pierre Bidou, after finishing the drugs bust, headed back to Benicia Police Station. He stated in the 2007 documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking';

[8] "We were heading back to the police department to put the marijuana into evidence and as we drove by, we did not see or observe anyone in that area, because it's a turn there and your headlights shine right in there as you go by. I was pulling into the lot in the police department, we heard the Benicia police department dispatch about a call of a possible shooting and victims on Lake Herman Road, and described the location. My partner and I turned around at that time and responded to the call".
[9] "We felt we were only minutes from the crime scene when it actually happened and for the best of my recollection we did not pass any other vehicle or traffic. I'm pretty sure of that because that is one of the things we told the sheriff's office, that we did not see any other vehicles coming our way. What could have happened, depending on where a vehicle turned onto Lake Herman Road, if it came from behind us from Vallejo, we would not have seen them". He was also featured in the Benicia Herald;
[10] "Bidou and his partner had served a warrant on a Lake Herman Road cabin Dec 20 1968, and were on the way to deposit some marijuana in the police department's evidence locker, when they were dispatched back to Lake Herman Road".

Pierre Bidou, one of the first responding officers on December 20th 1968, revisits the Lake Herman Road crime scene.

It has been long considered that his timeline makes little sense. The journey time from 'The Cottage' to Benicia Police Department is 8-10 minutes duration - and bearing in mind the crime was called in at approximately 11:25 pm by Captain Daniel Pitta - this would put Pierre Bidou and his partner Steve Armenta passing the Lake Herman Road turnout at about 11:15 pm to 11:17 pm. The crime would be either in progress or over - and he would have observed at least one or two vehicles in the turnout - but most certainly the victims Rambler, which was spotted by Helen Axe as early as 10:15 pm and latterly around 11:00 pm by Peggy and Homer Your, along with the two raccoon hunters Frank Gasser and Robert Connelly.

Remember, in statements [8] and [10] above, he claimed he literally turned around as he arrived at the Benicia Police Department. This would certainly have him passing the turnout with the Rambler in position. However, Pierre Bidou is correct when he stated his headlights would have illuminated the east side of the turnout. Had the Rambler been on the east side of the turnout, he could not have failed to spot it. So how do we explain this? He also stated "We felt we were only minutes from the crime scene when it actually happened" - and he probably was. In fact, he likely passed the turnout only three minutes before the first shots were fired by the Zodiac Killer, having likely departed from 'The Cottage' at 11:11 pm and passed the Gate #10 turnout at 11:12 pm. Remember, these timelines are taken from the police report and sketches, from which we are attempting to construct a viable order of events that all fit together. It is perfectly conceivable that Pierre Bidou was traveling past Gate #10 at 11:12 pm, with the Zodiac Killer only one minute behind him - but enough to be out of sight. Then finally, James Owen, who is recorded on the police sketches as having passed the turnout at 11:14 pm and observing two vehicles. This means all three were traveling along Lake Herman Road simultaneously, likely from Vallejo, and each separated by one minute.

The diagram on the left depicts Robert Connelly passing the turnout at 11:05 pm to 11:10 pm. He states contrary to James Owen and the Your's, that the Rambler is facing into the turnout on the west bank. This would mean that after the Your's departed the Marshall Ranch heading east to Benicia - and slightly before Connelly and Gasser exited the scene - the Rambler had shifted position from facing the eastern edge to its current position shown in the diagram.

One possibility, is that David Faraday, having his Rambler constantly illuminated by passing vehicles on the east bank, decided to move the Rambler to an area where passing headlights didn't shine, such as the west bank. It was at this time Robert Connelly and Frank Gasser passed the turnout, spotting the Rambler in this position. It is not inconceivable, that although Robert Connelly and Frank Gasser spot the Rambler on the west bank, Pierre Bidou doesn't. He currently has his attention focused on the two suspects in the police car and the marijuana bust. A vehicle heading east to Benicia shines its headlights onto the eastern edge of the turnout, however, the western side and the Rambler would not be illuminated. Although the hunters saw the Rambler, they couldn't see any occupants in the vehicle. This is understandable, as the Rambler is not side on, and it is immersed in darkness. It is equally understandable that Pierre Bidou failed to notice the vehicle at all, possibly preoccupied with his recent drugs seizure.

But how did the Rambler return from the west bank, to facing the eastern edge (the position it was found by police later that night), between Pierre Bidou passing and Zodiac arriving? This is where a leap of faith is required. One possibility, is the Zodiac drove into the turnout and approached the Rambler from behind, forcing or signaling David Faraday back across the turnout. Whatever the case, if the eyewitnesses are correct, then David Faraday definitely shifted position from the Connelly sighting to the arrival of James Owen. Shortly after James Owen passes the turnout, David Faraday prepares to leave, but Zodiac exits his vehicle, fires into the headliner of the Rambler (the sound James Owen hears 30 seconds past the turnout), and the rest is history.

There is one more witness that night. Stan, a 14-year-old;
[11] "And a friend of his, a student from Solano College were going towards Blue Rock Springs on Columbus Parkway and an Olde 2 door, hard-top 88 (Don), blue in color and a 1963 Chevrolet Impala, blue, with two persons in it turned off Lake Herman Road onto Columbus Parkway, heading in the direction of Blue Rock Springs Park, this was approximately 10.30 pm".

Although this description of the Chevrolet Impala is slightly different, it cannot be dismissed out of hand. We have the sighting of the Chevrolet Impala by a potential seven eyewitnesses. Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser, Bingo Wesner, William Crow and girlfriend, and Stan (14) and his friend. If this was the same Chevrolet Impala throughout, it could be argued that this vehicle was traveling back and forth along the Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs regions for just over two hours and 15 minutes, with the occupant/s taking time to exit the vehicle, and leave the Chevrolet Impala vacated in the turnout for a period of time, as testified by Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner earlier in the night's proceedings. This would be consistent with somebody stalking the area, looking for potential victims. The question being, was the mystery car parked alongside the Faraday Rambler, spotted by James Owen, the white Chevrolet Impala? It is a distinct possibility.

What this does is corroborate Pierre Bidou's account of that night, that he "felt he was only minutes from the crime scene when it actually happened". He left 'The Cottage' at 11:11 pm and passed the turnout at 11:12 pm, just shy of the actual murders, before arriving at the Benicia Police Department parking lot at 11:22 pm. After dropping off the marijuana seizure and suspects (possibly taking a few minutes), the call from Captain Daniel Pitta came in at 11:25 pm, meaning that Pierre Bidou literally swung his vehicle around and headed back to the Gate #10 turnout, the one he had just passed only 10 minutes earlier. Pierre Bidou, as he claimed all along, had missed the murders by a matter of minutes.

Ray Grant link

4/20/2016 12:28:37 pm

I had several hearty laughs while reading this article, getting bits of Branston Pickle all over my computer screen. Zodiac hobbyists suffer from what might be called Ronald Reagan Syndrome. Reagan used to give stump speeches where he proffered the information that air pollution was not unnatural, since, for example, trees pollute the air. It was then politely pointed out to Reagan, by scientists, that trees DON'T pollute the air. Reagan, whose manners were more genteel than his politics, would then profusely thank the scientists for the correction. And then, when he gave his next stump speech, Reagan would once again remind his audience that trees pollute the air. I've explained, both in my books and on the Internet, the WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW of the night of December 20, 1968 on Lake Herman Road. And Richard Grinell, either through short-term memory lapses or a real desire to keep the Zodiac folklore alive, insists upon repeating information that is demonstrably false. I'm honestly puzzled as to what his general motive is. Does he really want to get at the truth? Or is his website merely a celebration of the mystery of the Zodiac Killer, similar to a website like Casebook.org, which memorializes Jack the Ripper? Sites like ZodiacKiller.com and ZodiacKillerSite.com aren't interested in looking at the evidence, because doing that would destroy the mental image of a maniac running amok in the Bay Area, and replace it with something much more sinister (that four people committed the crimes and sent the letters to create the hallucination these hobbyists hold so dear). It's a little like walking an audience through an illusionist's sleight-of-hand with the house lights up; it may be informative on some level, but it destroys the magic, and it's the magic that they all came for. And, while Richard Grinell is easily the best of Zodiac hobbyists, and has even corrected Ray Grant on some details, at the end of the day, he remains a hobbyist.

Ray Grant link

4/20/2016 11:41:59 pm

1. "This 'rogue' vehicle appeared to be circling the area of Benicia and Vallejo, in particular the region of Blue Rock Springs Park and Lake Herman Road, suggestive of a killer or killers cruising the area on the lookout for victims in the predatory mode."

It's clear that the occupants of the white Chevy Impala were focused quite specifically upon the Gate #10 turnout. They chased William Crow out of the turnout circa 9:45pm, and then doubled back and parked in that turnout cinca 9:50pm. Their car was then parked in that turnout from 9:50pm until 10:30pm, about 40 minutes. Their car was seen parked there without occupants by Connley (10pm), Wesher (10pm), Axe's sailor boy friend (10:15pm), Gasser coming out through Gate #10 with a flashlight (10:20pm), and Axe's sailor boy friend (10:30pm). The only difference was that, at the 10:30pm sighting, the car had reoriented itself to face the road instead of the south fence; in other words, the occupants came back to their car, started it, and turned it around to face the road when they were likely startled by the second Axe drive-by. They then waited for the Axe car to get to the bottom of the hill and continue west out of sight, and then the Impala turned left onto Lake Herman Road and started down the hill. By the time they neared the western end of the road, they had just about caught up with Helen Axe and her boy friend.

2."It is easy to cherry pick which witnesses we believe are correct or not"

Zodiac hobbyists cherry pick from witness accounts; I don't. Witness accounts are inherently imperfect because people's memories are imperfect. William Manchester, when writing The Death of a President, knew he was reporting on a complex series of events, and knew that some imperfections were bound to make their way into the narrative. So he assumed that, if two witnesses saw the same thing, it happened.

I generally assume a witness statement is accurate unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Sometimes I will question an account because other witnesses disagree with it, or because some circumstance renders the statement unreliable. When two witness statements are in conflict, I ask myself which is inherently more reliable.

3. Now Richard Grinell gives us a demonstration of what NOT to do with witness statements:

"It can be seen that on four separate occasions, 9.00 pm is confirmed as the time of the hunters arrival by Gate #10."

[1] and [2] and [3] are Connley's statements that he arrived on the road at 9pm. [4[ is in direct conflict with Connley's statement, since Wesher says he pulled out through Gate #10 circa 10pm.

Connley says he saw a truck pull out through Gate #10 as his red Chevy pickup with wood sideboards passed, and that he saw a white Chevy Impala parked in the turnout, facing south, circa 9pm.

Wesher says he pulled his truck out through Gate #10 and saw a red Ford pickup with wood sideboards pass out on Lake Herman Road, and that he also saw a white Chevy Impala parked in the turnout, facing south, at 10pm.

So were there TWO encounters that night between trucks coming out through Gate #10 and red pickup trucks (one a Chevy, the other a Ford) with wood sideboards passing out on Lake Herman Road?

Or was there just ONE such encoounter, and one of the witnesses was wrong about the time? Since we assume Bingo Wesher tended his sheep about the same time every night, and since Robert Connley was engaged in a recreational activity, and probably drank a few beverages at Frank Gasser's place before heading out to Lake Herman Road, I tend to think that Bingo Wesher is correct about the time of the encounter: 10pm.

4. "The next witnesses are William Crow and his girlfriend."

Since we have now corrected Connley's arrival on the road to circa 10pm. we know that William Crow actually preceded both Connley and Wesher at the turnout. And the white Chevy Impala wasn't there yet.

5. "If we take the time given by William Crow as accurate, he is now at the Reservoir Road intersection shown here at 10.00 pm."

Crow says he pulled onto the western end of Lake Herman Road circa 9:30pm, which would have gotten him to Gate #10 tirca 9:35pm. Giving him five minutes or so to play with the toggle switches, that brings the white Chevy Impala along circa 9:40pm, with the chase to Reservoir Roud taking until 9:45pm, and the drive back to Gate #10 to 9:50pm.

Failing to realize that Connley and Wesher had a single encounter at Gate #10 circa 10pm wrecks your entire timeline.

6. "The next eyewitness to come forward was Helen Axe."

Helen Axe wasn't even looking toward the turnout as her car passed it; her sailor boy friend saw the car, and it was the white Chevy Impala, not the Faraday Rambler.

7. "This tells us that between 10.01 pm and 10.15 pm, the white Chevrolet has once again exited the turnout and during the same window Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday have arrived at the turnout and parked up, which will ultimately become the scene of tr

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 05:00:15 am

7. "This tells us that between 10.01 pm and 10.15 pm, the white Chevrolet has once again exited the turnout and during the same window Betty Lou Jensen and David Faraday have arrived at the turnout and parked up, which will ultimately become the scene of tragedy."

Why would the Impala keep parking in the turnout and then pulling back out? Assuming they were predatory, all parking in the turnout would do would be to scare off potential victims, right?

After Connley passed the turnout circa 10pm, he and Gasser drove down the hill and made a right into the Marshall Ranch turnout. They walked across the road and began coming up through the brush on the hillside. Circa 10:20pm, Frank Gasser walked out through Gate #10 and shone his flashlight into the white Chevy Impala, which was unoccupied.

In other words, the statement of Helen Axe is wrong. She knew the teenagers were murdered in that turnout, and she knew her sailor boy friend saw a car parked there (which was significant, because it meant that Helen and her boy friend couldn't pull in), so she just assumed that the car her sailor boy friend saw must have been the Rambler. But it wasn't the Rambler. Connley, Wesher, and Gasser (and Crow, retroactively) all say it was a white Chevy Impala.

8. "If Helen Axe is correct, this has great impact on the statement of Detective Pierre Bidou"

But she's wrong, so it has NO impact on Bidou's statement.

9. "It has been long considered that his timeline makes little sense. The journey time from 'The Cottage' to Benicia Police Department is 8-10 minutes duration, and bearing in mind the crime was called in at approximately 11.22 pm by Officer Daniel Pitta, this would put Pierre Bidou and his partner Steve Armenta passing the Lake Herman Road turnout at about 11.12 pm or 11.14 pm. The crime would be either in progress or over, but either way he would have observed likely two vehicles in the turnout, but for certain the victims Rambler, which was spotted by Helen Axe as early as 10.15 pm and latterly around 11.00 pm by Peggy and Homer Your, along with the two raccoon hunters Frank Gasser and Robert Connelly."

Except that, since you're wrong about your facts, your conclusions are also wrong.

Bidou says he pulled into the police parking lot when the dispatch, timed at 11:28pm, came over his radio. If you assume he was 8-10 minutes from the Gate #10 turnout, that means he would have passed it circa 11:18pm-11:20pm, by which time both teenagers would have been shot, and Stella Medeiros would already have passed the scene and been on her way at 60mph-70mph into Benicia.

What should we assume from this information? That Bidou and his partner didn't drive directly from the Lake Herman Recreation Area to the police parking lot. As I've already suggested multiple times, Bidou and his partner likely did what others who spend lots of their time on the road often did: having made the drug bust, they stopped somewhere to eat prior to taking their evidence back to log in at the end of their shift. If, as I've suggested, they actually passed Gate #10 circa 10:40pm, and they took the standard half-hour for "lunch," all their times make sense.

10. "We felt we were only minutes from the crime scene when it actually happened."

That could simply mean that he and his partner had stopped someplace to eat that was just a few minutes away from the turnout, but in Benicia (a Mr. Ed's, for example).

11. "And I believe he was only minutes from the actual murders, in fact he likely passed the turnout only three minutes before the first shots were fired by the Zodiac Killer, likely leaving 'The Cottage' at 11.11 pm and passing the Gate #10 turnout at 11.12 pm."

Again, that's wrong, because Bidou says he pulled into the lot and heard the dispatch come over the radio, which was at 11:28pm. So now you have to answer your own question: Why would it have taken him 16-17 minutes to reach the police lot, assuming he drove straight there?

All of your misstatements are based on the assumption that Bidou drove straight to the police lot after leaving the Lake Herman Recreation area, and there's no particular reason to believe that.

12. "What happened in the next few minutes is indeterminable, before Pierre Bidou passes the turnout, but if the Rambler is still located on the west bank of the turnout, it is not inconceivable that although Robert Connelly and Frank Gasser spot the Rambler, Pierre Bidou doesn't. A vehicle heading east to Benicia shines its headlights onto the eastern edge of the turnout, however the western side and the Rambler would not be illuminated."

The entire turnout is illuminated when a car passes, coming up the hill, heading east. Pierre Bidou saw NO car in the turnout because there was NO car in the turnout when he passed (circa 10:40pm).

13. "Although the hunters saw the Rambler, they couldn't see any occupants in the vehicle. This is understandable, as the Rambler is not side on, and it is immersed in darkn

Richard Grinell

4/21/2016 05:28:12 am

Ray, you said this;
a. Benicia PD arrives on the scene: 11:22 pm
b. Stella Medeiros flags down BPD at the Enco Station on East 2nd: 11:19 pm.

Richard Grinell

4/21/2016 06:10:37 am

Actually it is very upsetting to know that had Daniel Pitta and partner been informed of bodies lying on the ground in the turnout, knowing any number of assailants could be committing murder, he would not report this to Benicia PD immediately. He gallivants at breakneck speed, like Stella Medeiros at 60-70 mph on icy roads, arrives at the turnout at 11.22 pm, and poor old Pierre Bidou isn't going to be updated by dispatch until 11.28 pm, a full 9 minutes after Medeiros meets Pitta, and after arriving at the turnout Pitta still waits another 6 minutes. Hmmm. No wonder they never caught anybody, they sent dispatch messages using smoke signals. And maybe Bidou was tucking into some Branston Pickle sandwiches in a turnout on the way back to Benicia PD. I know marijuana gives you the munchies.

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 10:26:19 am

13. "Although the hunters saw the Rambler, they couldn't see any occupants in the vehicle. This is understandable, as the Rambler is not side on, and it is immersed in darkness, and equally understandable that Pierre Bidou failed to notice the vehicle at all, possibly preoccupied with his recent drugs seizure."

How could David Faraday have moved his car on a pitch dark road without having his lights on? And Pierre Bidou emphasized the need, in the Fincher DVD commentary, of keeping teenagers out of that Gate #10 turnout. When Tom Voigt and Ed Neil were talking in the turnout during their documentary in 2004, a California Highway Patrol vehicle driving by noticed them and immediately pulled in to investigate.

14. "Is it likely the Zodiac Killer pulled alongside the Rambler, and David Faraday just sat there for an extended period, with a stranger just sitting in his vehicle only a few feet away, or is it more likely that he prepared himself to leave. But how did the Rambler return from the west bank, to facing the eastern edge, between Pierre Bidou passing and Zodiac arriving. This is where a leap of faith is required."

No leap of faith is required. The Yours and James Owen saw the Rambler parked on the eastern side of the turnout, and that's where the car was when Stella drove by and when Benicia PD arrived. Connley, who drove by between the Yours and Owen, thought he saw the car on the western side, facing south. Connley was simply wrong about the positioning of the car.

15. "One possibility is David Faraday had a change of heart about leaving and returned to his original spot, or as the Zodiac signaled into the turnout, he approached the Rambler from behind, forcing David Faraday back across the turnout. Whatever the case, if the eyewitnesses are correct, then David Faraday definitely shifted position from the Connelly sighting to the arrival of James Owen."

Or Connley was just wrong about the positioning of the car, which makes much more sense.

16. "Shortly after James Owen passes the turnout, David Faraday prepares to leave, Zodiac exits his vehicle, fires into the headliner of the Rambler (the sound James Owen hears 30 seconds past the turnout), and the rest is history."

The killer's first shot could not have been into the headliner, according to Scott Bullock, since a .22 could only make a hole that big if the shot was fired from close range, and not perpendicular to the surface.

17. "If this was the same Chevrolet Impala throughout, it could be argued that this vehicle was traveling back and forth along the Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs regions for just over two hours and 15 minutes, with the occupant/s taking time to exit the Rambler, and leave the Chevrolet Impala vacated in the turnout for a period of time, as testified by Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesher earlier in the nights proceedings. This would be consistent with somebody stalking the area, looking for potential victims."

It wouldn't make much sense for a stalker to park in the Gate #10 turnout, which would only have the effect of scaring off potential vicitms, and then walking around in 22° cold in pitch darkness where you can't see your hand in front of your face. Plus, they were out in the middle of nowhere.

Greg H.

4/20/2016 09:52:17 pm

^ Pompous know-it-all ass. You must feel good about yourself in believing that you have superseded the level of mere Zodiac 'hobbyist.' Making real strides in life, I see. No, in its place you have quite sadly lost your mind somewhere along the years and turned into a mad-at-the-world fascist-zealot, intolerant to anyone's ideas or points of view that differ from your own. Do we have it straight that you're suggesting there were four separate murderers and the crimes are not linked? Yes, this is indeed a highly conventional theory! Quite true, I'm sure, among yourself and the 3 or 4 others on the planet who accept such this premise as fact. I try to not ever get argumentative with people over the internet because I think it's a sign of very weak character; but I was left seriously incredulous over your response. Richard's consistently done great research on the case and has been always been a classy person to boot. It's fine to disagree, but if you're going to be rude and insulting to people (and refer to yourself in the third-person!) you should expect the same in return. Till you can grasp this very simple concept I'd suggest you put that pickle back in your mouth.

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 12:06:59 am

Hey, Greg H--

If there's something you'd like to say to me, little boy, here's some advice:

Step out into the sunlight, tell us your name, show us your face. Otherwise, STFU.

"Do we have it straight that you're suggesting there were four separate murderers and the crimes are not linked?"

No, you have me confused with Thomas Horan, who says something along those lines. Why don't you actually read my work before you decide to comment on it?

"Richard's consistently done great research on the case and has been always been a classy person to boot."

Again, if you bothered to read anything I've written, you would know that I've had (mostly) good things to say about Richard Grinell. I point out, in the very post you're so offended by, that Richard has (correctly) corrected me several times, and this despite the fact that I've been writing about the case for 30 years, and he's barely been following it for three. Go on any of the Zodiac websites and try to find anyone willing to admit they've been corrected by another poster. I'm guessing you won't find a single instance.

"It's fine to disagree, but if you're going to be rude and insulting to people (and refer to yourself in the third-person!) you should expect the same in return."

In the particular instance you're citing, I referred to myself in the third person to avoid the possible confusion using a pronoun would have caused.

"Till you can grasp this very simple concept I'd suggest you put that pickle back in your mouth."

Branston Pickle is a running joke between Richard and myself which you obviously didn't get. Maybe if I shoved the entire jar up your arse . . .

Greg H.

4/21/2016 10:30:08 pm

"If there's something you'd like to say to me, little boy, here's some advice:

Step out into the sunlight, tell us your name, show us your face. Otherwise, STFU."

Sorry but I wouldn't publicize my name for lowlife psychopaths such as yourself to get hold of it. You obviously have nothing going for yourself, living a pathetic existence obsessed with the Zodiac Killer penning self-published ebooks sold over Amazon which no one buys. And those who do waste their $3 on it only tell you what crap it is whereby you then spend days in reply, simultaneously insulting them whilst trying to uncover the reasons they don't like your work. You're the clown who I recall is so insecure that he talleyed the average Amazon user ratings for every Zodiac book and then went to pains to compare those ratings to his own.

I bet you'd like my full name and address...you'd probably put on a little Zodiac hood and try stalking me, just like your hero. Sorry you clown I have a wife and family and wouldn't put that at risk over an unstable individual like yourself. When you get dressed up in your little Zodiac outfit maybe you can include a cute picture inside your next pathetic publication. I'll be sure to buy that one.

"Maybe if I shoved the entire jar up your arse . . ."

Says the feeble 80 year old man.

Get lost, you sad bastard troll.

Ray Grant link

4/22/2016 02:48:50 am

"Sorry but I wouldn't publicize my name for lowlife psychopaths such as yourself to get hold of it."

No board-certified clinical psychologist would base a diagnosis such as psychopathy on an exchange of posts on an Internet message board or website.

When I was an intern at the Western Psychiatric Hospital in Pittsburgh back in the early 1970s, as part of my training for a degree in Psychology, I took a series of diagnostic tests. I wasn't found to be either a lowlife or psychopath on any of them, but they did tell me I was EXTREMELY HIGH-FUNCTIONING.

"You obviously have nothing going for yourself, living a pathetic existence obsessed with the Zodiac Killer penning self-published ebooks sold over Amazon which no one buys."

If I have nothing going for myself, and live a pathetic existence, but I'm still willing to tell people who I am and what I think, what does that say about someone who says a lot of nasty things while hiding behind a mask?

As I've stated many times, I'm not a Zodiac buff; I have no interest whatsoever in most of the areas of inquiry to be found on Zodiac Killer message boards. My interest in the case stems entirely from a correspondence I had with Gareth Penn while we were both members of American Mensa in the mid-1980s.

As to no one buying my books, I've sold 220 copies of ZODIAC KILLER SOLVED in about ten months, which makes that title the third most active among Zodiac Killer books, behind the first Graysmith book and the Gary Stewart book, both of which were published by actual publishing houses.

"And those who do waste their $3 on it only tell you what crap it is whereby you then spend days in reply, simultaneously insulting them whilst trying to uncover the reasons they don't like your work."

ZODIAC KILLER SOLVED costs $1.99; ZODIAC KILLER FOR DUMMIES costs 99¢. Buying both books would still cost you less than $3. So I don't know what you mean by those who waste their $3 on "it."

As to ZODIAC KILLER SOLVED's readers telling me what crap it is, I've gotten 3 negative reviews and 3 positive reviews. I analyzed the three negative reviews because it's clear they're what's known in the industry as "hatchet jobs." They aren't honest assessments of the book. For example, if you read the comments section after Chris Morello's review, I point out, among other things, that 97% of his very negative review was written about material that's available in the book's free preview. So if he had such an adverse reaction to the preview, why did he buy the book?

"You're the clown who I recall is so insecure that he talleyed the average Amazon user ratings for every Zodiac book and then went to pains to compare those ratings to his own."

I may be a lot of things; insecure isn't one of them. I tallied the reviews for each Zodiac Killer book listed on Amazon, not so much to compare those ratings with my own, but to point out that most reviews on Amazon are positive. If people are enthusiastic about a book, they may write a review about it; if they're disappointed with a book, they tend to just move on. If I'm not mistaken, the average book review on Amazon is in the 4-star range. And books that are significantly below that mark are either REALLY bad (Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, for example, which, by the way, mentions me on page 421) or really off the beaten path, such that readers don't know how to react to them. I believe I've gotten a higher percentage of negative reviews than most, mainly because I have a lot of enemies who are Zodiac hobbyists. But most readers don't review the book because it says something they find hard to get their heads around (that the infamous Zodiac Killer was actually multiple people).

"I bet you'd like my full name and address... "

Why would I like your full name and address? You show up in the comments section of an Internet website about the Zodiac Killer, and it's clear you don't know the case very well and don't bring anything to the table. I'm sure there's a public restroom wall out there better suited to your talents.

Richard Grinell

4/21/2016 03:23:32 am

Here I shall outline some points regarding the above article. I know we disagree Ray on some major points, but I have never stated I have the monopoly on the truth. We have differing opinions on the timeline, ballistics and the number of assailants, yet the moral high ground I will not seek. Here are some bullet points;
The first thing I stated before constructing this timeline was "so in this instance we will try to create a plausible timeline of events sticking as closely to the eyewitness statements as humanly possible and see what manifests as a result." At no point have I said this is the answer, it was constructed as if all the eyewitnesses were correct and examined if this were possible.
I agreed with you that it is extremely unlikely Pierre Bidou missed spotting the Rambler on the eastern edge, as you quite rightly pointed out in your observations. However Robert Connelly passed the turnout around 11.05 pm, and saw the Rambler by the west bank. He had earlier passed the turnout and observed the empty Chevrolet Impala, so it may have been natural to him to glance into the turnout on exiting the scene, to see if the Impala was still there, yet saw the Rambler instead. You stated this in your analysis "A car turning east shines its headlights into the eastern side of the gate #10 turnout, and a car traveling west does not shine its headlights into the eastern side of the turnout." This analysis is 100% true. But as you can see by your diagram, a vehicle traveling east does NOT shine its headlights into the western edge of the turnout. If this area of the turnout is not illuminated by headlights approaching, is it not conceivable a passing motorist could fail to notice a vehicle parked on the western bank. It is I contest possible. This is the only possible way, other than no Rambler being present, that Pierre Bidou could fail to spot the Rambler in situ.
"we did not see or observe anyone in that area, because it's a turn there and your headlights shine right in there as you go by". That's right Pierre, but not the western edge.
The second point you make that I agree with is "Pierre Bidou is on the road for less than five minutes, but his testimony is crucial."
His testimony is crucial, that is until we choose to ignore it.
" My partner and I turned around at that time and responded to the call."
"were on the way to deposit some marijuana in the police department's evidence locker, when they were dispatched back to Lake Herman Road."
By his accounts they drove from the cottage to the police station, and this is crucial. Yes he may have stopped somewhere en route to the BPD to grab a bite to eat, before proceeding. However if he left Lake Herman Road at 10.40 pm as you stated, he reaches BPD at 10.45-10.47, if he heads there directly, half an hour before the shooting on LHR, which means he did not turn around almost immediately and head back to the scene. But in every interview and written document I have ever read, never once has Bidou mentioned an unscheduled stop back en route to BPD, he always maintains he literally got the call as he pulled into the Benicia parking lot. This is his crucial statement and I have no reason to question this trained officer. He said it himself, "We felt we were only minutes from the crime scene when it actually happened." Not half an hour out.
This is the timeline that fits with Bidou passing the turnout, just after Connelly and the Rambler being on the western edge, as Connelly stated, and likely why Bidou may have missed it. Because it wasn't on the eastern edge. But like I said above, this timeline was generated as if all the eyewitness statements, as near as damn it, true. This doesn't claim the ultimate monopoly of the truth.

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 06:52:31 am

"I have never stated I have the monopoly on the truth."

Neither have I. If someone has a point to make about the evidence, I'm open to it, and I've changed my mind about several details.

"But as you can see by your diagram, a vehicle traveling east does NOT shine its headlights into the western edge of the turnout. If this area of the turnout is not illuminated by headlights approaching, is it not conceivable a passing motorist could fail to notice a vehicle parked on the western bank. It is I contest possible. This is the only possible way, other than no Rambler being present, that Pierre Bidou could fail to spot the Rambler in situ."

I just looked at This Is The Zodiac Speaking; the car passes the turnout at the 3:40-3:45 point in the LHR documentary. It's true that the headlights do not shine directly into the western side of the turnout; however, that side of the turnout is still visible during a drive-by heading east. Would the car be LESS visible in that position? Yes, but the only witness who puts the vehicle on that side of the turnout is Robert Connley (11:05pm). Peggy Your (11:00pm), James Owen (11:09:25pm), Stella Medeiros (11:14:30pm), and Benicia PD (11:22pm) all have the car on the eastern side, and even you can't provide a convincing explanation for why David Faraday would go from the eastern side to the western side and then back to the eastern side.

Since no one is disputing that the Faraday station wagon was in the turnout from about 10:50pm onward, the real issue here is whether the Rambler was in the turnout before then. By placing the Bidou drive-by at 11:11pm-11:12pm, you remove the Bidou drive-by circa 10:40pm, when he saw NO car in the turnout. But, as I've demonstrated, that statement is consistent with what was seen by Crow (9:35pm), Connley (10pm), Wesher (10pm), Axe's sailor boy friend (10:15pm), Gasser (10:20pm), and then, presumably again, by Axe's sailor boy friend on the way back (10:30pm), where the vehicle in the turnout is now facing the road just prior to pulling out and heading west. This testimony is also consistent with what Stan the 14-year-old says, with the Axe car (the blue Olds) leading a Chevy Impala off the western end of the road, though we have to adjust the time of his sighting from 10:30pm to about 10:37pm.

In other words, the white Chevy Impala exited the turnout circa 10:31pm, a minute or so after the second Axe drive-by, and the turnout was then vacant when Pierre Bidou and his partner drove by (10:40pm), which is exactly what he says.

To put the Rambler in the turnout prior to 10:45pm-10:50pm, we have to make all sorts of assumptions about what David Faraday did, about what Pierre Bidou did, about what Robert Connley saw, and so forth.

And I don't blame those who want David Faraday to be in the turnout from about 10:15pm onward, because if he didn't get there until circa 10:45pm-10:50pm, that means he relocated his car, driving in the opposite direction of Betty Lou's house, at just the point in the evening when he should have been heading back to the Jensen home.

Keep in mind that when I dispute Peggy Your's statement, it's because Peggy doesn't just say she saw the Rambler—I don't dispute that at all—but she says she saw the victims making several movements behind a closed driver's window when her car's headlights flashed on the station wagon, and that, as I've demonstrated, is science fiction. The headlights would not have shone on the car, she could not have seen through the glare on the window (particularly if it had been Homer's high beams), and she certainly could not have seen what was going on for several seconds behind the closed window of a dark car.

"But in every interview and written document I have ever read, never once has Bidou mentioned an unscheduled stop back en route to BPD, he always maintains he literally got the call as he pulled into the Benicia parking lot. This is his crucial statement and I have no reason to question this trained officer."

I'm assuming he doesn't mention stopping for lunch because it's not pertinent to the inquiry. Bidou says he got the dispatch call circa 11:28pm, just after he pulled into the police lot. He would not have received a dispatch call at 11:22pm, because that's the earliest the initial responding officers would have been pulling into the Gate #10 turnout, and the dispatcher would not have known where to direct Bidou or anyone else until the responding officers checked out what Stella told them on East 2nd Avenue.

So the dispatch comes at 11:28pm. So for Bidou to have come directly from passing the Gate #10 turnout, he would have to have passed it 8-10 minutes earlier, or circa 11:18pm-11:20pm. Since he had to have passed the turnout prior to the murders, this means the murders didn't take place until circa 11:20pm. Since the murders had to have taken at least 3-4 minutes even by my estimate, and since Stella could not have arrived until at least a minute or

Ray Grant link

4/24/2016 01:27:10 pm

"But in every interview and written document I have ever read, never once has Bidou mentioned an unscheduled stop back en route to BPD, he always maintains he literally got the call as he pulled into the Benicia parking lot. This is his crucial statement and I have no reason to question this trained officer."

I assume he doesn't mention stopping for lunch because it's not pertinent to the inquiry. Bidou says he got the dispatch call circa 11:28pm, just after he pulled into the police lot. He would not have received a dispatch call at 11:22pm, because that's the earliest the initial responding officers would have been pulling into the Gate #10 turnout, and the dispatcher would not have known where to direct Bidou or anyone else until the responding officers checked out what Stella told them.

So the dispatch comes at 11:28pm. So for Bidou to have come directly from passing the Gate #10 turnout, he would have to have passed it 8-10 minutes earlier, or circa 11:18pm-11:20pm. Since he had to have passed the turnout prior to the murders, this means the murders didn't take place until circa 11:20pm. Since the murders had to have taken at least 3-4 minutes even by my estimate, and since Stella could not have arrived until at least a minute or so later (since otherwise she'd have seen the departing killer(s) pulling out as she was heading up the hill), now we've got Stella driving by Gate #10 circa 11:25pm, and the whole timeline falls apart.

And if you want the 11:22pm dispatch call (if Bidou somehow overheard what the first responders were telling the dispatcher as they pulled into the Gate #10 turnout), then your timeline has to conform to mine, with Stella driving by the crime scene circa 11:14:30pm, and then speeding into Benicia and seeing the cops circa 11:19pm, and so forth. If Stella goes by at 11:14:30pm, then the murders happen between Owen driving by (11:09:25pm) and Stella driving by (11:14:30pm), which means Bidou had to pass Gate #10 at least a minute or so before Owen did.

So, again, if Bidou passes Gate #10 circa 11:08:30pm at the latest, why would it take him almost 14 minutes to drive a distance that should have taken 8-10 minutes? Did he make an unscheduled stop? And if he did, aren't you now questioning this trained officer?

Why would Connley notice the Rambler on the less-illuminated side of the turnout, while two police officers, who insist they were always on the lookout for teenagers parking in that turnout, somehow missed it?

Your timeline assumes Connley was right about where the Rambler was, in conflict with the other witnesses and with where it was found, and with no good reason for David Faraday to have moved it.

Your timeline also assumes Bidou and his partner would have immediately pulled back out of the police parking lot, when they were there to log evidence of what Bidou says was a substantial drug bust at the time, and rolled on a report on their radio of a possible homicide in the Gate #10 turnout, at a time when the initial responding officers were just getting out of their cars.

"But like I said above, this timeline was generated as if all the eyewitness statements, as near as damn it, true. This doesn't claim the ultimate monopoly of the truth."

But that rarely happens in the real world. Statements to police commonly contain errors. Which is why EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY MUST BE RECONCILED WITH OTHER STATEMENTS AND WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS KNOWN.

Connley's positioning of the car is in conflict with the other witnesses, and with where the car was found, and I can't think of a logical reason for David to have moved it and then moved it back. I also can't think of a logical reason for the game of musical cars:

10pm: Wesher and Connley see the white Chevy Impala in the Gate #10 turnout.

10:05pm: The white Chevy Impala pulls OUT of the turnout.

10:10pm: The Faraday Rambler pulls INTO the turnout.

10:15pm: Helen Axe rides by and her boy friend sees the Rambler.

10:16pm: The Rambler pulls back OUT of the turnout.

10:17pm: The Impala pulls back INTO the turnout.

10:18pm: The occupants leave the Impala and walk off into the field to the east.

10:20pm: Frank Gasser walks out through Gate #10 and shines his flashlight into the unoccupied Impala.

10:22pm: The occupants come back, get back in the Impala, and pull back OUT.

10:25pm: David Faraday pulls back INTO the turnout.

10:30pm: Helen Axe rides by again, and her boy friend sees the Rambler, this time facing the road instead of facing in toward the fence.

It's much simpler to assume the car seen by all was the Impala and not the Rambler, and that Helen Axe, who was the last witness to show up and never came back despite being asked to by police, was simply providing misinformation about what she saw. She was right about there being a car parked in the turnout; she was wrong about her identification of it.

Richard

4/24/2016 02:09:00 pm

"Your timeline assumes Connley was right about where the Rambler was".
Ray, it is not my timeline, it's the witnesses timeline. Connelly stated he arrived at 9, Wesher said 10, Bidou said he just got back to the lot, Axe and co said 10.15 and 10.30. All I am trying to do is generate an order of events that corroborates all their eyewitness statements, whether they were right or wrong. I don't know if Connelly got the time wrong, Helen Axe was mistaken about the car, Owen was right or wrong, Peggy Your did or didn't see anything. They all could be wrong, they all could be right, some could be right, some could be wrong, take your pick. If I want to create another idea, I can simply choose to dismiss the person that doesn't help my new idea, but by just selecting who to believe and not to believe, based on what you believe, is up to you. For example Connelly stated the westerly position. Just because he was the only eyewitness to state this Rambler position gone 11, doesn't mean we have to disregard it as false. It may be difficult to explain, as I have found out, but it certainly is not beyond the realms of fantasy that David Faraday changed the position of the Rambler for whatever reason. It is certainly possible Helen Axe was mistaken, but I nor you can ever say with certainty one way or the other, as with Peggy.
Maybe Owen heard a shot, maybe he didn't, maybe he didn't go down Lake Herman Road at all, maybe he made the whole story up. I don't know any of these people, and attempting to judge their character, observation skills and propensity for the truth, is like trying to eat custard with chopsticks. Choosing which witnesses to believe or not, can radically alter a timeline. I only speculated on Bidou, because obviously his timeline is open ended, and calculated his timeline on his mentioning of no deviations and his parking lot turnaround.

Richard

4/24/2016 02:28:30 pm

Here's another few questions;
#1 Was the Modesto abduction the Zodiac
#2 Was Kathleen Johns truthful
#3 Where are the 1957 Chevrolet keys
#4 Did the police officer spot the keys on the back seat of the burnt out vehicle
#5 Were the mystery couple on the 23rd related to the crime.
#6 Did the couple take the keys and why
#7 Why did the abductor return to the car
#8 Why on earth would a Zodiac or Zodiacs claim a failed abduction
#9 Was the letter copying the newspaper articles or was he/they the actual responsible.
Flick a coin in the air and take your pick. The answer to most of these questions could viably be yes or no, and neither I nor you can prove it positively either way, although no doubt we will both try our damnedest.

Richard Grinell

4/21/2016 04:09:29 am

Robert Connelly and Frank Gasser from the police report;
"They described the light colored 1960 Rambler that was parked at the gate. It was parked southwest of where we finally found it."
"Insisted that the Rambler was parked on the bank. That would be on the south side."
The diagram in the police report above, indicating Connelly passed the turnout at 11.05 -11.10 pm, clearly showing the Rambler parked parallel to the west bank. Can you explain Ray, why your diagram from your book analysis has the Faraday Rambler parked on the eastern edge of the turnout as Connelly passes at 11.05 pm. He clearly states something completely different, which the sketch corroborates.
One other thing we have disagreed on. You stated "But Betty Lou ran away from the road, toward the back of the turnout.
Well here is a photograph, one from December 22nd 1968 published in the newspaper. http://www.zodiackiller.com/images/2011lhr3_1.jpg
In color here http://www.zodiacciphers.com/uploads/4/9/7/1/4971630/7097446_orig.png
It says "Russel Butterbach gazes at the spot where the bullet ridden body of Betty Lou Jensen was discovered. Leslie Lunblad points to arrow where the body of David Faraday was discovered." It is fairly evident that Betty Lou Jensen never ran to the rear of the turnout, she was found extremely close to the road. And the Rambler being in the foreground of this photograph, clearly shows Betty Lou running from the Rambler to the road and hopefully freedom, not to the rear of the turnout. Are Butterbach and Lunblad wrong, or are you maintaining that after the Zodiac's shot Betty Lou, they immediately carried her body and placed her by the road. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to misrepresent the facts.

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 07:01:33 am

"Can you explain Ray, why your diagram from your book analysis has the Faraday Rambler parked on the eastern edge of the turnout as Connelly passes at 11.05 pm. He clearly states something completely different, which the sketch corroborates."

Yes, because his positioning of the car is in conflict with the other witnesses, with where the car was found, and assumes David Faraday moved it back and forth for no logical reason. Connley was also an hour off about when he encountered Bingo Wesher; he says it happened at 9pm, when it clearly happened circa 10pm.

"It is fairly evident that Betty Lou Jensen never ran to the rear of the turnout, she was found extremely close to the road. And the Rambler being in the foreground of this photograph, clearly shows Betty Lou running from the Rambler to the road and hopefully freedom, not to the rear of the turnout. Are Butterbach and Lunblad wrong, or are you maintaining that after the Zodiac's shot Betty Lou, they immediately carried her body and placed her by the road. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to misrepresent the facts."

Okay, have it your way. She ran toward the road. This is like arguing what Fouke and Zelms did and what the killer told them. It has no bearing on the murder itself. You convinced me that the Zodiac must have redirected Fouke and Zelms, going by their route after the encounter. If Betty Lou ran toward the road, that just means that when the Zodiacs released her and told her to run, she ran toward the road. But she and David were still killed by mulitple Zodiacs, not one.

Richard Grinell

4/21/2016 04:30:38 am

You said this above Ray "Helen Axe wasn't even looking toward the turnout as her car passed it; her sailor boy friend saw the car, and it was the white Chevy Impala, not the Faraday Rambler."
You said this on ZodiacKiller.com forum: "As I said, I don'€™t think Helen Axe was deliberately trying to mislead anyone. I think she remembered seeing a car parked in the turnout that night when she and her boy-friend went back-and-forth, and then when she saw the footage of the Faraday station wagon on the TV news, convinced herself it was the same car she saw.
There was nothing unreasonable about that conclusion. She saw a car parked in the turnout Friday night. Then, sometime over the weekend, she found out that the victims were murdered as they were parked in that turnout, less than an hour after she and her boy-friend had driven away. It was a natural assumption for her to make, under the circumstances."
There is some conflict in this statement and MISS [Axe] has consented to bring her boy-friend 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. Noting this discrepancy, the RO contacted her by telephone on this date 12/28/68 at 12:00noon."

"What the report suggests is that Helen Axe initially called the police and described the car as facing the road. Then when she made her statement in person, the car was initially described as facing inward, and then, when she came back 15 minutes later, facing the field (presumably the field across the road, which means it was facing out toward the road but not quite perpendicular). The police then noticed the discrepancy and called her on the phone, and Helen Axe agreed to bring her boy-friend in to clarify the statement, but there's no record of any such follow-up in the police report."

I thought she wasn't looking in the turnout, can you please clarify.

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 07:07:16 am

She clearly wasn't looking at the turnout during one of the drive-bys (10:15pm or 10:30pm), since her boy friend apparently said the car was facing in at 10:15pm, and facing the road at 10:30pm, and the police then asked her to bring her boy friend in to clarify. If she'd been looking at the turnout during both drive-bys, she would presumably not need to bring the boy friend in to talk to the police (which she didn't do anyway).

Ray Grant link

4/21/2016 11:07:01 am

"Ray, you said this;
a. Benicia PD arrives on the scene: 11:22 pm
b. Stella Medeiros flags down BPD at the Enco Station on East 2nd: 11:19 pm."

I think those are Graysmith's times, but they're ballpark. I usually say that the encounter at 1925 East 2nd Avenue was at 11:19pm (a reasonable time if she drove past Gate #10 circa 11:14:30pm and then speeded into Benicia at 60mph-70mph). I usually estimate the arrival of Benicia PD at Gate #10 between 11:22pm and 11:26pm. If Stella flagged them down at 11:19pm, 11:22pm seems a bit quick, considering that she'd have had to breathlessly explain what she saw first.

"Actually it is very upsetting to know that had Daniel Pitta and partner been informed of bodies lying on the ground in the turnout, knowing any number of assailants could be committing murder, he would not report this to Benicia PD immediately."

I know you're being "saterical" here, but Standard Operating Procedure—particularly in a place like Benicia where, as Pierre Bidou pointed out, a major crime in 1968 would be shoplifting or a bar fight—would be to send a radio unit to the scene first to see what was going on. It wouldn't make much sense for the entire night shift (a handful of cars) to be redirected to a turnout on Lake Herman Road when all they knew was something blurted to them by a woman in a speeding vehicle.

"He gallivants at breakneck speed, like Stella Medeiros at 60-70 mph on icy roads,"

Who said the roads were icy? They may have been frosted and slick; I doubt they were icy.

"arrives at the turnout at 11.22 pm, and poor old Pierre Bidou isn't going to be updated by dispatch until 11.28 pm, a full 9 minutes after Medeiros meets Pitta, and after arriving at the turnout Pitta still waits another 6 minutes. Hmmm."

A woman sees the bodies circa 11:14:30pm. She flags down Benicia PD circa 11:19pm. Benicia PD arrives in the turnout sometime between 11:22pm and 11:26pm. The dispatch goes out circa 11:28pm. What's wrong with those response times? Nothing.

Check out page 27 from Helter Skelter. Remember, it was LAPD, and they were arriving at one of the most notorious mass murder events in American history.

http://www.amazon.com/Helter-Skelter-Story-Manson-Murders/dp/0393322238/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461260845&sr=1-1&keywords=Helter+Skelter - reader_0393322238

The response times for the Lake Herman Road murders were good to exemplary. I doubt seriously that Stella Medeiros had told the officers, "The very first murders of the notorious Zodiac Killer were just committed in the Gate #10 turnout! People will be writing about these events on message boards five decades from now! Hurry!"

"No wonder they never caught anybody, they sent dispatch messages using smoke signals. And maybe Bidou was tucking into some Branston Pickle sandwiches in a turnout on the way back to Benicia PD. I know marijuana gives you the munchies."

Come to think of it, Star Trek: The Original Series debuted in the fall of 1966, which means that transporters were probably available to police agencies on the West Coast.

And that joke about the BP sandwiches was a bit cheesy.

s. Johnson

4/21/2016 06:19:04 pm

I re-read some of the LHR police reports/interviews to see if (for me) any of the above scenarios answer my questions about that December night in '68. Here's what I took away from what I read, as well as questions that remain unanswered.
Gasser and Connolly, the 2 hunters, see a white 4-door Impala parked at the gate at 9pm, as well as a truck coming out of the gate. Bingo Washer verifies that was him, and he saw the Impala and the red truck.

Bingo Washer says he also saw the Impala at 10pm when he came through the gate-and a red truck drove by. No '61 Rambler sw either time. reported.

Helen and her sailor boyfriend drive by at 1015pm and 1030pm and Helen reports she saw the Rambler and recognized it as Faraday's car in the turnout.
Helen also reports she saw a new yellow foreign car with 2 occupants--the driver a male--at approximately 1020, and this car was parked ?east? of the turnout, pointed towards Benica.
William Crow with his girlfriend in her new car were in the turnout between 9:30 and 10pm when they were chased down LHR--and then exited and drove home.
(I could not find the color or make of Crows' girlfriend's car--could that have been the car Helen saw parked off the side of the road?)
The Yours came driving down LHR @11pm. Mrs. Your was interviewed at least 3 times, and in one report she stated: we were driving slowly, inspecting the pipe laid at the side of the road. Given the nature of why they were out there--inspecting work by Mr. Your--I believe her account is pretty accurate of seeing the Rambler, noticing the kids, noticing David straighten up and put his hands on the steering wheel.
After the incident with the hunters down Marshall Rd the Yours turned around and came back, and she was more agitated. She stated she kept looking behind them to see if there were headlights or the hunters were following them. So when Peggy Your says the Rambler was in the same position on the way back....that may or may not be true.

The hunter Conolly followed approximately 5 minutes behind the Yours and he swore the Rambler was parked on the west bank--he was asked to come in and verify that as it placed the Rambler where no one else reported it. He never saw the kids in there.
****however, and this is something I've felt has not been addressed in various theories, as was noted in Offic. Pitta's supplemental report from Conolly--the raccoon hunters "did not see the occupants due to the fact the victims had reclined the seat and were in a prone position. The seat was found in this condition." It was noted in first responder's report as well that the front seat was reclined.
I know this is a small point compared to all the facts, ballistics, measurements--but it nags at me. I googled '61 Rambler station wagon and what i found was it was advertised and promoted as a family vehicle that you could go on long road trips in and never have to stay in a hotel, because the seats recline into basically a bed. I couldn't find if that was true on all models--but it was reported that the front seat was reclined--and in Pitta's report it said the victims would have been prone. Not only would no one see them, how awkward would it be to struggle to sit up after a bullet comes through the window, get your wits about you, start the car while the seat is reclined, put it in gear, etc.?
Another question--could the murdered have been standing outside and fired that first bullet in with the intention to kill--if they were basically reclined?
I think the above explains why Owens didn't see any occupants in the Rambler. I don't believe all of Owens' story either. The fact that he amended it on 12-24 to say he could have heard a shot fired a quarter mile past the turnout....really? Its 22 degrees out, he had his windows up, his radio on low, and a quarter of a mile is actually quite a distance. It's possible, of course, but unlikely in my mind, since he waited 3 days to mention it. I think his mind just filled in the thought that he heard a shot.
One last thought (for now) that occurred to me after reading all the other scenarios above. I wonder if Zodiac's car could have been parked in the shadows of the west bank and Stella just didn't see it? She stated she was driving @ 35mph when her car lights hit Betty Lou and David and the Rambler. Her attention would have been pulled right to that scene. She didn't stop but "sped off in search of help." He could have been lurking there in the shadows and then pulled out behind her, with his lights off for a period of time anyway--then exit down old LHR.

Ray Grant link

4/22/2016 07:39:24 pm

"Here's what I took away from what I read, as well as questions that remain unanswered. Gasser and Connolly, the 2 hunters, see a white 4-door Impala parked at the gate at 9pm, as well as a truck coming out of the gate. Bingo Washer verifies that was him, and he saw the Impala and the red truck. Bingo Washer says he also saw the Impala at 10pm when he came through the gate-and a red truck drove by. No '61 Rambler sw either time. reported."

Connley and Wesher had exactly ONE encounter, and it had to have taken place circa 10pm. Here is the itinerary of Connley and Gasser that evening:

1. Leave Gasser's ranch, pull onto Lake Herman Road from the eastern end.

2. Pass the Gate #10 turnout at the crest of the hill (10pm), heading west.

3. Pull into the Marshall Ranch turnout at the bottom of the same hill and park their truck, two-tenths of a mile west of Gate #10.

4. Walk across the road to the south side (10:05pm) and begin working their way up through the brush. They notice the lights on at the Dotta Ranch house (10:10pm?) They initially tree a small animal which may have been a cat (10:15pm?). Frank Gasser walks out through Gate #10 and shines his flashlight into the white Chevy Impala, which is unoccupied (10:20pm?). The hunters tree a raccoon and shoot it (10:25pm?).

5. Giving 5-10 minutes for retrieving their game, and then allowing about the same amount of time for the trip back down the hill through the brush, they cross the road to the north side circa 10:50pm. Peggy Your passes Gate #10 the first time circa 10:55pm, and the hunters say Homer pulled into the Marshall Ranch turnout about five minutes after they came back to their truck.

6. There's a menacing encounter in the Marshall Ranch turnout (10:57pm-10:59pm), and then Homer pulls back out, climbs the hill, and they pass Gate #10 a second time, this time heading east (11pm). The hunters pull out of the Marshall Ranch turnout five minutes later, climb the hill, and pass Gate #10 (11:05pm). They continue to the eastern end of the road and pull onto the highway.

Connley says he arrived on the road circa 9pm, and Connley is wrong. Wesher saw him once, and that was at 10pm (Wesher presumably tended his sheep at the same time every night). William Crow was in the turnout circa 9:35pm-9:40pm, and there was no white Chevy Impala and no sign of either Connley or Wesher.

People repeating that Connley was on Lake Herman Road at 9pm is like the gunman on the grassy knoll in the JFK assassination. There's no basis for believing it outside of Connley's own statement, but it's folklore that won't die. Zodiac hobbyists insist on believing Cheri Bates was in the RCC Library the night she was murdered, and insist on believing Connley was on Lake Herman Road at 9pm, and nothing I say or anyone else says is going to change their minds.

"Helen and her sailor boyfriend drive by at 1015pm and 1030pm and Helen reports she saw the Rambler and recognized it as Faraday's car in the turnout."

Helen Axe could not have RECOGNIZED the Faraday Rambler, because she didn't know David Faraday or Betty Lou Jensen. Helen Bridges got married in August 1965 at age 15, attended Hogan High but was two years ahead of Betty Lou, and that night was out in a car on Lake Herman Road with a man who wasn't her husband. Helen appears to have been quite wild socially; David and Betty Lou were both Little Goody Two-Shoes. They weren't neighbors, since Helen lived in a different zip code from either David or Betty Lou. She could not have known David and Betty Lou as a couple, since the victims had only known each other for seven days, and were on their first date.

When Helen says she RECOGNIZED the vehicle, she means she saw the Rambler parked in the police lot on the TV news, and ASSUMED it must have been the same car she and her sailor boy friend passed at 10:15pm and 10:30pm that night.

Only it wasn't. The car they passed was the white Chevy Impala. The Rambler wasn't seen on the road until Peggy Your passed it at 10:55pm.

"Helen also reports she saw a new yellow foreign car with 2 occupants--the driver a male--at approximately 1020, and this car was parked ?east? of the turnout, pointed towards Benica. William Crow with his girlfriend in her new car were in the turnout between 9:30 and 10pm when they were chased down LHR--and then exited and drove home. (I could not find the color or make of Crows' girlfriend's car--could that have been the car Helen saw parked off the side of the road?)"

I don't know where you're getting the information about Helen Axe saying she saw a yellow foreign car. That's news to me. William Crow says he hesitated on Reservoir Road for a minute or so after the encounter with the light-colored Chevy (circa 10:40pm-10:45pm), and then drove back home, which would have been to Vallejo via Benicia, since he appears to have avoided Lake Herman Road after the chase. So he was gone from the area after about 9:45pm. Helen Axe would presu

Ray Grant link

4/23/2016 01:12:00 am

"Helen also reports she saw a new yellow foreign car with 2 occupants--the driver a male--at approximately 1020, and this car was parked ?east? of the turnout, pointed towards Benica. William Crow with his girlfriend in her new car were in the turnout between 9:30 and 10pm when they were chased down LHR--and then exited and drove home. (I could not find the color or make of Crows' girlfriend's car--could that have been the car Helen saw parked off the side of the road?)"

I don't know where you're getting the information about Helen Axe saying she saw a yellow foreign car. That's news to me. William Crow says he hesitated on Reservoir Road for a minute or so after the encounter with the light-colored Chevy (circa 10:40pm-10:45pm), and then drove back home, which would have been to Vallejo via Benicia, since he appears to have avoided Lake Herman Road after the chase. So he was gone from the area after about 9:45pm. Helen Axe would presumably have pulled onto Lake Herman Road, again from the Vallejo side, circa 10:10pm, if she passed Gate #10 the first time circa 10:15pm. Her appearance on the road would have been about 25 minutes after William Crow left.

If anyone saw anything at 10:20pm, I'd be interested in knowing who, where, and when. I have no information about any witness statements concerning that time, other than what Frank Gasser says about shining his flashlight into the white Chevy Impala.

"The Yours came driving down LHR @11pm. Mrs. Your was interviewed at least 3 times, and in one report she stated: we were driving slowly, inspecting the pipe laid at the side of the road. Given the nature of why they were out there--inspecting work by Mr. Your--I believe her account is pretty accurate of seeing the Rambler, noticing the kids, noticing David straighten up and put his hands on the steering wheel."

Given the nature of the way light behaves on Lake Herman Road, I don't think her account of noticing the kids and noticing David straighten up and put his hands on the steering wheel is accurate at all.

"she states as they were driving West on Lake Herman Road at the turn off to the Benicia Water Pumping Station, she observed a Rambler s/w parked with front end heading East, there were two Caucasian in the front seat male and female, when the lights from the YOUR car came upon the station wagon, the male sat up in the seat. MRS. YOUR said it was a cold night and she noticed there was not any frost on the station wagon." Solano County police report, page 16

When a car approaches the Gate #10 turnout, traveling east-to-west, its low beams do NOT shine into the eastern side of the turnout. In point of fact, the low beams do not illuminate the eastern side of the turnout at all.

This can be seen in the Ultimate Zodiac Video, now available on You Tube (I have a DVD copy bought more than a decade ago), of Tom Voigt and Ed Neil standing in that very spot in 2004. Note that, starting at 7:54 of the video, the police car's headlights do NOT flash on Ed Neil, and, in fact, DO NOT EVEN INCREASE THE ILLUMINATION OF ED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbwSr5FWVq8

Note that the police car, a California Highway Patrol unit, is also traveling very slowly. It doesn't matter. Had there not be a light shining on Ed from Tom Voigt's position, Ed Neil would have been invisible at that time of night from the vantage point of the people in the police car.

The only way Homer's headlights could have flashed on the Rambler is if he had his high beams on, in which case the beams would have hit the driver door window, which was up, for a split second from about 350 feet away.

So how likely is it that Peggy Your saw David Faraday sit up and put his hands on the wheel, either from 350 feet away in the momentary glare of light against the window pane, or from a few yards away but with no outside illumination of the car, and no interior light on inside the car, and with the window up? If you watch more of that video, you will note that that area is PITCH DARK at night, such that you can't see your own hand in front of your face.

Peggy Your ASSUMES she saw something that she couldn't have seen. Period.

"After the incident with the hunters down Marshall Rd the Yours turned around and came back, and she was more agitated. She stated she kept looking behind them to see if there were headlights or the hunters were following them. So when Peggy Your says the Rambler was in the same position on the way back....that may or may not be true."

Agreed. Peggy didn't see the teenagers on her way down the hill, and was so agitated after her confrontation with the hunters, she kept looking back through her own car's rear window as Homer climbed the hill and passed Gate #10.

She didn't see the teenagers, either coming or going. Nor did anyone else.

In fact, it's striking that David and Betty Lou drove away from Sharon Henslin's house circa 9pm that night, and were never seen again until Stella Medeiros drove past the

Ray Grant link

4/23/2016 04:15:15 am

"After the incident with the hunters down Marshall Rd the Yours turned around and came back, and she was more agitated. She stated she kept looking behind them to see if there were headlights or the hunters were following them. So when Peggy Your says the Rambler was in the same position on the way back....that may or may not be true."

Agreed. Peggy didn't see the teenagers on her way down the hill, and was so agitated after her confrontation with the hunters, she kept looking back through her own car's rear window as Homer climbed the hill and passed Gate #10.

She didn't see the teenagers, either coming or going. Nor did anyone else.

In fact, it's striking that David and Betty Lou drove away from Sharon Henslin's house circa 9pm that night, and were never seen again until Stella Medeiros drove past the Gate #10 turnout circa 11:14:30pm and saw their bodies laying on the ground.

What's also striking is that no one, for two and a quarter hours, saw their car in motion.

"as was noted in Offic. Pitta's supplemental report from Conolly--the raccoon hunters "did not see the occupants due to the fact the victims had reclined the seat and were in a prone position. The seat was found in this condition." It was noted in first responder's report as well that the front seat was reclined."

Robert Graysmith says, on page 4 of Zodiac, that David Faraday pulled into the Gate #10 turnout just before 10:15pm and tilted the adjustable front seat back of the Rambler at a 45° angle. That's an assumption based on the position of the seat when the police pulled in. So what do we actually know?

1. We know that the victims were NOT in the Gate #10 turnout at 10:15pm.

2. We know that, assuming David and Betty Lou were not abducted circa 9:05pm that night (as I say they were), then David VOLUNTARILY changed the location of the car, moving it from Blue Rock Springs Park (which is where Sharon Henslin said they went after leaving her house), pulling onto Lake Herman Road (10:40pm), pulling into the Gate #10 turnout (10:45pm), and then immediately shutting off the engine and heater (since the motor was only lukewarm when Benicia PD arrived circa 11:22pm-11:26pm). Had David shut off the engine and begun cuddling with Betty Lou, the windows of the car should have frosted over quickly on a night when the temperature was 22°.

3. David moved the car from a place which was 3.2 miles from the Jensen home, to a place that was 5.6 miles from the Jensen home, and he did that at a time that virtually guaranteed that he would exceed the 11pm curfew. AND THEN HE LOWERED THE FRONT SEAT BACK TO A COMFORTABLE 45°.

In other words, David and Betty Lou were "friendly" at that point, and David, despite having the drive to clear his head, had decided to flip off her parents and throw caution to the wind, even though an inventory of his pockets would show the absence of the blue square of a condom. Talk about someone turning from Jekyll to Hyde!

And yet, David still had that ring in his fingers when his body was checked at the hospital. And Betty Lou's autopsy says her bladder was full of urine, so despite her discomfort, she raised no objections and didn't ask, "What are you DOING?" when David made the left turn onto Lake Herman Road at 10:40pm.

Peggy Your can't possibly see the victims in the car, but somehow remembers David sitting up and putting his hands on the wheel when the Yours passed. Five minutes later, despite her looking out the back window to see if the hunters were chasing them, she says the two teenagers were still in the same position as when she initially didn't see them. And neither Connley not Owen sees anyone inside or around the car(s).

If I'm the killer(s), all I have to do is reach into the car after I've shot the victims and press the lever on the side of the front seat to lower it, and thereby give the false impression that the teenagers were cuddling.

"I know this is a small point compared to all the facts, ballistics, measurements--but it nags at me. I googled '61 Rambler station wagon and what i found was it was advertised and promoted as a family vehicle that you could go on long road trips in and never have to stay in a hotel, because the seats recline into basically a bed. I couldn't find if that was true on all models--but it was reported that the front seat was reclined--and in Pitta's report it said the victims would have been prone. Not only would no one see them, how awkward would it be to struggle to sit up after a bullet comes through the window, get your wits about you, start the car while the seat is reclined, put it in gear, etc.?"

There were magazine illustrations of four family members sleeping in the rear storage area of the Rambler station wagon. One would have thought that, if that had been David's idea, he would have used the rear storage area instead of the front seat, which would have had the additional advantage of making the couple less visible.

"Another questio

Ray Grant link

4/23/2016 05:01:10 am

"Another question--could the murdered have been standing outside and fired that first bullet in with the intention to kill--if they were basically reclined?"

Then why fire the shot into the header?

"I think the above explains why Owens didn't see any occupants in the Rambler. I don't believe all of Owens' story either. The fact that he amended it on 12-24 to say he could have heard a shot fired a quarter mile past the turnout....really? Its 22 degrees out, he had his windows up, his radio on low, and a quarter of a mile is actually quite a distance. It's possible, of course, but unlikely in my mind, since he waited 3 days to mention it. I think his mind just filled in the thought that he heard a shot."

Owen's original statement was taken AT the scene during processing by police, on the morning after, on his way home from work. His second statement was taken at headquarters. I don't see any problem with his second statement being more elaborate. Plus, as Mike Morford seems at pains to ignore, it's entirely possible that Owen DID mention the shot during his first interview at the scene, and the officer taking his statement didn't write it down because of the chaotic nature of the crime scene. It's possible he mentioned it to one officer and then did not repeat everything to the one who notated it. If you watch the Fincher movie Zodiac, particularly the crime scene at Washington & Cherry, you will note that the two detectives don't always hear the same story from the same witness, and then end up correcting each other. That happens in real life as well. In any case, I have no problem with Owen mentioning the shot several days later, after he'd had time to think about what he'd experienced.

"One last thought (for now) that occurred to me after reading all the other scenarios above. I wonder if Zodiac's car could have been parked in the shadows of the west bank and Stella just didn't see it? She stated she was driving @ 35mph when her car lights hit Betty Lou and David and the Rambler. Her attention would have been pulled right to that scene. She didn't stop but "sped off in search of help." He could have been lurking there in the shadows and then pulled out behind her, with his lights off for a period of time anyway--then exit down old LHR."

Stella's headlights would have lit up the scene, plus the interior light from the station wagon would have been on. Plus a person suddenly happening upon two bodies on the ground will instinctively shift his eyes around to see if their killer is still nearby. She didn't see the Zodiac's car because it wasn't there.

s johnson

4/24/2016 07:31:49 pm

After(again!) re-reading the police files, newspaper clippings, etc it does seem true that the white impala was seen at the gate at 10pm-ish and so it seems likely that Helen Axe saw the impala and not the station wagon.
The file on the new model, yellow foreign car that Helen reported seeing at 10:20 is #42 on the zodiac killer facts site--in the LHR murder section--police reports.
I was thinking--the Yours, the hunters, Bingo--verified each others presence on LHR and , even tho they did not create a tight timeline, they provide a time framework.
Owens, while not seen on the road, did show up at work, so I assume he clocked in. Stella M's "timeline" was established by ROs.
Crow and Axe, however, are independent in their estimates of the times they were driving on LHR. I don't know if the "new model, yellow foreign car" was Crow's girlfriends....I know Crow mention something about the toggle switch and I think that would be rare on a new American car. But, if Helen Axe did pass the turnout at 10:15 and saw the white impala, and then a little further down the road saw the foreign car, it adds a twist to the night.

Ray Grant link

4/24/2016 08:00:35 pm

"Ray, it is not my timeline, it's the witnesses timeline."

There's no such thing as the witness's timeline. Robert Connley wasn't trying to reconstruct what actually happened on the road that night. He was just giving the police a statement of how events transpired from his vantage point.

You have to reconcile conflicting witness statements, because conflicting statements are always going to be there in a case of this complexity. Check out David Belin's book You Are The Jury, where he attempts to make this very point to JFK conspiracy theorists: there are conflicting details in the witness accounts of almost all murders. I explain this phenomenon in my book. You did read the book, right?

You have people like Greg H who call me a pompous know-it-all, and yet, when I take the time to explain my reasoning process in detail, and you respond to it, it becomes clear that you didn't bother to listen. So what, exactly, do you want from me?

"Connelly stated he arrived at 9, Wesher said 10, Bidou said he just got back to the lot, Axe and co said 10.15 and 10.30."

I've already explained why I believe what I believe. Am I blue in the face yet?

"All I am trying to do is generate an order of events that corroborates all their eyewitness statements, whether they were right or wrong.'

What the Hell is that supposed to mean? If a witness was wrong about some detail, and witnesses are wrong about details all the time, then bending over backward to corroborate that wrong detail is just going to lead you astray.

You seem to believe that I'm favoring one witness over another, and as I've already stated numerous times, I don't treat witnesses as if they're either reliable or unreliable. I look at what they actually say and assume they're correct. And then, when there's a conflict between witnesses about some detail, I look at all the statements and the given circumstances and then make a judgment about which detail to believe.

I believe everything Robert Connley says, with two exceptions:

1, he couldn't have been on the road at 9pm; and

2, he likely was wrong about the positioning of the Rambler in the turnout.

"I don't know if Connelly got the time wrong, Helen Axe was mistaken about the car, Owen was right or wrong, Peggy Your did or didn't see anything. They all could be wrong, they all could be right, some could be right, some could be wrong, take your pick."

Then there's no point in my continuing to talk to you. As Dr. Johnson said, "I'm obliged to give you an argument. I'm not required to get you an understanding."

"If I want to create another idea, I can simply choose to dismiss the person that doesn't help my new idea, but by just selecting who to believe and not to believe, based on what you believe, is up to you."

As I've demonstrated, you can believe Bidou went straight from Lake Herman Road to the Benicia PD parking lot, but you can't make it work. Regardless of when Bidou pulled into the lot and heard the dispatch, you still have to fit the murders (2-3 minutes minimum) and Helen's drive-by (at least a minute later) and her trip into Benicia (3-4 minutes?) within that 8-10 minute drive back to the station, and that's assuming the dispatch was made almost immediately after Helen flagged down the officers. Good luck.

"For example Connelly stated the westerly position. Just because he was the only eyewitness to state this Rambler position gone 11 [sic], doesn't mean we have to disregard it as false. It may be difficult to explain, as I have found out, but it certainly is not beyond the realms of fantasy that David Faraday changed the position of the Rambler for whatever reason."

One witness puts the Rambler in that position, everyone else puts it facing (generally) east, and that's how the car was found, and you can't even supply a good reason for David to reposition the car that way. This debating technique is called Grasping At Straws.

"It is certainly possible Helen Axe was mistaken, but I nor you can ever say with certainty one way or the other, as with Peggy."

That's not an argument; that's just a refusal to deal with MY argument.

"Maybe Owen heard a shot, maybe he didn't, maybe he didn't go down Lake Herman Road at all, maybe he made the whole story up. I don't know any of these people, and attempting to judge their character, observation skills and propensity for the truth, is like trying to eat custard with chopsticks. Choosing which witnesses to believe or not, can radically alter a timeline. I only speculated on Bidou, because obviously his timeline is open ended, and calculated his timeline on his mentioning of no deviations and his parking lot turnaround."

Then why put up a website and attempt to reason your way through the facts in the case? You just don't LIKE the conclusions I've come to, and you don't have an argument against any of it. I get that.

Ray Grant link

4/24/2016 08:09:37 pm

I will answer your queries quickly before walking out the door:

#1 Was the Modesto abduction the Zodiac

Didn't read the book, eh? Yes.

#2 Was Kathleen Johns truthful

About what?

#3 Where are the 1957 Chevrolet keys
#4 Did the police officer spot the keys on the back seat of the burnt out vehicle

Offhand I don't remember what I said about the keys. I could check my notes but why bother? You aren't listening anyway.

#5 Were the mystery couple on the 23rd related to the crime.

I believe everyone who checked on the car was associated with Kathleen Johns. She says in the Graysmith book that she checked the car to see if it was salvageable.

#6 Did the couple take the keys and why

Don't remember, and it's not worth checking for you.

#7 Why did the abductor return to the car

I explain that in my book.

#8 Why on earth would a Zodiac or Zodiacs claim a failed abduction

Explained in the book. Not much of a reader, are you?

#9 Was the letter copying the newspaper articles or was he/they the actual responsible.

As even Mike Butterfield has stated, there is no evidence whatsoever that the writer of the Zodiac letters ever claimed a crime that he didn't commit.

"Flick a coin in the air and take your pick. The answer to most of these questions could viably be yes or no, and neither I nor you can prove it positively either way, although no doubt we will both try our damnedest."

As I said in the post that was disliked so much by Greg H, you're interested in putting up a Jack the Ripper website, a serial killer sideshow. You don't want to remove the folklore from the case because that's what brings the crowds (apparently).

I will try my damnedest never to come back to your website, not even out of curiosity.

Have a good life, Richard.

Richard

4/24/2016 10:54:35 pm

"I'm obliged to give you an argument. I'm not required to get you an understanding."
That cuts both ways.
"Have a good life, Richard."
You too Ray..

Comments are closed.

THE WHITE CHEVROLET IMPALA [PART 2]

Archives