WEST OF INTERSTATE 5

4/27/2016

Kathleen Johns, pregnant and accompanied by her 10 month old daughter Jennifer, were traveling along Highway 132, west of Modesto, en route to Petaluma, California, when the routine journey she had taken many times before, was to become slightly less routine. She was to make the near fatal mistake of stopping on a deserted highway at approximately 11.45 pm at night, ushered to the side of the road by a passing motorist flashing his headlights and gesturing towards her 1957 Chevrolet.
Believing he was indicating a fault with her vehicle, Kathleen Johns drew over to the side of the road. The man reversed his vehicle, described as a light tan, late model, American made, 2-door, with old style California plates, and pulled up behind her, before approaching her vehicle. He explained that her wheel appeared loose, offering to tighten it up for her, and she duly obliged. This innocent error was to begin a chain of events that are still not fully understood to this day and have initiated countless years of debate, on whether the man who approached Kathleen Johns car that fateful night was actually the Zodiac Killer, and the 'proposed madman' responsible for unleashing terror in the Bay Area of Northern California, and bringing the 'Summer of Love' into the summer of fear just two short years later.

Kathleen Johns

The man appeared to be tightening the lug bolts on Kathleen Johns 1957 Chevrolet, before bidding her farewell. However, after continuing her journey just a matter of yards along the road, she was forced to bring her vehicle to an abrupt full stop. It seemed that whatever the man had done resulted in her vehicle being temporarily disabled. Seconds later the man reappeared offering her further assistance, a lift to the nearest service station. Obviously Kathleen Johns, stranded in the middle of nowhere with a 10 month old infant, was left with limited options, and with an Arco Service Station nearby, in all likelihood reluctantly accepted. In Robert Graysmith's book Zodiac he stated that when the abductor offered Kathleen a lift to the nearest service station "Kathleen gathered up Jennifer and got into the man's car. Just as they were pulling out, she noticed that the lights to her car were still on and remembered that the keys were still in the ignition. The man smiled, went back to her car, snapped off the lights, and pocketed the keys." This is where her supposed ordeal began.
In the police report she described the man as a WMA, approximately 30 years, 5'9", 160 lbs, dark hair, wearing dark rimmed plastic glasses, wearing a dark ski jacket and dark bell-bottomed pants. He was clean cut, having the traits of a serviceman. During her ordeal in the car she recalled his highly polished shoes reflecting the yellow lights from the car interior, likening them to Navy shoes. The suspect apparently then drove Kathleen Johns around the outskirts of Tracy, California for 1-2 hours, failing to stop at any service stations, claiming they were either closed or 'not the right ones.' In the Stanislaus County police report on 3.23.1970 she said that the mystery man "Drove around in the county area, possibly near Tracy for approximately one hour, to one and a half hours, and several times she had asked the suspect if he intended to stop at a station in order for her to seek help to have her vehicle repaired. Complainant stated the suspect was quite friendly with her, did not make any advances toward her, or threats toward her and when asked if he was going to stop he would merely elude the question and start talking about something else." On the flip side however she went on to say "She gets quite frightened, feeling that possibly the suspect intended to do some physical injury to her and that when the suspect stopped at a stop sign, the exact area or location unknown, she jumped from the vehicle carrying her daughter and ran into a field nearby, hiding from the suspect. Complainant said the suspect merely closed the door, and then had driven away." Kathleen Johns described the interior of the vehicle "as messy, she had noticed men's and children's clothing scattered about, books and papers, a black rubber handled flashlight, and two colored plastic scouring pads on the console dashboard. Kathleen estimated that the smaller patterned T-shirts were of the age range 8-12 years."

Click image to enter Google Maps

The Zodiac Killer had mercilessly slaughtered five victims in Benicia, Vallejo, Napa and San Francisco, either in total darkness using a flashlight to limit his victims ability to recognize him, wore a disguise at Lake Berryessa, and claimed that "The police shall never catch me, because I have been too clever for them. I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of the time I look entirle different. I shall not tell you what my descise consists of when I kill," in respect to being sighted by three teenagers during the murder of Paul Stine at Presidio Heights. But here we have an abductor sitting next to our victim in plain sight upwards of two hours, failing to act, considerably lighter in weight, likely more agile, and possibly a seviceman. He is in possession of 'a black rubber handled flashlight', with a fleeing woman carrying her 10 month old daughter into the darkness, yet simply "the suspect merely closed the door, and then had driven away." The Zodiac was either clearly losing his touch, he wasn't the Zodiac at all, or he simply chose not to pursue the fleeing Johns.
Earlier in proceedings Kathleen Johns stated in the police report that the suspect "went west on Highway 132 and pulled into a Richfield service station that was closed. It is believed by undersigned to be Chrisman Road," and "At one time they did come into a lighted city, which she believed to be Tracy." The question has to be asked- why did the suspect drive into a service station, when he had no intention to aid her in repairing her vehicle, yet had the cloak of seclusion since it was closed. Was he trying to help or not.
The police report went on to say "Mrs Johns then got to a roadway or highway, this part is not clear to undersigned or to the Stanislaus Deputy, Mr Lovett, but finally did get back on highway or near Highway 132, where she was given a ride by some people from Missouri." If Kathleen Johns was back on Highway 132, the suspect had apparently driven to Tracy and doubled back to near Highway 132, that ends near Chrisman Road. She was driven by the people who found her on the roadside edge to Patterson Police Station, where she spotted the Presidio Heights sketch of the Zodiac Killer on the bulletin board and declared "that was the man who picked her and her daughter up." Her car was located by Deputy Lovett, burnt out near Bird Road, slightly west of Interstate 5 and exactly where she had left it earlier that night. It had not been moved, despite reports claiming it had.
Mr Reed of 'Reed and Son Towing Services' advised "that he personally had not observed any keys in the vehicle when he towed the vehicle in from Highway 132, just east of Bird Road." Kathleen Johns had apparently been rescued by Highway 132, the extreme westerly edge of which is slightly over 2 miles from where her 1957 Chevrolet was found burnt out.

The abductor of Kathleen Johns had apparently left her in the field and returned back to her car and torched it. In the police report it states "On the morning of 23rd March 1970, at about 02.30 hours Mrs Kathleen Johns was brought to the Patterson Police Department in a hysterical condition." Patterson Police Station is approximately a 20 minute journey from either near the intersection of the I-5 and Highway 132 or from the western tip of Highway 132. See here. Therefore she was likely rescued by the people from Missouri around 2.10 am and taken southeast to the police station. This gives us a vague timeline.
Kathleen Johns entered the suspect's vehicle around 11.45 pm, she was driven in and around Tracy for upwards of 90 minutes, before she managed to escape. This would place her in the field at 01.15 am, almost an hour before she received help. Even at the higher end estimate of a 2 hour journey around Tracy, she is now in the field at 01.45 am, at least 25 minutes before help arrived. Had the suspect left Kathleen Johns and immediately traveled the short distance to burn her vehicle, it is plausible that anybody rescuing her and driving on Highway 132 in a westerly direction, would have passed the torched vehicle. She was likely in the field for 25-55 minutes, therefore by the time of her rescue her car was likely already burning. She didn't mention the burning vehicle to the police officers, so it's likely this route to Patterson was taken by the unknown persons from Missouri, thereby avoiding Highway 132 and the burning vehicle. The only other option is the suspect waited a prolonged period of time before torching Kathleen Johns car- but why. The whole act of torching the vehicle is unusual- it seems on the face of it unnecessary, but it must have some significance to the arsonist.
During the murder of Cheri Jo Bates in Riverside in 1966, it seemed strange that Cheri after supposedly being offered help, after her Volkswagen failed to start, would then leave her vehicle unlocked with the windows down, her study books on the seat and her keys still in the ignition, and then wander off down an alley, her vehicle totally vulnerable. That's because it likely never happened the way it was conceived to have gone down. Likewise, Graysmith stated "Kathleen gathered up Jennifer and got into the man's car. Just as they were pulling out, she noticed that the lights to her car were still on and remembered that the keys were still in the ignition. The man smiled, went back to her car, snapped off the lights, and pocketed the keys." Why would she have left her lights on and the keys in the ignition. Understandably she may have been panicking or upset, but when the man supposedly returned to his vehicle, he would have offered them to Kathleen, or at the very least she would have asked for them. The keys incidentally were never recovered.

Tracy is a 20 mile round trip from the intersection of Bird Road and Highway 132, as from the western tip of Highway 132. What was the end game of the suspect, driving apparently aimlessly around for 1-2 hours, ultimately ending up back at square one, near Highway 132, driving to the closed Richfield Station and allowing the hapless Kathleen Johns, clutching her 10 month old daughter, to evade his clutches so easily. We only have Kathleen Johns word that there was ever an abduction at all, we have the mystery people from Missouri who vanished as quick as they arrived, who decided not to hang around to submit a statement, and remain anonymous to this day. It has been suggested that insurance was at the heart of this matter, but this seems an elaborate charade to achieve this, when there are far simpler ways, so one tends to dismiss this avenue. Admittedly, the account of Kathleen Johns may not be accurate in all details, it is totally understandable, by her statements she had been abducted close to midnight, she was terrified and her fate lay in the balance throughout. Howard Davis wrote on the ZodiacKiller.com forum "I blame the police reporting and the fact that she, no doubt, was filled with emotion and did not remember every detail or sequence of events, as is demanded by some cold hardcore Zodiac researcher sitting in a stuffed chair behind the computer! Picture perfect testimony they demand. Well, many are not, due to mental/emotional trauma, etc. At one point in our interview, she had to stop when she was describing the abduction, as her eyes were filled with tears and her voice was choked with emotion." One cannot argue with that.

To read more on Lawrence Kane and view previously unreleased FBI documents, kindly sent to this site by Alex Lewis, click the picture above.

According to Harvey Hines, a retired law enforcement officer, Kathleen Johns would in 1992 identify Lawrence Kane as the man who abducted her on March 22nd 1970. Hines details it in his report here. This can also be seen here in a Zodiac documentary entitled 'Hard Copy-Tracking the Zodiac Killer'.
The problem however with this identification, is that Kathleen Johns described the abductor in the police report at 'approximately 30 years'. Lawrence Kane was born in 1924, which would have made him nearly 46 years of age by the time Kathleen Johns was abducted. Furthermore he didn't look a great likeness to the Presidio Heights sketch of the Zodiac Killer. It may be a case of subtle enthusiasm on the part of Harvey Hines and Kathleen Johns eagerness to please. Attempting to identity your abductor from pre-selected photographs, some 22 years after the crime, is fraught with danger, as George Bawart did with Michael Mageau to identity Arthur Leigh Allen as his attacker.
Four months after the Modesto abduction, the Zodiac Killer would lay claim to this night, stating in a letter mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle on July 24th 1970 "This is the Zodiac speaking. I am rather unhappy because you people will not wear some nice Zodiac buttons. So now I have a little list, starting with that woeman + her baby that I gave a rather intersting ride for a coupple howers one evening a few months back that ended in my burning her car where I found them."
Although the letter writer provides nothing new on existing newspaper reports, this letter shows a different side. One could easily suggest that this confirms the Zodiac Killer was responsible for the abduction of Kathleen Johns. Why would a previously cold hearted killer, who loved to boast of his exploits, admit to a crime where he was seemingly outfoxed by a young woman carrying a 10 month old child. On March 22nd 1970 he failed to kill Kathleen Johns and appeared to allow her to escape easily across a field during a hesitation filled night. But then we are assuming his intention was to kill her all along, when maybe it wasn't.
Several months prior to the Kathleen Johns abduction, Zodiac mailed a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle on November 9th 1969 stating "I have grown rather angry with the police for their telling lies about me. So I shall change the way the collecting of slaves. I shall no longer announce to anyone. When I committ my murders, they shall look like routine robberies, killings of anger, + a few fake accidents, etc." When he loosened the lugs on Kathleen Johns vehicle, maybe this was his idea of a 'fake accident', however a fake accident that never quite materialized as he had expected, and the rest was just improvisation as you might say.

34 Comments

Ray Grant link

4/28/2016 07:41:41 am

"Her car was located by Deputy Lovett, burnt out near Bird Road, slightly west of Interstate 5 and exactly where she had left it earlier that night. It had not been moved, despite reports claiming it had."

Wrong again! Kathleen Johns, who had traveled that route many times, says she originally pulled over at the junction of Highway 132 and Interstate 5. But the car was found at the intersection of Highway 132 and Bird Road, a mile to the west.

Further reason to believe that the car was, in fact, moved, is that the RIGHT rear wheel (not the left, as is presented both in Graysmith's book and in David Fincher's movie) flew off the car and into the weeds at the side of the road (the weeds would be to the right of the roadway, not the left). This distinction was correctly made by Gian Quasar on his Bermuda Triangle website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zCxkCZlIcA

However, Quasar also incorrectly believes the car was never moved. If the car was never moved, why would her abductor go to the trouble of wading back into the weeds for the wheel and presumably rolling it back to the car and putting it back on with a couple lugs?

So you have an abductor who went to the considerable trouble of remounting a wheel that had spun off the car and into the weeds, and then getting into the car and driving it another mile west.

But wait! He's still got to get back to his own car, so he likely does that BEFORE he sets fire to hers, right? You wouldn't want to set fire to the car first and THEN walk a mile back to your own car, where if the police happened along, you might have a lot of explaining to do.

So here's the (likely) sequence:

1. He drives to the location of her car near the junction with Interstate 5.

2. He goes into the weeds and retrieves her right rear tire.

3. He reattaches the right rear wheel with a couple lugs.

4. He drives her car a mile further down the road, to the intersection w/Bird Road.

5. He then walks the mile east back to his own car.

6. He drives his own car a mile west and pulls in just behind or just in front of hers.

7. He douses her car with gasoline and looks to make sure no other cars are coming.

8. He lights a match and sets fire to her car.

9. He gets back in his own car and drives away.

That's an extremely elaborate sequence of actions, reminiscent of what the Zodiac did at Lake Berryessa, and also somewhat reminiscent of the Zodiac getting into the front seat of Paul Stine's car and hacking off the back of his shirt so he could send swatches of it in his letters.

So are you saying her abductor WAS the Zodiac, or WASN'T the Zodiac, or do you prefer to maintain your usual neutrality?

Richard

4/28/2016 11:47:46 pm

"Kathleen Johns, who had traveled that route many times, says she originally pulled over at the junction of Highway 132 and Interstate 5."

Police report: "Complainant stated she stopped her vehicle, a 1957 Chevrolet , somewhere in the area of Highway 132 and Interstate 5. She advised that the exact area is unfamiliar to her and that she was not sure where the vehicle had been stopped."

Richard

4/29/2016 12:26:38 am

Timeline of statements;
#1. Police Report; "She jumped from the vehicle carrying her daughter, and ran into a field nearby. Complainant stated the suspect merely closed the door the complainant had opened in order to leave the vehicle, and then he drives away.
#2 Police Report; "She jumped out of the vehicle with her baby and ran away from the suspect across a field and up an embankment in the dark. She said the suspect turned his lights off, moved a few feet and stopped his vehicle again and waited for approximately 5 minutes and then put his lights on and left the area. He DID NOT leave the vehicle, nor did he chase her.
#3 Graysmith: "Her heart pounded in her temples, her breath came loudly and rapidly. The car did not move. She could see the man now. He had a flashlight and was playing it about the field, searching for a glimpse of her and her baby. He called out for her to come back. The man stepped forward swinging the light. "About the same time" Kathleen told me later " this old semi-truck was going on the freeway, his lights must have flashed on the man because the driver just stopped that thing on a dime and jumped out and yelled 'What's going on' and this guy jumped in his car and split"
#4 Queue drum roll, there's a blockbuster in this. Notice the progression Ray. There will be King Kong batting bi-planes next.
Gian Quasar is correct, there is one truth, not three.
Do I believe Kathleen Johns was abducted by the Zodiac Killer, nobody can say with certainty, but when somebody constantly changes their story, and each time the trout gets 4 inches longer, the answer is an understandable no.

Ray Grant link

4/29/2016 05:35:28 am

"Police report: "Complainant stated she stopped her vehicle, a 1957 Chevrolet , somewhere in the area of Highway 132 and Interstate 5. She advised that the exact area is unfamiliar to her and that she was not sure where the vehicle had been stopped.""

The intersection of Highway 132 and Bird Road isn't "somewhere in the area of Highway 132 and Interstate 5," it's a mile west of that area.

So, are you stating, as Gian Quasar did, that the car was originally pulled over at Bird Road, and that the abductor therefore didn't move it? Or would you rather, in the manner of Zodiac hobbyists since Time Immemorial, simply abstain from making a definite statement, and instead keep things nice and vague?

The car was moved by the abductor before he torched it; otherwise, there would be no reason to go to the considerable trouble of rolling the hub and tire back to the car and remounting it, which was clearly done from the description of the car in the police report. If the car was originally unwheeled at BIrd Road and later torched there, there's no need to put the wheel back on.

"#4 Queue drum roll, there's a blockbuster in this. Notice the progression Ray. There will be King Kong batting bi-planes next."

ATTENTION ALL ZODIAC HOBBYISTS: I'M OFFICIALLY BLUE IN THE FACE!

Details in witness statements vary, not just from one witness to the next, but also within the sequence of a single witness's statements. How many examples of that would you like? You see, if Zodiac hobbyists were actually familiar with cases other than the Zodiac case, they would also be familiar with this phenomenon.

1. William Crow made two statements, one in 1968, one in 2004; they vary.

2. James Owen made three statements less than a week apart, the first and last varying in some details.

3. Mike Rodelli notwithstanding, Donald Fouke's version of events has varied, depending on which of his accounts you read or listen to.

4. But the most amazing example of this phenomenon in the Zodiac case is that of Robert Connley and Frank Gasser, who clearly told police that Peggy Your showed them her gun and said, "My gun is bigger than yours," when Homer pulled their car into the Marshall Ranch turnout, and Peggy was irritated by Gasser's shining his flashlight into their car.

How do we know Connley and Gasser reported this? Because the police asked Peggy and Homer about it in March 1969, and even separated the two to make sure they got a straight answer from the couple about the encounter.

But wait! That incident doesn't appear anywhere in Robert Connley's witness statements! How can that possibly be?

How can Robert Connley and/or Frank Gasser have made a statement that shows up in the police report, but not in their own statements within that police report?

Are you catching my drift here, Mr. Grinell?

Witness statements vary all the time. The statements are imperfect because people's memories are imperfect, and the statements vary, both between witnesses of the same incident and even within statements made by the same witness at different times.

I don't have the police reports in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kathleen's first statement was taken by the Patterson PD, and is relatively terse. Then the statements she gave to San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties are more elaborate, and the statement she gave to Graysmith is the most elaborate by far. I will give you that the version in the Graysmith book is intentionally as melodramatic as possible.

However, I disagree with Tom Voigt's characterization of her combined witness statements as a "mess." I think her statements are relatively consistent as such statements go, absent her initially saying the abductor drove off, and then saying that he looked for her with a flashlight. It's fair to say that the version in the police reports MIGHT be a Good Samaritan effort gone wrong, whereas the Graysmith version is dripping with menace from the very beginning.

But the burning of the car is consistent with the abduction scenario.

"Gian Quasar is correct, there is one truth, not three."

Gian Quasar makes several statements. I agree that the RIGHT rear wheel was more likely involved than the left. I disagree that the car originally pulled over at Bird Road. Care to be more specific?

Richard

4/29/2016 05:44:30 am

I shall reply tomorrow, I need a beer and curry to drown my hobbyist head of the tension.

Ray Grant link

4/29/2016 05:49:24 am

"Do I believe Kathleen Johns was abducted by the Zodiac Killer, nobody can say with certainty, but when somebody constantly changes their story, and each time the trout gets 4 inches longer, the answer is an understandable no."

I don't understand what the consistency of Kathleen's statements has to do with whether or not she was abducted by the Zodiac.

1. The abductor honks his horn and flashes his lights, just as the killer did to Darlene Ferrin when he herded her toward Blue Rock Springs Park.

2. Kathleen identifies her abductor as the same man as on the Zodiac sketch, even though she admits she wasn't familiar with the Zodiac case at the time.

3. The writer of the June 24,1970 letter claims the abduction.

If the Zodiac was as arrogant as everyone suggests he was, and if it was his intent to gloat about his crimes, why would he claim this particular incident, which appears to have been a failure from his standpoint?

Richard

4/29/2016 11:34:25 pm

This is what the police report states;
#1 "Deputy Lovett, burnt out near Bird Road, slightly west of Interstate 5"
#2 "Mr Reed of 'Reed and Son Towing Services' advised "that he personally had not observed any keys in the vehicle when he towed the vehicle in from Highway 132, just east of Bird Road."

Now I did not write this police report, one says west of I-5, one says east of Bird Road. Is it not possible it was somewhere in between.

"there would be no reason to go to the considerable trouble of rolling the hub and tire back to the car and remounting it, which was clearly done from the description of the car in the police report."

Show me the line in the police report where it states they rolled the tire, wheel, hub cap or anything else for that matter, back to the car from the 'reeds'. Then go blue in the face again.

Ray Grant link

4/29/2016 05:52:42 am

"I shall reply tomorrow, I need a beer and curry to drown my hobbyist head of the tension. "

Remember, the term 'hobbyist' was not coined by Ray Grant. Instead, it was what the poster Zabagliona used to describe herself and her fellow posters on the old private ZodiacKillerSite, and to differentiate herself from the likes of yours truly.

Alex Lewis

4/29/2016 12:28:28 pm

As a member known more for supporting Kane as the more likely of all the known suspects to be the Z, it would be n my interest to believe and state I think this incident and offender thereof was none other than Zodiac. However, Ihave always had a problem with Kathy's description of her abductor and subsequent ID of Kane in a line up because this is all after she points at that famous wanted posted and declared that this was the face of her kidnapper.

Kane and the Richmond District poster of Zodiac are nothing alike so I have always been sceptical to say the least. Zodiac offering He gave a rather nteresting ride toa woman and her baby I would believe about as accurate and true as much as I believe His claim about His 'Riverside activity' and that's not very much at all.

Alex

4/29/2016 12:50:46 pm

For the Attn. of Ray Grant....

Having read over your comments and their tone here in response to Richard, I want to say the following:

If you wish to say anything or respond to Me personally then I look forward to your ideas. However, if your ego arrives ahead of you to inform me of my stupidity and errors in my belief, then don't waste your time Ray. I have no time for the likes of Voigt because of His arrogance and inflated Ego and His intolerance for any theory/suspect other than His own.

Your more than welcome to disagree with everything another person says or theory they have and do so without seeming to wish to inform then why they are wrong, why they are therefore idiotic and stupid, and if only all them other people could be as intellectually gifted as you, then maybe they'd see why they are wrong, and you, most obviously, are not.
If you want to reply by talking down, and throwing inslts at me Ray then go for it. I'll be more than happy to point to specific examples in regard to your arrogance and ego

Ray Grant link

4/29/2016 01:07:30 pm

While I was responding to Alex Lewis's first comment, he saw fit to add a second comment. Here's my initial response, not having read his follow-up:

Hi Welsh, it's good to hear from you again.

When I was interviewed by the Pittsburgh Police in May 1989, I suggested that a photo of my own suspect, Michael O'Hare, be shown (likely among others in a photo lineup) to Kathleen Johns, since she was the live witness who had spent the most time in the Zodiac's presence. They promised to follow up on that suggestion.

Two years later, when I talked to Captain Roy Conway of Vallejo PD in 1991, I suggested the same thing. Roy, who mentions me on page 421 of Zodiac Unmasked, pointed out that there was a problem with Kathleen Johns. He said that, in his opinion and that of George Bawart, whom I also talked to, Kathleen just wasn't a very reliable witness. He said that her accounts had been a bit various from the beginning, and had gotten even more so as time went on. He said that he didn't think anything she said, one way or another, particularly at this late date, could be given much credence.

I think you're right about Kane and the WANTED poster. But I do give credence to her identification of the man on the WANTED poster because she made it just a very short time after the incident, and because she had spent more than an hour in his presence, and because she knew nothing about the Zodiac case at the time (according to her). In other words, she was just confirming that the sketch strongly resembled the man she had been with, and that sketch is reasonably consistent with her description of the man in the car.

Again, as even Mike Butterfielld, who is not exactly my cater-cousin, has pointed out, there's no evidence that the Zodiac ever claimed a crime that wasn't his. In fact, he did the opposite, by dis-claiming a crime in his April 20, 1970 letter. So if he claims the Johns abduction and his RIverside activity, which both to me strongly resemble his handiwork elsewhere, I would tend to take those claims very seriously.

Ray Grant link

4/29/2016 01:48:53 pm

Now here's my response to Welsh's follow-up:

"However, if your ego arrives ahead of you to inform me of my stupidity and errors in my belief, then don't waste your time Ray. I have no time for the likes of Voigt because of His arrogance and inflated Ego and His intolerance for any theory/suspect other than His own."

I haven't figured out yet what my tone and ego have to do with Tom Voigt. Tom and I were once closely associated, but have not been since he banned me on June 27, 2014.

Did you mean to say something else, or was there something in the reference to Voigt that I missed?

"If you want to reply by talking down, and throwing inslts at me Ray then go for it. I'll be more than happy to point to specific examples in regard to your arrogance and ego."

I look forward to it, Welsh, but I honestly don't recall ever throwing any insults at you.

My problem with Zodiac hobbyists (again, Zabagliona's term, used to correct me on the old ZodiacKillerSite private board) is that, like schoolyard bullies, they only remember my responses to their insults; they have amnesia about their own initial insults. I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that you can't cite a single example of my attacking anyone on a Zodiac message board or website who didn't insult me first.

Let's use Richard Grinell as an example. Richard and I have had a somewhat tumultuous relationship, which has included numerous private emails that are identical in tone to the exchanges you've seen here on his website.

However, that's not how our back-and-forth began. It began largely as a result of a thread Richard posted on ZodiacKillerSite.com back in 2013, a thread that was subsequently deleted by Tahoe27 (you remember her, right?). I went to the trouble of copying the thread before it was deleted, so I can quote it in its entirety.

Suffice it to say that Richard was a bit peeved that I'd put up a thread (on my own blog, mind you, not on either of the two mega-boards) that criticized Mike Morford's Introduce Yourself section on the ZodiacKillerSite.com board. Here are links to updated versions of that blog entry:

http://zodiackillertalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11

http://zodiackillertalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12

http://zodiackillertalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13

As you can see, the articles aren't entirely negative; they're a mixed bag, which was my intent. I can show you a copy of the original blog entry if you'd like, but it was similar to what's there now.

In any case, several members of ZodiacKillerSite.com then proceeded to file insulting posts in which I was called filthy names. And all I'd done was criticize the Introduce Yourself section because no one introduces himself on it.

As to generally criticizing Zodiac hobbyists, I will happily stipulate to that, but my tone is in response to things that were said to me and about me. And again, if you want to cite specifics, I will be more than happy to address each one.

I'lll give a quick example:

Glurk, who is, perhaps, generally recognized as a "good guy" on ZodiacKillerSite.com, sent me an extremely nasty private message within a week of Morf13 inviting me back to his board in January 2013. And this was after I went out of my way to respond politely to him on the board itself.

When I put the private message up on the board for all to see, I was then criticized by his friends for playing dirty pool by publicizing a private message. But his message wasn't meant as communication; it was meant to insult me.

Again, I'll be more than happy to post that message and anything else you want to see.

In the meantime, to reiterate: I have never responded negatively to anyone who didn't do it to me first. If posters have short-term memory issues about what they themselves have said, I will be more than happy to cite chapter-and-verse. And I promise you, when I go to the trouble of doing that, I will then be accused of raking up old issues or being obsessed, so it's a no-win situation.

By the way, if you do go to the trouble of reading my posts, you will notice that they tend to be Zodiac case intensive, even when I'm going back-and-forth with someone. This contrasts me with people who had meltdowns because they disagreed with me, like the late Vincent Graves, a moderator on Voigt's board who put up a thread specifically designed to say nasty things about me. I'm not sure Vindog ever filed a post on ZodiacKiller.com that stuck to the case; there was usually something personal put in there along with the Zodiac snippets.

Alex

4/29/2016 09:23:43 pm

Ray, I'm not getting into any negative argument, I said what I did with the best intentions meaning I read what you had to say on other articles here and you have some good points but those points and my wishing to respond is completely overshadowed by tone in which you write certain things.

I meant no offence Ray, only offering you advise that disagreeing with another is one thing, being critical to be constructive is criticism with just motive, being critical the point of outright dismissing someone with "WRONG AGAIN...."

Ray my overall meaning in what I said was not ill intended and I simply was saying: "I'll will speak to you in a respectful manner, I hope and would expect the same extended in response."
You don't have to, you can speak to me as you please, it's a free World we live in and I will show the same respect back as that I am shown by others. That, Ray, was the crux of my statement.

Alex Lewis

4/29/2016 09:43:27 pm

I hope this initial exchange can and is put to one side, if you took offence at my comment then I apologise, that was not my intent in writing it. Anyway, the idea/theory of several offenders or 'Zodiac's' rather than a singular solitary 'Zodiac' I would agree seems more plausible and likely given the description variations than One lone nut case.
This is one school of thought but, just to play Devils advocate, this could be simple witness recalling what they saw as they saw it. Hartnell offered Z was Young sounding, early to mid Twenties which mirrors Mageau's age estimate. However, looking in more detail we can also observe the following:

Hartnell never saw Z's face, His age estimation was a pure guess based on the sound/maturity of the Voice beneath the hood.
Michael Mageau said He saw Him and described a younger guy, in His twenties with a full head of dark curly hair and stockily built. Then He is alleged to have picked out the genetically bald Art Allen from a photo line up, before going on to suggest Darlene may have referred to the gate-crashing third party at the Springs as 'Richard.'

Alex Lewis

4/29/2016 10:08:26 pm

"I look forward to it, Welsh, but I honestly don't recall ever throwing any insults at you."

You have not Ray, I didn't mean to insinuate you had. I was anticipating within the hypothetical realm of a future scenario where it was determined prevention is better than cure.

"In any case, several members of ZodiacKillerSite.com then proceeded to file insulting posts in which I was called filthy names. And all I'd done was criticize the Introduce Yourself section because no one introduces himself on it."

Well here we have find common ground, and it's not without reason nor cause that I refer to ZKS.com as the Online version of North Korea where they seem to wish to sentence a member to death for daring to respnond and defend themselves against slanderous insults. Kim-jong Mentally Ill Morf will have His Moderators swoop in for the arrest the anarchist! GUILTY of believing you can defend yourself and have the same equal rights as your fellow man, now before we have you taken out and shot, we must allow you to thank the Dear Leader, Morf Jong Mentally Ill, for allowing you to be shot with one of His Bullets!

Alex Lewis

4/29/2016 10:54:23 pm

Seen the latest developments?

Friday, April 29, 2016: Tallahassee, FL. . .

"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida State University class project about drug cartels and serial killers took a turn when students scrawled a message on a sidewalk associated with the infamous Zodiac Killer.

The TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT reported Wednesday that police started investigating after finding the message that included the cipher associated with the serial killer responsible for several unsolved murders in northern California in the late '60s and early '70s.
The message near a student apartment complex stated "I'm alive and well and I'm going to start killing again."
Police stepped up patrols and eventually discovered it was done for an English class project. Students were told to write a message in a public forum and take a picture of it."

He's come out of retirement with a 9MM and Wheel Chair while being legally blind to declare He's escaped from California's Residential Care Home for the Infirm and Elderly and when He get's His Wheel-Chair out of the mud He's stuck in t present, Toschi & Co can look out!

Ray Grant link

4/30/2016 06:06:33 am

"I meant no offence Ray, only offering you advise that disagreeing with another is one thing, being critical to be constructive is criticism with just motive, being critical the point of outright dismissing someone with "WRONG AGAIN....""

There used to be a character on the classic TV western Gunsmoke named Festus Haggin. When Festus was playing checkers with Doc, they usually ended up arguing about the game. When he was playing anyone else, and losing, Festus would find a sneaky way to upset the board by "accidentally" bumping his knee against it and thereby avoid losing,

Richard Grinell has, at least a couple times, corrected my own impressions to the point where I admitted he was probably right. I used to think, along with Graysmith, that the Zodiac had fired a shot directly into the left rear wheel well of the Faraday Rambler; Richard convinced me that the shot fired into the left rear wheel well was actually fired into the right rear window and thus ended up on the other side of the rear storage area. Richard also convinced me that the Zodiac told Fouke and Zelms that the killer had run up Jackson Street toward Arguello Boulevard, instead of just saying No when they asked him if he saw anything, because Fouke's route is consistent with that scenario.

However, sometimes Richard acts like Festus when he's losing the checker game.

"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."

That isn't argument, it's sidestepping argument. I already patiently dealt with all those issues in earlier posts, so for Richard to then blithely state that anything is possible is disrespecting the argument and the person he's arguing with. If he has a counter-argument to mine, that's fair play, but simply acting as if one interpretation is as good as another is bad manners. If that means that I address his next article with a phrase such as WRONG AGAIN, then he deserves that treatment.

Witness statements simply cannot be taken at face value, because witness statements in all murder cases contain flaws. As I have demonstrated, there are numerous examples in the Zodiac case of the same witness disagreeing with himself in multiple statements. If you have conflicts in witness statements, they may both be wrong, BUT THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT. And if Richard Grinell doesn't want to get at the truth, and prefers to avoid interpreting the evidence, then he should stop putting up articles on his site which attempt circumstantial reconstruction. We can't know, absolutely, what the truth is, but we can eliminate the impossible.

To demonstrate this concept, my next post will deal briefly with the idea that Robert Connley could have arrived on Lake Herman Road at 9pm, as his statement says.

Ray Grant link

4/30/2016 06:08:30 am

If Robert Connley arrived on Lake Herman Road at 9pm, then we have to assume he did everything else he says he did beginning at that time.

We know Connley and Gasser pulled onto Lake Herman Road at the eastern end, and drove past the Gate #10 turnout heading west. They then drove down to the bottom of the hill and turned right into the Marshall Ranch turnout, where they parked their truck. They then walked across the road and began making their way up through the brush on the hillside, looking for raccoons to shoot.

In other words, Connley only drove past Gate #10 once heading west, and then once more, heading east, when he left the area after 11pm.

Connley says that when he passed the Gate #10 turnout, a truck was coming out through Gate #10, and that a white Chevy Impala was parked in the turnout, facing in toward the fence (south).

So let's assume that happened circa 9pm.

Since Bingo Wesher was tending his sheep that night, and drove out through Gate #10 at 10pm, his could NOT have been the same truck that Connley says he saw at 9pm.

So we have TWO nearly identical encounters:

1. Connley drives his red Chevy pickup with wood sideboards past the turnout at 9pm, sees a truck (not Wesher's) coming out through Gate #10, and also sees the white Chevy Impala parked with its front end pointed in toward the fence.

2. Wesher drives his truck out through Gate #10 at 10pm, sees a red Ford pickup (not Connley's) with wood sideboards driving past on Lake Herman Road, and also sees a white Chevy Impala parked with its front end toward the fence.

At 9pm, a red pickup with wood sideboards drives past the Gate #10 turnout just as a truck is coming out through Gate #10, and while a white Chevy Impala is parked with its front end facing the south fence. At 10pm, another red pickup with wood sideboards drives past the Gate #10 turnout just as a different truck is coming through Gate #10, and while a white Chevy Impala is parked with its front end facing the south fence.

But that's not all.

Because in between those two nearly identical sightings, William Crow drives onto the road, pulls into the Gate #10 tornout, and sees NO white Chevy Impala parked there, though he does say that a "light-colored Chevy" comes along circa 9:40pm and chases him out of the turnout and off the road, and then doubles back.

So if all three witnesses are 100% correct, we have a lot of logistical scrambling to do. We have to have the parked Impala IN the turnout at 9pm, back OUT of the turnout at 9:30pm, and back IN the turnout at 10pm. And we have to have TWO red pickups with wood sideboards drive past Gate #10, one at 9pm, and one at 10pm, and both do so just as a truck is coming out through the gate.

OR we can make two simple assumptions:

1. Robert Connley was wrong in his time estimate, and arrived circa 10pm instead of 9pm.

2. Bingo Wesher thought he saw a red Ford pickup with wood sideboards, when he actually saw Connley's red Chevy pickup with wood sideboards.

Since Wesher presamably tended his sheep at the same time each night, and since Crow didn't see the white Impala parked in the turnout when he pulled in circa 9:35pm, we can assume that Bingo's estimate of 10pm is correct, and Connley's estimate of 9pm is about an hour early.

That's an example of witness statement reconciliation. You look at the witness statements, notice that they're in conflict, and attempt to reconcile them. That means, of course, that some details have to be discarded.

Does this mean that I'm calling any of the witnesses liars? No, it means that witness statements invariably contain flaws, and those flaws have to be reconciled. The statements have to be compared, and we have to decide which details are corcect. If I give a witness statement, I am likely to be wrong about some detail(s); that's just the nature of witness statements.

Assuming that all witness statements can be taken at face value, and that every detail a witness relates necessarily has some merit or he wouldn't have said it, is not a good way of getting at the truth. Witness statements tend to be flawed, and you have to take that tendency into account when deciding what to believe.

As I've said many times, Zodiac hobbyists are not very good at assessing witness statements in the Zodiac case because they haven't spent a lot of time looking at other cases. This phenomenon can also be seen among JFK assassination buffs, who point to conflicts in witness statements in an attempt to discredit certain witnesses.

There are always conflicts. Witnesses make mistakes about details. I believe the best way to proceed is to assume everyone is telling the truth, and then, when a conflict becomes apparent, to examine the circumstances carefully and come to a conclusion about what actually happened, based, as always, on a preponderance of the evidence.

Ray Grant link

4/30/2016 07:00:14 am

"Well here we have find common ground, and it's not without reason nor cause that I refer to ZKS.com as the Online version of North Korea where they seem to wish to sentence a member to death for daring to respond and defend themselves against slanderous insults."

I used to think that Mike Butterfield's board was a Worst Case Scenario, and that Mike Morford's (private) board was a better idea. While i still think that Butterfield's board was unnecessarily negative and mean-spirited, Morf's cure is worse than the disease.

When you have moderators who enforce a behavioral code, as Morf's do in their (supposed) attempt to keep the discussion civil, what happens is that one person's idea of civility gets enforced, and you end up with two sets of rules: one for the moderators and their friends, and another set for everyone else.

Tahoe27 and her friends Seagull and Tracers and their fellow-travellers (like traveller1st) can confront people all they want, and no one can call them on it, because they're the moderators and if you don't like it, they'll delete or ban you. In the meantime, Tahoe27 just runs amok, confronting people all the time, has gotten into major catfights with BayArea60s and Paul_Averly just in the past year or so, has been called "obnoxious" by several long-time Zodiac message board posters who prefer to remain anonymous, and no one can do anything because she's a moderator, just as she is on Voigt's board.

I sent Tom Voigt $1,000 when he was going into the hospital in 2013, and my thanks for that was for him to allow Tahoe27 to ban me from his message board because I confronted her and her friends about their behavior. Then Voigt was too much of a coward to answer my emails. I then publicly asked him to delete my material from his board, but since Seagull and Tracers don't want that, he didn't do it.

So I spent five minutes or so of my own time to find out who Tahoe27 and her friends are in real life, not because I'm a stalker, but to level the playing field. If you want to put The Fear of God into an anonymous Zodiac hobbyist, just threaten to OUT him or her.

The problem is, when I crippled Butterfield's board by filing charges against him, all I did was remove him as an adversary, and sometimes you're better off with these people living in constant fear of you than you are putting them out of their misery.

Alex Lewis

4/30/2016 07:56:17 am

I Myself was informed by the Moderators there that I had been awarded a several hour chat restriction due to being 'Obnoxious' so it seems the Mods there think any form of defending one's self in print is Obnoxious.

It amused me no end that 'The Foreigner' declared directly to myself that I posted much, but had little to say. I have said much on threads, and nothing I say is of any interest nor relevance and, quote: "I find you boring, Welsh." This was allowed to stand with no caution nor Mod warning and nowhere did the word 'Obnoxious' get used in relation to this statement where it would be appropriate and warranted. I responded with a highly intellectual comeback rebuttal declaring "Well, why are you reading this then? Feel free to F Off by all means....

Well that then allows for a qote from Armond Pelissetti to be applicable inasmuch as the response came with red ights and siren and they got there very quickly to roar: "HOW DARE YOU!" Your chat is now restoricted you Welsh Obnoxious Prick."

I emailed Kim Jong to tell Him, quote: "Stick your restriction, replace with ban as I won't be back. Yours:The Obnoxious One.

Alex Lewis

4/30/2016 08:09:57 am

As for Lake Herman Ray, I have always been sceptical of Zodiac even being in A Vehicle out there for it to fit into any timeline. There were many passing vehicles, and of them, only one recalled seeing two vehicles in the relevant area and how sure is James Owen's Himself in His statements on what He was witness to?

"The second car was right adjacent to the Boxy type Rambler for which I can tell you the colour thereof. I can't tell you anything about the 2nd mystery vehicle because it was parked down the opposite end of the turnout almost.
Now while there are two vehicles here with at least Three people with them, nobody is anywhere with sight. I drove by and that was all really....I may remember tomorrow hearing shots fired which have slipped my mind as I give this initial statement in the hours post the event happening.

The only scenario that I can think of if James truly does see a second car there that would account for his claiming not to even know what shape it was let alone specific details is if that car He sees is a police car.

Ray Grant link

5/1/2016 01:48:38 am

"Now I did not write this police report, one says west of I-5, one says east of Bird Road. Is it not possible it was somewhere in between."

I get that you don't want the car to have been moved.

So, since the reports mention both Interstate 5 and Bird Road, you'd prefer that the spot where Kathleen abandoned her car, and the spot where the car was torched, were the same spot, about halfway between Interstate 5 and Bird Road. That way, the references to Interstate 5 and Bird Road somehow make sense, and you don't have to explain the abductor putting the wheel back on the car and then walking the mile from her car back to his own car before he drives up and torches her car.

But if the wheel was put back on the car, then the car was moved, regardless of what its original location or its final location was.

"Show me the line in the police report where it states they rolled the tire, wheel, hub cap or anything else for that matter, back to the car from the 'reeds'. Then go blue in the face again."

Again, I don't have the police reports in front of me, but one of them describes the condition the car was found in, with the wheel reattached to the hub by two lugs.

Gian Quasar says that the wheel never spun off the car, that it was a hubcap. But you can drive a car without hubcaps; you can't drive it without one of the wheels. I'll give you that Kathleen wasn't the brightest light on the Christmas tree. I'll give you that she wasn't the sharpest kinife in the drawar. But I don't think even Kathleen was so stupid that she thought a hubcap flying off the car would render it undriveable.

And how would the abductor manage to make the hubcap go flying off after she drove it a few feet? It's easy to guess how he got the wheel to fly off—he just removed all the lugs, and once the hub starts moving, the Law of Inertia causes the wheel to disengage and friction causes it to spin off into the "reeds."

In other words, Gian Quasar was in the same boat you're in: he needed the car NOT to have been moved. But the car WAS moved, since the wheel was reattached.

Why are Zodiac hobbyists so reluctant to concede that the car was moved before it was torched? Because that sort of shenanigans screams, "Zodiac!" And if the car wasn't moved, maybe it was just a Good Samaritan who became ticked off when Kathleen jumped out of the car, and drove back and set fire to her car out of spite?

"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." Richard Grinell

I'm getting a little tired of explaining things like why Robert Connley couldn't have been on Lake Herman Road at 9pm, and then have you just blithely ignore my explanation and move on to question something else in your Devil's Advocate style.

So why don't you tell us what YOU think happened on Highway 132? Was the abdoctor the Zodiac or some random person who either was trying to help Kathleen or just make a nuisance of himself? Was the car moved before it was torched, or did everything happen about halfway between Interstate 5 and Bird Road? And what's the significance of the car keys that you keep bringing up?

Or would you rather just abstain from evidence analysis altogether, pepper me with questions, and ignore the answers you don't LIKE?

Ray Grant link

5/1/2016 02:18:35 am

Welsh,

The Foreigner is a card-carrying member of the Coffee Klatch (Tahoe27, Seagull, Tracers, and their friends). Her real name is Annie, by the way. She thinks nothing of doxing innocent people who have committed no crime more significant than having their information available online. Her own talent is limited to what she can do with her computer and keyboard. She took nurse's training until she found out that a nurse was supposed to help other people, which is where she got off. I wouldn't lose any sleep over her opinion of you.

As I've said about James Owen, he gave his initial report while police were still processing the scene. He did not give it directly to either Butterbach or Lundblad, since Butterbach has said they worked that night until about 4am. Owen's report was given at 8:15am to Sergeant Cunningham. So any discrepancy between his accounts could be partly explained by the circumstances under which the initial statement was given, and partly by his having given statements to differing officers.

Mike Morford had the temerity to interview Owen, who was nice enough to cooperate with an amateor who thinks he's a detective, and then Morf is jerk enough and coward enough to accuse Owen of being the Zodiac AFTER Owen passes away.

That's ZodiacKillerSite.com: The Three Stooges Detective Agency.

Alex Lewis

5/2/2016 08:12:13 am

Yes I have read the Owen Interview transcript some time ago now but I do remember being conscious of the seeming disinterest on Owen's part if His answers are anything to go by. As best I can remember James was asked a series of Questions by Morf and answered each one in the closed question format with simple Yes, No & Maybe etc. I remember thinking at the time that James really doesn't seem at all interested to the point of leaving Me wondering why He has agreed to a sit down 'Interview.'

As for the discrepancies in Owen's statements, I wouldn't think the fact that two different officers took statements from Owen should or would have any impact on, or be partly responsible for, a few discrepancies and/or direct contradictions unless they are adding their own 'spin' on what James is saying or entitling themselves to interpret something that James said on His behalf with a 'I know what your getting at/trying to say.'

I tell you what I did find odd and rather puzzling in one of James statements, and even more eyebrow raising was the response by LE to the statement itself, and that is James stating that the Investigators may wish to speak with a 3rd party about this incident, a 3rd Party that Owen informs them is a colleague of His as this colleague drives to work that way and may have seen something then ends by offering that this colleague resides in the Appts. at the end of Springs Rd.

My Immediate reaction to this was and still is: A lot of people likely drive to work via that route so to single one lone colleague out for them to go talk to I have always found a tad out of place and have wondered in the past whether Owen was attempting to Hint at something or someone of significance here. However, their response to this new lead James has just suggested they may wish to follow up is twice as perplexing because they seem to have decided that No, they cannot be bothered as that is real police work which involves getting out of their chairs and respond to Owen's potential lead on a witness by asking Owen to go interview this Colleague of His for and on their behalf and then report back via telephone what the possible witness has to say. I have never before nor since seen this or something similar happen in any other case or investigation.

It turned out in the end, at least according to Owen, that after interrogating His Colleague on behalf of Law Enforcement that this colleague didn't drive to work via that route on this specific one night in question. Forgive me for being cynical and all but James had said the very reason He initially gave this Colleagues name to police was due to one sole fact and reason of: "He works the graveyard (shift) and drives to work via that route."

Except, it would appear, when there is the most serious of incidents that takes place along that route in the form of a double homicide, then He has a D.B Cooper moment and Skydives into work. Ok, I'm exaggerating there, but isn't the idea of coincidence responsible for on this one occasion as a complete one off His route into work just happens to change on the same night two teens are gunned down along His regular route? Or am I indulging myself in the delightful art of reading too much into something that isn't significant? That's a rhetorical question I pose in the sense that, most obviously, any answer is simply a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact, and opinions I happy to hear because I Honestly not swayed either way and just find the comment by James & the reaction of LE to to all a tad very odd!

Ray Grant link

5/2/2016 07:42:50 pm

Welsh,

You're right, Owen gave single syllable answers to most of Morf's questions, and acted as if the events on Lake Herman Road didn't particularly interest him. That's quite a contrast with the picture Morf paints of a gloating Zodiac who was obsessed with his own publicity. Of course, Owen was an older man by the time Morf spoke with him, but you would still expect the Zodiac to perk up when his handiwork was brought up.

As to Owen agreeing to an interview, he may have been under the mistaken impression that Morf was a reporter instead of just a guy who works at a car dealership.

As to the discrepancies, I mention the different officers to stress that the crime scene would have been somewhat chaotic that morning, and Owen may have mentioned hearing the shot to one of the officers, but not to the one who took his statement at the scene. As I've pointed out, Connley must have mentioned the confrontation with the Yours in the Marshall Ranch turnout, since the police asked the Yours about it, and yet we don't see that information anywhere in Connley's statements. So some things do get left out of the witness statements, for various reasons.

I would take Owen's statement about the co-worker more seriously if there had been more traffic on Lake Herman Road that time of night. But judging by the number of witnesses who came forward, after repeated requests by police on the front page of the newspapers, it's not hard for me to believe that the co-worker only drove that route occasionally, and that relatively few people chose to drive on Lake Herman Road at that time of night (possibly because of the lack of lighting). What's a bit more puzzling, as you say, is that the police didn't want to talk to the co-worker themselves.

But then again, they didn't follow up with Helen Axe's sailor boy friend, either!

Alex Lewis

5/6/2016 01:32:54 pm

Well when The Foreigner stated that I had never said anything nor brought anything to the proverbial Zodiac round-table I was, and think I have a right to be, somewhat offended as on the very site I was told this by this member, I had released the full criminal record of Lawrence Kane along with the files and documents held by the DOJ in relation to Him being a suspect in the Zodiac case. I had also via FOIA managed to get a redacted POI released in Robert Hale West of Camp Pendleton and another 3 separate names released that feature in a 3rd list of redacted POI's who are Camilo Romero, Willard Watts and Henry Wilkins respectively. I've also been in close contact with Harvey Hines Brother, Himself a former Police Officer who was kind enough to forward to myself the complete and full 120 page report His late brother had put together on Suspect Kane which, again, nobody has previously got a copy of.

Now I say the above with no arrogance nor desire for a standing ovation to acknowledge my brilliance, far from it. I list these things to hopefully give any reader an understanding of why, when your told nothing you've ever done/said has been of value, I have the right to be offended at least enough to issue a direct rebuttal.

You don't need me to tell you Ray how difficult it can be, especially with this case and it being Unsolved, to get hold of authentic information and by that I mean official documents and files. Getting Kane's record and files was extremely frustrating because your appealing for the release of information in relation to a man who I know used many many aliases and had several SS No's. I filed for Lawrence Kane, Lawrence Cane, Lawrence Klein etc and got the same response each time: "After conducting a search of our central record systems, we found no responsive information relevant to your specific request.

I had to search out Sandy B, whom I had never spoke to at the time only knowing Her as a 'Kane Authority' for want of a better term. She was kind enough to pass me a document which had Larry Cane and an associated FBI Number. Adding this to my 3rd or 4th FOIA finally saw positive results.

Richard

5/1/2016 02:43:08 am

I don't claim to have all the answers. I haven't given much attention to this 'crime' until recently. I am still undecided on what was the likely course of events that night, and the motive. A constantly evolving account of events by Johns and conflicting police reports are not exactly conducive to creating any convincing theory with any surety. You Ray clearly have the definitive cast iron answer to everything, apart from the odd concession, and anybody that falls outside your reasoning is a hobbyist, a subtle way of suggesting superiority on your part.
Here is your reply on Zodiac Killer Talk;
Richard; But actually the simplest answer is always the most likely.

Raymond; "Says who? The simplest answer is often wrong; that's why we have cold cases. If the simplest answer was always the most likely, cases would be cleared as soon as they were assigned."

Raymond; "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; Says who. The simplest answer is often wrong.

No matter what scenario, theory or analysis I state, you will ridicule, belittle, and scoff at how ridiculous it is, in the only way you know how. There is an art to dialogue and reasonable discussion without "I'm getting a little tired of explaining things like why Robert Connley couldn't have been on Lake Herman Road at 9pm." I am not asking you to explain it anymore, we disagree, end of story. There is more than one theory on how each crime went down, but clearly you have all the answers, you are 99.99% correct on every crime, congratulations, I am mostly wrong, apart from two or three you graciously conceded. Maybe one day you may concede that patronizing people is not the best form of discussion.

Ray Grant link

5/1/2016 04:18:56 am

"I don't claim to have all the answers. I haven't given much attention to this 'crime' until recently. I am still undecided on what was the likely course of events that night, and the motive."

I don't know if you've noticed this, but when someone asks me a direct question, I answer as directly and as specifically as I can. When someone asks YOU a direct question, you often obfuscate and change the subject and accuse your opponent of bad manners.

Look, no one is forcing you to say anything you don't want to say. But if you're going to continue to publish circumstantial analyses of the Zodiac case in the form of articles on your website, you can't take the position that anything is possible and nothing can be known, since you're spending so much time yourself trying to nail things down.

"A constantly evolving account of events by Johns and conflicting police reports are not exactly conducive to creating any convincing theory with any surety."

The Johns account isn't constantly evolving. It varies in details, but that's typical of witness statements. Granted, Kathleen Johns is not the world's best witness, but the four versions of her story contain enough detail to provide a reasonable basis for assessing the facts of the incident.

"You Ray clearly have the definitive cast iron answer to everything, apart from the odd concession, and anybody that falls outside your reasoning is a hobbyist, a subtle way of suggesting superiority on your part."

I only refer to people as "hobbyists" when they do what you're doing right now, which is to create a distraction when they can't answer a direct question. That's the way a Zodiac hobbyist acts. Let's use Dave Oranchak as an example. I've had discussions with Dave where I made ten points, and he ignores nine of the points and dismisses the tenth on cryptographic grounds (I pointed out, for instance, that Galileo announced his discoveries in the form of anagrams, and Dave ignores the point that anagrams can be intentional even if they can't be proven to be so statistically).

"Richard; But actually the simplest answer is always the most likely.

Raymond; "Says who? The simplest answer is often wrong; that's why we have cold cases. If the simplest answer was always the most likely, cases would be cleared as soon as they were assigned."

Raymond; "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; Says who. The simplest answer is often wrong."

Now we're arguing semantics. Okay, I should have said, "It's much MORE LOGICAL to assume the car seen by all was the Impala, etc..

"No matter what scenario, theory or analysis I state, you will ridicule, belittle, and scoff at how ridiculous it is, in the only way you know how."

I can't help it if you take offense when someone is winning an argument with you. That I spend so much time to give you detailed responses should be taken as a compliment, that I take your points seriously.

"There is an art to dialogue and reasonable discussion without "I'm getting a little tired of explaining things like why Robert Connley couldn't have been on Lake Herman Road at 9pm." I am not asking you to explain it anymore, we disagree, end of story."

Again, you're mischaracterizing my tone because you don't LIKE what I'm saying. You raise an objection to something I say, I go to the trouble of explaining it in detail, and then you act as if I haven't said anything. That's not discourse, it's denial.

"There is more than one theory on how each crime went down, but clearly you have all the answers, you are 99.99% correct on every crime, congratulations, I am mostly wrong, apart from two or three you graciously conceded. Maybe one day you may concede that patronizing people is not the best form of discussion."

Norman Mailer once said about Dwight Macdonald, "The great thing about Dwight was that you could actually win an argument with him." That's a rare trait, because mostly you can't convince people of anything, particularly people like Richard Grinell and Ray Grant who have spent a lot of time and energy devoted to an avocation like the Zodiac case. But I do give Richard Grinell credit for going on ZodiacKillerSite.com and saying that Cheri Bates was never in the RCC Library and clearly did not use her own studient ID to check out the books found in her car. And when Richard Grinell did that, Tahoe27 just repeated some misinformation in response (The 6pm Hypothesis, as mentioned in my book) and moved on. That's frustrating.

Most people who follow the case have already decided what they think about it. I think that's the most significant truth about it at this point.

Richard

5/1/2016 05:23:02 am

Let's get a framework for this crime before we start,

1. Kathleen Johns was likely 'abducted' on the 23rd March 1970.

2. She recalls being driven around for 60-90 minutes.

3. The police report states she was brought in by unknown person/s at 02.30 am.

4 Patterson is a 20-30 minute journey from where she was found. Take the high end estimate of 30 mins.

5. Graysmith in Zodiac book states Kathleen left her San Bernardino home at 7pm.

Let us work backwards. Kathleen arrives at the cop station at 02.30 am, so was likely 'rescued' circa 2.00 am. We know as soon as she ran into the field 'the Zodiac' apparently searched for her for a brief moment until the man in the trucked, spotted the suspect and stopped on a dime. She was nervous of the man in the truck, then a few minutes later 'the woman' arrived to rescue her. From the moment she escaped the suspect's vehicle to being rescued was about 10 minutes. We know she was driven around by the suspect for 90 minutes maximum. Ok it's an estimation on her part. Let us now deduct the 90 minutes and 10 minutes from 02.00 am to give us a time when she supposedly entered the suspect's car. That time is 12.20 am. Therefore she was likely flagged down around 12.15 am. Working in the other direction, San Bernardino to Bird Road is 5 hours 19 minutes on Google Maps. This is assuming she drove the entire 371 miles, without so much of a toilet break, or to feed her 10 month old child, or to stretch her pregnant legs. If this was the case, it puts her in the position to be flagged down at approximately 12.19 am. This perfectly tallies with 12.15 am, by reversing the timeline. Either way it is possible she was abducted on the 23rd.
She may arguably have left her home earlier than 7 pm. She may have been driven around for 2 hours rather than 90 minutes, but before we continue on the the alleged moving of her vehicle, give me your understanding of this timeline of events, which I believe is an important starting point.
http://zodiackillerthemansonconnection.com/johns_police_reports.html

Richard

5/1/2016 05:53:54 am

You stated in your book "By re-attacing the wheel, driving the car about a mile down the road and then re-loosening the lugs, he is creating uncertainty about what exactly happened and where.
Zodiac letter; "I gave a rather intersting ride for a coupple howers one evening a few months back that ended in my burning her car where I found them". He seems fairly certain four months later.

You continued on "It seems clear they want to be acknowledged for things they actually did, and not for acts they had nothing to do with. There wouldn't be much point in creating such a complex puzzle, and then taking credit for unrelated episodes, would there.
"that ended in my burning her car where I found them." - But you said they want to be acknowledged for things they did, then four months later they claim something they didn't do. Which is it.
No I don't believe the wheel came off, it likely caused a vibration within the car from being unstable, Johns heard the disengaging hubcap clatter across the road and pulled over. When you are pregnant with a 10 month old child, yo cannot take any risks. The man suggested her wheel was unstable, she later heard the rattling of the hubcap and used understandable caution in pulling over.

Ray Grant link

5/1/2016 10:07:37 pm

"Kathleen Johns was likely 'abducted' on the 23rd March 1970."

I don't have any problem with your timeline, which I found quite compelling and well-constructed, particularly your point about the significant time needed to cover the stretch from San Bernardino to Bird Road. I agree, absent some factor we're both missing, that Kathleen was more likely abducted well past midnight on March 23, 1970, and not on March 22, 1970.

Having said that, I don't think the Zodiacs missing their time target (March 22) means that they didn't have a time target. Mike Butterfield has pointed to the Mt. Diablo radian's NOT being an exact radian to dismiss its significance. I don't agree. As I mention in my book, the Zodiacs weighed exact locations on the radian legs versus other factors, and decided to approximate the radian.

In like manner, after the trigger man initially decided to abort the Blue Rock Springs attack because, by the time he herded the victims into the parking lot, it was past midnight, he was then overruled by his fellow conspirators and told to return to the lot and initiate the attack, which resulted in Darlene Ferrin's death. The point was, they had the victim they wanted in the location they wanted, and that trumped the attack taking place on the 5th instead of the 4th. And, to compensate, they simply referred in their letters to the Ferrin murder as having taken place on July 4th.

I suspect that's what happened west of Modesto. They had the victim they wanted in the location they wanted, they just couldn't get her there by midnight. But they chose to go ahead with the abduction sequence, perhaps with the codicil that the operation itself began on March 22, just as the Ferrin murder sequence began on July 4th.

When Alexander Calder was preparing a mobile for the National Gallery, he wanted the metal cut-outs to be stainless steel. The problem was, stainless steel was too heavy, and the gallery construction people had to change the metal to aluminum, which was a major disappointment to Calder. During the assembly of any major artwork, including The Zodiac Project, concessions must be made to logistics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhGkuj5f2rI

"You stated in your book "By re-attaching the wheel, driving the car about a mile down the road and then re-loosening the lugs, he is creating uncertainty about what exactly happened and where.""

Well, he may simply have reattached the wheel by putting two of the lugs on instead of all five, figuring that he was only driving the car a mile down the road. I assume he'd previously checked to see if he could drive a car a short distance with only a couple lugs fastening the wheel on.

"that ended in my burning her car where I found them." - But you said they want to be acknowledged for things they did, then four months later they claim something they didn't do. Which is it.

I think Gareth Penn would say that he's using error to highlight something. If he says, "that ended in my burning her car a mile west of where I found them," he blatantly calls attention to his moving the car, which, if you're creating a puzzle, is something you don't want to do. So he misstates what he did, hoping readers will notice the discrepancy.

"No I don't believe the wheel came off, it likely caused a vibration within the car from being unstable, Johns heard the disengaging hubcap clatter across the road and pulled over. When you are pregnant with a 10 month old child, yo cannot take any risks. The man suggested her wheel was unstable, she later heard the rattling of the hubcap and used understandable caution in pulling over."

I think you're giving Kathleen too much credit. She describes her own car as a "junker," so it's not like she had the kid in a baby seat. And your interpretation is at odds with her statements and the evidence.

1. Kathleen says the man had a tire iron, appeared to be working on her lugs, and that her wheel came off.

2. When the car was examined by police, one wheel had only two lugs attached. So clearly, the man had removed lugs from the wheel.

3 The man was trying to get Kathleen out of her car and into his. If that's what he wanted, removing ALL the lugs was the best way to do that. As he hovered nearby in his own car, he could be sure that the wheel would come flying off within a few car lengths, and then he could say that the damage was unfixable (by him) and that he would therefore take her to a service station to get help.

4. I'm not sure what one could do to ensure that a hubcap would come flying off. I suspect the hubcap that was found flew off the wheel AFTER it spun off the car.

Again, Gian Quasar cites the found hubcap and suggests that's what came off the car because he doesn't want the car to have been moved. But the car WAS moved.

Richard

5/2/2016 04:52:43 am

It would have been an exceedingly risky operation, moving the car, reattaching lug bolts and dousing it with gasoline, before setting it on fire, on an open highway, after an abduction. There was a risk his vehicle may have been identified or the police may have stumbled across this risque operation. How do you qualify this risk factor, with the idea of only moving the vehicle 1 mile.

Ray Grant link

5/2/2016 12:23:28 pm

Well, the Presidio Heights murder was infinitely riskier, since he's in a quiet neighborhood where people are likely to call the cops immediately when they hear gunfire, and he nonetheless gets into the front seat of the cab after shooting the driver. So the killer didn't lack cojones. He would reattach the lug bolts BEFORE moving the car. I've already suggested the likely sequence, where he reattaches the lugs, moves the car a mile west, then walks back to his own car, then drives up to Kathleen's car and parks either just in front of it or just behind it, then douses it with gasoline, and saves lighting it for the last moment, just before getting back in his own car and driving away. I take it from Kathleen's description that that stretch of Highway 132 was relatively lonely in the wee hours of the morning, since she doesn't mention any traffic on the road during the episode. And the loosening the lugs part would not have been particularly risky, since even if police came along at that point, all he was doing was apparently assisting a pregnant woman and her baby whose rear wheel was wobbling. She didn't suspect anything was wrong until after they'd all gotten into his car and he was just driving around aimlessly.

But you're making my point, and the Zodiac's. Because the intent of the operation was to demonstrate how easily a person can be kidnapped, often without their even being aware of the abduction until it's too late. This is at least partly to provide a clue to the first two episodes (Riverside and Lake Herman Road), where the victims were abducted and then placed on the landscape before being murdered.

Alex Lewis

5/14/2016 08:37:20 am

"I don't claim to have all the answers..." I know you have never claimed such a thing Richard because like Have always said, only I may be He that knowith Everything. As we know, the last time I was wrong was 1992, and that was someone else's fault.

Now as He that is the knower of everything, holding the keys to a door locked to everyone else, a Door that no other may enter through then I am the holder of answers to the mysteries that baffle and confuse the Lesser people of Importance, ie, every one who is not me.

Now I must deny your request before you submit it unto me asking to let you in on the Gossip, for I am unable to tell anyone any answers to everything due to them not qualifying as having a 'Need to know.' I am afraid this was decided for you by me becauze I am a bit important and your not and when I say your not I do of-course mean, every other person on this Planet.

I know, I know! Your astonished at how humble I am, Me and My Possible Welsh Ancestry!

WEST OF INTERSTATE 5

Leave a Reply.

CATEGORIES