Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:07 pm

December 5th, 2013, 8:27 pm #61

"I will respond to your points one at a time:RAY- “Well, I hate to break it to you, but the very first thing any police investigator interviewing a witness wants to know is: Height?  Weight?  Watch Dragnet.  Read any police procedural novel.  Look at any WANTED poster.”ME- Well Ray, believe it or not, Dragnet was a fake tv show, but then again, some of the police actions seemed to have been taken from a tv show, so."

 

Jack Webb was a stickler for realism.  He even duplicated the LAPD offices so the sets looked exactly like them.  Police canvassing eyewitnesses always ask for a physical description of the perpetrator, i. e., height/weight.  I can see maybe one or two eyewitnesses not noticing James Owen's height, but not all of them.

 

"RAY-“James Owen wasn't the Zodiac Killer.  He was too tall, too old, and he was too cooperative in the immediate aftermath of the murders to be a plausible suspect.”ME- I won’t do your homework, but research how often killers involve themselves in the investigation, it’s not uncommon."

 

It's extremely uncommon.  The vast majority of eyewitnesses coming forward and volunteering information about what they saw turn out NOT to have been the killer.  I don't know how small a percentage of killers do that, but it would be somewhere between "tiny" and "infinitesmal".  You've been watching too many David Fincher movies.  Your whole hypothesis is based on the idea that someone would come driving along a road he was known to take on his way to work (since he knew about his co-worker taking the same road), notice two random victims in a turnout, pull over, shoot them for no apparent reason, drive on to work, do his usual shift, hear about the murders from a co-worker just before he left, and then drive BACK down Lake Herman Road so the police would have a chance to interrogate him, check his car for weapons--did he ditch the gun?--check his hands and clothes for GSR, get him to give an account of his actions so that it can be contradicted by other witnesses if he's not telling the truth.  And then, of course, he goes on to do all the other Zodiac murders, despite being too tall and too old to match the physical descriptions.

 

"RAY- “And, since the evidence says the victims were murdered by at least TWO people, he's one person short”Me- You have ZERO evidence of this, it's strictly a theory on your part  "

 

As I said, you and your friends don't believe in forensics, ballistics, eyewitness testimony, or circumstantial evidence.  When you subtract all that from any murder case, you'll probably be left with ZERO.

 

"RAY- “Here's the amazing thing about Morf:  He has his own message board where, unlike Mike Butterfield, he posts all the time.  He also posts on ZKF.  When Mike Kelleher wrote an article on ZodiacRevisited about my Timeline approach, Morf wrote several long comments presenting his own views.”ME- I feel the need to counter your distorted views and garbage wherever  find it."

 

Really?  You're already backpedaling on your James Owen theory after I poked a few holes in it.  A few months ago, you believed a couple of classmates of Cheri Bates might be the Zodiac Killer because they moved to the Bay Area.  That, by the way, would make the Zodiac Killer 20-22 during the canonical murders, which seems a bit young and isn't consistent with what the eyewitnesses say.

 

You're playing some sort of Whack-A-Mole game with potential suspects.  I'm still saying the same thing I said in 1990.  I'll let the reader decide whose view of the case is distorted. 

 

"RAY- “If you write a book about the Zodiac Killer, Morf posts a review on Amazon trashing your book.  Plus Morf is now posting on Tom's board.  If you have a Zodiac message board or website open to comments, sooner or later you're going to get a visit from Morf.  Morf files Freedom Of Information Act requests with the FBI.”ME- Only if the book in question sucks, of has theories that are full of holes. If you wrote one with your crazy theory, you would get a bad review from me too."

 

My book's been available for free online for the past 3 1/2 years.  You can even read the earlier paper editions that I've posted on TZMS.  If you'd like to give a specific example of something "crazy" that I wrote, let's hear it.

 

If it's just that you don't LIKE what I'm saying, that's too bad.

 

"RAY- “I don't see how I am "blabbering".  I've been saying the same thing for 23+ years.  I have explained, in great detail, what I think about the case and why I believe what I believe.  What I say is consistent with the evidence.  Morf ignores the evidence”ME- Police have laughed at you and mocked you that long too."

 

I'll cite just one example of how ridiculous that point is.  Captain Roy Conway of Vallejo PD told me, in 1991, that he didn't consider me a "kook", but that he had to dismiss my theory because I believed the Zodiac Killer murdered Cheri Bates.  Roy Conway KNEW, from talking with Riverside PD, that their local suspect committed that murder.  He was talking about "Bob Barnett".

 

Would it be fair to say that Riverside PD has been laughed at and mocked on Zodiac message boards since 1999 for thinking that "Barnett" was the killer?

 

"RAY- “Am I blue in the face yet?  The only witness at Lake Herman Road who says she saw the victims alive in the turnout is Peggy Your.  If you want to say Homer said the same thing, he wasn't quoted by the responding officer, so maybe he just nodded in agreement while Peggy was talking?  I doubt it. In short, I don't think Peggy saw the victims on her way in, and I think she was too preoccupied with the hunters on the way out to notice the Rambler.”ME- She specifically saw his hands move off the steering wheel. You are ignoring that? So you want me to disregard what she said but accept all of what Owen said? Hmm… seems like a double standard, you can’t have it both ways."

 

That's actually a fair point.  My approach toward eyewitness testimony is that it has to be fit into the context of what the other witnesses said and the physical evidence.  This almost always has to be done to some extent because, as David Belin has pointed out, the eyewitness accounts invariably contradict one another on some detail, and it's up to the investigator to weigh each statement and decide what actually happened, if possible.

 

For example, I already pointed out that the times cited by the hunters, William Crow, and Bingo Wesher aren't consistent with each other, so the investigator has to decide who's right and who's wrong.  I originally thought William Crow was wrong, so I moved his time up from 9:30pm to circa 8:30pm.  Then, when I realized that Bingo Wesher and the hunters both appeared at the same time, I knew that one of their times (9pm or 10pm) had to be wrong.  Which meant that William Crow could be right about 9:30pm.

 

The only witness in the Zodiac case who I believe was deliberately lying was Donald Fouke, and he was doing that to cover his ass.  I believe Robert Connelly, Helen Axe, and Peggy Your were all giving statements they believed to be true.  I believe Robert Connelly was wrong about the time he arrived on the road--it was more like 10pm.  I believe Helen Axe was right about everything except her identification of the Rambler--she saw the white Chevy Impala, not the Rambler.  I believe Peggy Your was right about seeing the Rambler in the turnout, but she couldn't have seen them when her headlights flashed onto their car, because her headlights wouldn't have flashed onto their car, for the reasons I've already stated.  Plus, the other two witness who gave statements, Connelly and Owen, said they saw no one inside the Rambler. 

 

Now, if you ask me who was right about the confrontation in the Marshall Ranch turnout--Robert Connelly or Peggy and Homer Your--I can't offer an opinion.  Obviously, either the hunters or the Yours were lying about that.  Fortunately, it's not germane to a discussion of the murders, except in the sense that  Peggy Your would have been preoccupied with the hunters following them as they drove back east along the road.

 

"RAY- “It's clear that the police looked at Owen and looked at Robert Connley and decided that Connley was more suspicous and had exhibited more aggression, which is why they read Connley his rights and not Owen”ME- Then why test Owen’s guns at all? Why question him a 2nd time?That didn't happen with Owen, instead, they allowed him to question a potential witness, and report back to them. (my original statement)to which Ray responded:RAY- “Another ridiculous point, since Owen is the one who suggested the other witness”ME- Ray, I know you are out of touch, but Detectives don’t send witnesses/suspects to question other possible witnesses, use your common sense."

 

I'm not out of touch, and I don't need to use my common sense.  I just read the LHR police report.  The police also asked Helen Axe to bring her sailor boy friend in so they could ascertain the positioning of the car in the turnout.  Why didn't SCSO just find out the name of the sailor and go question him themselves?  They didn't.  They had Helen Axe get back to them, which she apparently never did, and they never followed up on it.

 

If you'd done your homework, you'd know from the comments of Sharon Henslin and Betty Lou's other friends that police were convinced the murders were drug-related.  When they came to the police station, Betty Lou's friends were grilled about a presumed drug connection.  They also took the lead about Betty Lou's friend RICKY quite seriously, and they read Robert Connelly his rights at one point.  They clearly didn't take Owen seriously as a suspect.  In retrospect, considering that he didn't match the physical descriptions of the Zodiac, that seems to have been a good decision on their part.

 

"9 Hours after the murders, Owen is standing at the scene of a double shooting with chalk outlines on the ground. Does he mention the fact he heard a shot the night before just after he went by the scene? NOPE! It isn't until 3 days later in his 2nd statement that he now suddenly remembers the gunshot. Seriously? (My original statement) RAY- “Owen's first statement was right after hearing about the murders, and was made while police were processing the scene.  It's reasonable to assume both police and the witness were a little distracted.  He gave the second statement at the police station, so the conditions under which he gave the statements were very different. He stopped on his way home from work to give a statement.  No one knew he drove by the turnout that night.  He didn't have to do anything, and no one could have placed him on the road.  And if someone HAD seen him, he could have said he didn't see anything.  I hate to break this to you Morf.  I know this is going to come as a tremendous shock to you, so you better brace yourself for a big dose of reality here: Police very often size up a suspect and decide from his general demeanor how believable or suspicious he is.  Clearly, the SCSO investigators didn't think Owen was suspicious, and it's a judgment call.”ME- Well Ray, then why test his guns? Then why get a 2nd statement from him?"

 

I'm assuming they tested his guns just to eliminate him.  You know, police procedure?  I'm assuming they took a second statement from him because the first statement was taken under relatively informal conditions, at the crime scene the morning after the murders.

 

"RAY- “In any case, he wasn't the Zodiac, because David and Betty Lou were murdered by at least two people”ME- You have ZERO Proof of this, that’s like me saying the person that shot them that night was wearing a pink jogging suit….based on what?? Strictly more theory and opinion by you"

 

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "ZERO Proof", other than this habit of yours to completely ignore forensics, ballistics, eyewitness testimony, and circumstantial evidence when you don't LIKE what they say.

 

Betty Lou Jensen had GSR on the back of her dress, which means she was shot within 5 feet of the gun barrel.  But she would have exited the passenger side door prior to David while the Zodiac was circling the car firing into the right rear window and the left rear wheel well.  The shooter would have had to turn his gun toward David, press the barrel against his left ear, and fire, and then avoid David's falling body, aim the gun in the direction of Betty Lou, and fire again while she was within 5 feet of the gun barrel.

 

But, since she exited the car before David did, she wouldn't have been within 5 feet of the gun at that point.

 

And if you want to say that the victims were simply directed out of the car at gunpoint, how do you explain the two shots into the car?

 

You remind me of Carol Boone, Ted Bundy's girl friend who bore his child while he was in prison.  She was asked if anything could convince her of Bundy's guilt.  She said she'd have to have video of Bundy committing the murders.

 

Sorry I don't have video of what happened in that turnout.

 

"RAY- “I self-published a book in August 1990.  I've had a website edition of that book up since August 2010.  You can go to it right now if you want.  During that entire time, I keep saying the same thing: 4 people were involved in the Zodiac Project. Michael O'Hare: the trigger manGareth Penn: the press agentBerta Margoulies: overall concept and planningHugh Penn: cryptography and access to police information (DMV, etc.)”ME- This is too funny for me to even respond to,but I will try in between laughs.  You have zero proof of this, and you have the balls to repeatedly attack my suspicion  of Owen for being at the scene, meanwhile you have not 1, not 2,not 3 but 4 different people involved in the Zodiac case, and can tie none of them to the scene. None of them are stocky or over 200 lbs (since you like to use those Z physical descriptions so much). This crazy theory of yours should demonstrate how delusional you truly are."

 

If we add up all the people you've suspected of being the Zodiac Killer, just off the top of my head, it already comes to 3: two classmates of Cheri Bates, and James Owen.  Speaking of balls, you haven't had the balls to accuse the POIs who are still living, and you didn't accuse James Owen while he was still alive.  I'm guessing that you've suspected more than 3 people by now, but I'm not going to bother to do any homework on it.  As I said, you play Whack-A-Mole with suspects.

 

Again, if we're going to accuse everyone we can associate with the murder scenes of being the Zodiac Killer, that's a lot of people.  I'm guessing that whoever the Zodiac Killer was, he was never officially associated with any of those scenes, so what's your point?

 

Michael O'Hare is of medium height and stocky; you can go on You Tube and view him in the classroom if you want.

 

If I were delusional, why is it that when I accused my main suspect at his place of work in front of his colleagues, his response was to quit his job, sell his house, and move his family to the other end of the country?  And this after telling his Harvard classmates in the 1989 Class of 1964 Report about how ideal working at the JFK School of Government was.

 

Michael O'Hare wrote an op-ed piece about Gareth Penn in the Washington Monthly in 2009.  By his own account, Penn's accusation was little more than a minor nuisance.  My accusation turned his life upside-down, and that of his wife, his mother, and his two young daughters.  He doesn't mention me or even refer to me as a "Penn acolyte", despite my accusing his mother of multiple murder.  I have absolutely no fear of his ever suing me; he's deathly afraid that I may sue him.  In the meantime, he held Gareth Penn up to ridicule in a national publication, and Penn chose NOT to sue him, even though he spent 3 decades accusing O'Hare of being the Zodiac Killer.  By the way, I'm not the only one who's suggested that Penn and O'Hare are in cahoots; here's a thread from Tom's Original Archived Message Board:

 

http://www.zodiackiller.com/mba/ozs/99.html

 

In any case, you don't disprove a crazy theory simply by calling it delusional.  See Carl Sagan's analysis of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision, which is featured in Sagan's own book Broca's Brain.  I'm guessing you haven't read it.

 

"As a matter of fact, this will be my last post ever debating you, because, I simply can’t debate somebody so  ‘out there’. "

 

It's also unpleasant to debate someone who's beating you.  I'm guessing that's why you keep trying to block my IP address.

 

By the way, I'm not looking at the board right this minute, but didn't you file another post immediately after this one?  How's your impulse control?

 

"RAY-“I believe a varying combination of the conspirators were actively involved in the abductions  in Riverside and on Lake Herman Road.  I believe Michael O'Hare was the lone gunman/killer at Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa, and Presidio Heights, though there could have been a second passenger in Presidio Heights who got out at Washington & Maple and went to a parked car and eventually picked up Michael O'Hare on Jackson Street”ME- Oh My….just spilled my coffee, sorry, laughing too hard. ME- Ray, I think Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, Mary Poppins, and a Leprechaun were part  of a z team, that holds as much water as your theory. Wow, no wonder the cops have been laughing at you and your wild theories before us ‘Hobbyists’ came along.  Again, I won’t respond to you or debate you again, so good luck.Oh, and one last time, it’s……. CONNELLY!"

 

I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny that you didn't spill your coffee, that you weren't laughing, and that, in fact, your teeth were clenched tightly as you typed those words.  I do appreciate your offer--probably also fictitious--to walk away, since you're wasting my time.  I'm guessing you'll be filing another post momentarily.

 

When were the cops laughing at me?  SLTPD officially endorsed my request to SFPD to do a GPR scan of Portsmouth Square Park, and NorCal Geophysics was ready to do the scan, pending permission from SFPD.  Riverside PD answered my inquiry about the Timex watch.  Ken Moses, one of the creators of AFIS, has sent me reports about SFPD's handling of the Presidio Heights latents.  I had numerous conversations with the late Ray Lauritzen, the late George Bawart, and Roy Conway.  Maybe the late Fred Shirasago didn't take me seriously, but as Tom Voigt will attest, Freddie thought Happy Hour went on all day.

 

However the surname of the younger hunter at Lake Herman Road is spelled, it's not germane to the case itself.  But congratulations on getting something right, if you did.
Last edited by Ray Grant on December 5th, 2013, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:07 pm

December 5th, 2013, 8:37 pm #62

"Sorry Ray, I coudn't resist this, okay carry on, you were saying...blagh,blagh,blagh"

That took you 2 edits?  Really?

Maybe you should get back to work at the car dealership.  You're in too deep on a serial murder case.

In other words, Less Zodiac and More Ford.

Get it?  "More Ford"?
Quote
Like
Share

Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:07 pm

June 3rd, 2014, 7:00 pm #63

I wasn't planning on posting on a Zodiac message board in 2014, but both Tom Voigt and Dave Oranchak recently emailed me, expressing curiosity as to how I was doing.  I appreciate the concern and the kind words, Tom and Dave.  The great thing about this case is that you can go away for several months or years and come back and nothing's happened.

I happened to stumble over something amusing recently, so I thought I'd share it with the board, especially since it pertains to a lot of the back-and-forth on this particular thread.  Attention moderators:  contact Tom via PM before you even think about editing this.

Here's a quote from post #50 on this thread:

"Glad I could help you correct ONE of your errors"

The reason people have the opportunity to correct my errors is that they're allowed to read them.

There is a Zodiac message board administrator who blocked my IP address, not to keep me from posting on his message board, but to prevent me from READING his message board.  When that didn't work, because I was using a proxy server, he then blocked the proxy server's IP address.  When I respond to threads posted on his message board about me, he takes those threads down.  And no, I'm not talking about Mike Butterfield.


Lest anyone think I was making all that up, here is the smoking gun.  I just happened to notice this entry on one of the phpbb forums recently:

 by morf13 » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:39 pm
Didnt really see where to place this,but it seems related,so I hope somebody responds here. I BANNED (not deactivated) a trouble making IP address. The IP address was a member at my old forum, but not my new one. I didnt allow him to become a member at the new forum,but didnt want him to be even able to read the main page,or anything at all. Is there a way to ensure that his IP is banned completely for every bit of the site? I want him to not even be able to see the main page. Advice please, thanks


Sad, isn't it?  I feel like Ralph at the end of Lord of the Flies, after Morf and his friends have set fire to the island.  I'm crying for mankind.

The trouble maker Morf is talking about banning here is me, and it's not banning in the usual sense but "banning from reading".  Morf says here that he didn't allow me to become a member at his new forum.  That's a lie; I never even asked to be a member at his new forum.

I was originally a member on Morf's private board because he was posting material about my book on his forum, and I could only read it and respond to it if I became a member.  I'd never felt any particular desire to post on a Zodiac message board from 1998 until 2010, but since they were talking specifically about my book, I guess curiosity got the better of me.  I left the forum voluntarily after a couple months because answering the same questions over and over was taking up too much of my time.  Morf then asked me to rejoin at the beginning of 2013, but by that time about half the ZKF board had absconded to ZKS.  I began receiving threatening PMs from those people and, when I shut down my PM mailbox, threatening emails.  I still have all of those if people would like to see them; I never throw an email away.

I don't think people like Morf who spend so much of their time filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the FBI should be denying access to what is supposed to be a public forum, and then compounding the felony by freely exercising his own reading and posting priveleges on ZKF, ZK.com, ZodiacRevisited.com, Amazon, and any other forum that doesn't ban people from reading its content.

But let's look at a more recent phpbb forum post:

My Version is not latest version, does that effect SEO rank?

 by morf13 » Thu May 22, 2014 3:30 pm
I do not have the latest version of PHPBB software on my site,but I do have BOTS accessing my site, frequently or daily.

I have noticed a sharp drop in my google rankings. My site is a very specific niche, and is constantly updated with lots of fresh new material. I used to be on page 1-4, but in the last couple months, have dropped to page 10 or lower. Can me not having the latest PHPBB version installed have anything to do with it? Any other possible causes? Any help or advice is appreciated, thanks!


As far as I can tell, Morf wants it both ways.  He wants the publicity that comes with having a public forum: that's what gets him interviewed on radio shows.  On the other hand, he wants the privacy and Thought Police control of what he was used to for years, a private forum that only certain people can read.

Morf wants to be able to post his one-star reviews of books that don't share his view of the case on Amazon.  But if you post your own one-star review of something you read on Morf's message board--not on someone else's forum, mind you, but on your own blog--he does everything he can to ban you from even reading his website.

I feel the need to counter your distorted views and garbage wherever find it.  [sic]

Yeah, I got that.  But clearly, you would deny other people the right to reciprocate.  I don't think this attitude serves the free exchange of ideas.

But that's just my take on it.
Quote
Like
Share

morf13
DOJ
Joined: November 26th, 2013, 5:29 pm

June 3rd, 2014, 9:03 pm #64

Hey Ray, glad to see you are back from hiatus, how was your "retirement"?

I will only reply this one single time to your rant, and will not respond again.

I feel flattered that you are stalking me, entering my user name in google and seeing what comes up. I almost feel like one of the unsuspecting young ladies who you mentioned in your diary as you 'observed' them. Remember that? I do, awfully creepy by the way.

As far as my post about search engines and results, I am always concerned since I probably have the second biggest and most active zodiac message board on the net, and it's always loaded and updated with fresh materials, yet the search engines are not finding it. I have some tech issues I am in the process of correcting,but as you can see, I have nothing to hide, I was even a big boy and used the same user name I always use at every forum. It's not free, as Tom will tell you, to run a web site, so you want to see results from your $$

I DO appreciate you checking up on me. By the way, whenever you decide to post, why do I always have that scene from Billy Madison playing in my head? You know the one, where Billy calls Steve Buscemi to apologize and Steve crosses Billy off his list....

oh well, as you were, carry on with your rants
Last edited by morf13 on June 3rd, 2014, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Ray Grant
Old Newbie
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:07 pm

June 4th, 2014, 9:15 am #65

 

My entire post had to do with the hypocrisy of Morf blocking my IP address; at no time in his reply does he ever come even close to addressing that topic.

 

Hey Ray, glad to see you are back from hiatus, how was your "retirement"?

 

I don't recall telling anyone I'd retired.  I took my websites down at the end of the year for various reasons, most of which I explained in my final blog entry on ZodiacKillerConfidential.com, "In Closing".  The entire article had to do with my reasons for shutting my websites down.  If you want, I'll put the whole thing back up on the message board here so you can see for yourself.  I didn't say I was walking away from the case, necessarily.

I will only reply this one single time to your rant, and will not respond again.

 

Why do you keep saying that?  You keep saying it, and then you just file another post.  Why not just stop saying it?




Here's what you said last time:

 

As a matter of fact, this will be my last post ever debating you, because, I simply can’t debate somebody so  ‘out there’. 

 

Morf, you're afraid of debating me because you're going to lose.  But you have to understand something.  You're not losing because you're a lousy debater.  You're arguing something that's just not true, and you're not willing to admit it.

 

Other than myself, I think Mike Rodelli may be the best pure investigator in the Zodiac online community.  His research is meticulous and his arguments are compelling.  He's made many insights into the case that I agree with wholeheartedly, including that the SFPD DNA is absolutely worthless.  DNA is left by several bodily fluids, including blood, semen, saliva, and sweat.  The problem is, those letters and envelopes were handled by every administrator and his drinking buddies for more than three decades before they were submitted for profiling.  Some of the artifacts were actually kept at people's homes, and had to be hunted down and retrieved for examination.  There's no telling where they've been, which means they've been compromised as evidence.  No wonder SFPD isn't enthusiastic about the DNA testing; some political crony of the police department may end up getting fingered as the city's most notorious serial killer.

 

Rodelli, unfortunately, decided that Kjell Qvale was the Zodiac Killer.  He wasn't.  The Zodiac Killer was multiple people: at least three in Riverside, and at least three on Lake Herman Road.  That's what the physical and circumstantial evidence tells us.




You don't LIKE that conclusion.  I get that.  But it doesn't change anything.


I feel flattered that you are stalking me, entering my user name in google and seeing what comes up.

 

Don't feel flattered.  I'm not stalking you, Morf.  And I never entered your user name in Google.  I was putzing around on my laptop, on Monday evening, and I was curious to see if the old private ZKS board was still up.  It was a stroll down memory lane, a break while I was typing something else.  The last time I went on that board, I had no trouble accessing it despite the IP address ban.

 

You may remember the Gareth Penn thread, which began with a post by Bentley/Wrench, where I am named in the very first sentence of the thread (which went on for 20-odd pages or so).  Here's the first paragraph:  

 

Bentley

Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:19 pm

 

Just to let everyone know, I sent those 3 "Raymond Grant" Zodiac books I got with the Napa Sentinel stuff to Mike Martin, the guy with that Weeklyscientist.com site who wrote the extensive piece on Penn. Mike is certain that Penn is "Raymond Grant", which adds some mystery to the plot since "Grant" accuses Penn, in great length, and O'Hare of plotting the Z murders together. Weird huh? Also apparently "Grant" tosses a couple more murders Penn's way (I never read the dang books, too Mensa for me). Anyway it makes sense, Penn was pounding the Napa Sentinel with letters, he must have also sent the books.

 

What makes this post so extraordinary is that I wasn't even a member on ZKS until more than three months later.  Here's the email Morf sent me at the time:

 

Jun 12, 2010


Ray,


 

In regards to your message-

 

 "Mike,

 

I registered on your site a week ago and have yet to be activated.  When I Google "Ray Grant Zodiac", I always get your site (among others), and the link abstract includes discussion of "The Raymond Grant books".  Several of the other Zodiac sites have discussed me openly, so I'm not sure what the hesitation is.  Mike Rodelli emailed me to the effect that I was being discussed on your site as part of a Q&A, which is now available second-hand elsewhere (though I'd be interested in seeing the original source for the material).  Again, if you have any uncertainty about activating me, I'll do my best to clear it up.  I was a regular on the JFK assassination sites a couple years ago, and they're a lot more cut-throat than the Zodiac sites (trust me).  My strategy on message boards is to bend over backward to avoid offending anyone (or taking sides, for that matter).  In any case, if you don't want to activate me I'd appreciate knowing why.


Take care,



Ray
"

 

I apologize for not activating you sooner. Our forum is by  invite-only, and not generally open to the public. When someone signs up, I dont activate them, unless they are referred here by someone.

 

We do discuss Penn, and a great deal of other suspects, and Zodiac case in general. My understanding is that you and Penn knew each other in some capacity. He has denied this fact on our forum. I would certainly be interested in what you have to say regarding Penn, and how he relates to you, the Zodiac case, etc. ( Although, I dont think personally that Penn or Ohare were involved in the Zodiac case)

 

You are now  active. Please  post a little about yourself in the "introduce yourself" thread, which is 3rd from the top on the forum.

 

Welcome, and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Mike, AKA,  "Morf13"

 

By the way, I stopped bending over backward to avoid offending people some time ago.  I think it was my experience on that Gareth Penn thread that ruined me for life.

 

In any case, long story short, I first Googled ZODIACKILLERSITE and just got the current board.  It used to be that if you Googled ZODIACKILLERSITE, you also got the original private-but-now-defunct board.  But, no luck this time.  So I Googled ZODIACKILLERSITE PHPBB, and the link to that forum question about banning people was the second on the first page.  Try it yourself.


 

Suffice it to say, I never Googled your username.  Wouldn't it be kind of stupid and counterproductive to Google your username, when you're posting all over the damn place?

 

I almost feel like one of the unsuspecting young ladies who you mentioned in your diary as you 'observed' them. Remember that? I do, awfully creepy by the way.

 

Morf, you've already accused an innocent man, James Owen, of being the Zodiac Killer, and did that despite his being completely forthcoming and cooperative with you, as he was with the police.  And, like the coward that you are, you waited until he was deceased to hurl your idiotic accusation at him.

 

Now it sounds like you're trying to accuse me of some sort of wrongdoing, the exact nature of which I haven't quite figured out yet.  Would you care to be more specific?

 

Remember what Patrick Henry said about King George the Third?  You should look at what happened to Mike Butterfield when he started allowing defamatory posts about me to appear on his board, and profit by his example.  Butterfield's board barely exists these days.  Here's a recent post:

 

by diablo » Fri May 23, 2014 8:24 pm

Where is everyone?

 
I had to laugh at that one!  I take it Diablo's been away for a while.

 

Writing majors in college are encouraged to keep journals.  It's one of the ways you practice techniques like description, and it also provides material from your own life to convert into other forms.  A friend of mine from Carnegie-Mellon University went to work at Facebook seven or eight years ago, and he talked me into signing up for it back when it was mostly just people on college campuses.  Anyway, I started posting my journal on my Facebook page as an incentive to do it every day, and it made my page more interesting than just the ones with the occasional note kept haphazardly.

 

There's really no point in keeping a journal unless you're willing to be completely honest, and that sometimes means revealing aspects of yourself that aren't politically correct.  I've read edited diaries by writers like Anais Nin and Ned Rorem, and find them uninteresting, because they present day-to-day life as if it were a philosophical exercise.  No one lives his life that way.  The best journals are straightforward, by people like Samuel Pepys, who was willing to talk about his flirtations with women in church, or James Boswell, whose London Journal is one long exercise in debauchery.

 

There's a recently-discovered mental syndrome called hyperthymesia, of people who remember each day of their lives as if it happened yesterday.  I believe that would be a very useful resource if it weren't automatic.  My journal entries tend to be extremely detailed, and include things other people might leave out, like what I ate, what I bought, defecations, and even embarrassing incidents.  The husband of one of my female friends once told me he was an avid reader of my Facebook journal, because I wrote about everything.

 

If I go out to the supermarket and see an attractive woman there, I mention in my journal what specifically attracted me, at least partly so that, if I read the entry a year later, I'll remember the details.  I don't get what's creepy about that.  There's a blog called postmasculine.com, which is a fairly enlightened PUA forum, where the expert says if you're going to worry about possibly being thought of as creepy in social situations, you'll never approach a woman in the first place.  I'm single and unattached.  When I was in high school, every girl I was interested in was also interested in me.  It didn't always turn into a relationship, but I never had any trouble getting my foot in the door.  I'm 63 now, and the older I get, the friendlier women get.  I think part of that may be that they consider me harmless now.

 

Go look at my Facebook page.  Notice I don't have to wear a hoodie to cover my face, or put up an out-of-focus profile picture.  I took down the journal entries when I realized that people like Butterfield were going to my Facebook page and copying pictures off it while I was posting on the supposedly private ZKS.  Again, I assume Ed Neil gave Butterfield his log-in code, and Butterfield then put an unflattering picture of me from 2008 atop The Crackpot Files.

 

But, as I said before, Morf, nothing I put in my journal could possibly be any creepier than a grown man with a family going to my Facebook page and reading my journal, and doing it surreptitiously.  People reading this might get the impression we were Facebook friends at one point; we weren't.  You did that on your own, and you were doing it for a while, since I took the journal entries down more than a year ago.


As far as my post about search engines and results, I am always concerned since I probably have the second biggest and most active zodiac message board on the net, and it's always loaded and updated with fresh materials, yet the search engines are not finding it. I have some tech issues I am in the process of correcting,but as you can see, I have nothing to hide, I was even a big boy and used the same user name I always use at every forum. It's not free, as Tom will tell you, to run a web site, so you want to see results from your $$

 

Once again, you completely missed the point.  You want all the benefits of a public forum with all the control of a private board.  You worry about your SEO while blocking IP addresses.  The type of message board you run is the cheapest way to do it.  It's like Butterfield complaining on ZKF that he'd had to spend $600 in four years.  Sheesh.  I can't speak for everyone, but to Tom and myself, that's chump change.  I sent 96 copies of my first book to the JFK School at Harvard in November 1990, at $35 a pop, and that was just the printing costs.  And that was a quarter century ago. 

I DO appreciate you checking up on me.

 

As I said before, I wasn't checking up on you.  Your forum decided to mention me around the same time Butterfield's did, and I responded.  And, like Butterfield, you're always willing to sink a little lower than the competition.

 

I suspect the two of you will wind up in the same place.
Quote
Like
Share

Tahoe27
DOJ
Joined: March 5th, 2007, 6:45 pm

June 4th, 2014, 4:15 pm #66

Can we get back to the actual Helen Axe thread please?

These long arguments don't belong here.
"Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple". Dr. Suess   
Quote
Like
Share

DerekP
Old Newbie
DerekP
Old Newbie
Joined: August 28th, 2012, 3:42 am

May 27th, 2018, 3:08 am #67

I've looked everywhere... has anyone ever found out the name of Helen's sailor boyfriend?
Quote
Like
Share