The psychology of Z...imo, a big clue is the Lake Berryessa murders..

Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell
Sept. 27, 1969 at Lake Berryessa in Napa County, Cal.
Discussion of definite Zodiac victims Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell should be posted here

The psychology of Z...imo, a big clue is the Lake Berryessa murders..

csmith
Old Newbie
csmith
Old Newbie
Joined: February 27th, 2014, 4:58 am

January 7th, 2018, 7:21 am #1

more specifically, the Zodiac "costume" Z wore, & why he wore it.  Who would take that much time to manufacture an elaborate costume to do something that basically only they themselves would live would to know about? Well a nutjob would, but why would they do that? What would motivate them to do something so irrational?  They would HAVE to be thoroughly obsessed with movies, plays, theater, etc. & if u ask me, that costume looked an awful lot like count Zarloff from "the most Dangerous Game", too much like it to not be connected.  THAT is a big clue that should be/should have been focused on, I know it was & is taken into consideration, but I think it's more telling than just something to notate.  I think Z was very much connected to the theater, someone who  would do what he did at L.B. would have to be.  & I know this angle was investigated, but I don;t think it should even be taken off of the front page of any Z investigation.  Call me crazy, foolish, ignorant, gullible, WRONG, call me whatever u wish, but to me, as long as I've been doing this(12ish years, not long compared to many of u), it seems like every road--other than the physical evidence--leads back to A.L.A.  I know many rule him out based upon the DNA & other physical evidence, but I just can't.  There are WAY too many things that point to him, & I just cannot assume that it's all a big coincidence or that he's the victim(or should I say victom)of extremely bad luck.  Uh-uh.
Quote
Like
Share

Not You
Newbie
Not You
Newbie
Joined: September 23rd, 2012, 2:30 am

January 7th, 2018, 9:36 am #2

In what way did the costume resemble Zaroff? I don't recall Zaroff having a mask or anything...
Quote
Like
Share

csmith
Old Newbie
csmith
Old Newbie
Joined: February 27th, 2014, 4:58 am

January 7th, 2018, 4:23 pm #3

Hey, don't let facts get in the way of my theory.
Quote
Like
Share

Not You
Newbie
Not You
Newbie
Joined: September 23rd, 2012, 2:30 am

January 8th, 2018, 12:38 am #4

haha, my bad
Quote
Like
Share

Sierra
Old Newbie
Sierra
Old Newbie
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 12:27 am

April 11th, 2018, 6:47 pm #5

csmith wrote: Hey, don't let facts get in the way of my theory.
The DNA tests did not rule out ALA. The test results were almost useless to the Zodiac investigation (right now). The only way it would be useful is if it matched a person who shouldn't have had contact with the letter; like Cheney or Giakowski.

new-zodiac-dna-story-t8003.html

It could have been ALA, or someone was trying to implicate him.



.
Quote
Like
Share

csmith
Old Newbie
csmith
Old Newbie
Joined: February 27th, 2014, 4:58 am

April 11th, 2018, 7:01 pm #6

Sierra wrote:
csmith wrote: Hey, don't let facts get in the way of my theory.
The DNA tests did not rule out ALA. The test results were almost useless to the Zodiac investigation (right now). The only way it would be useful is if it matched a person who shouldn't have had contact with the letter; like Cheney or Giakowski.

new-zodiac-dna-story-t8003.html

It could have been ALA, or someone was trying to implicate him.
Yes I know, & I agree.  I still feel ALA is the "best" suspect, but the physical evidence(other than DNA)should have implicated him, something should have at least, meanwhile the amount of circumstancial evidence against him would lead to a conviction 99 times out of 100 cases, but not this one, & that is another facet that makes this case such a puzzle inside of a riddle inside of a mystery.  & so amazingly compelling.
Quote
Like
Share

Regal_Legal_Beagle
Old Newbie
Joined: February 1st, 2018, 6:21 pm

April 12th, 2018, 3:30 pm #7

csmith wrote:
Sierra wrote:
csmith wrote: Hey, don't let facts get in the way of my theory.
The DNA tests did not rule out ALA. The test results were almost useless to the Zodiac investigation (right now). The only way it would be useful is if it matched a person who shouldn't have had contact with the letter; like Cheney or Giakowski.

new-zodiac-dna-story-t8003.html

It could have been ALA, or someone was trying to implicate him.
Yes I know, & I agree.  I still feel ALA is the "best" suspect, but the physical evidence(other than DNA)should have implicated him, something should have at least, meanwhile the amount of circumstancial evidence against him would lead to a conviction 99 times out of 100 cases, but not this one, & that is another facet that makes this case such a puzzle inside of a riddle inside of a mystery.  & so amazingly compelling.
Of course he was never tried, so we don't know if the circumstantial evidence would have convicted him. I think there's a good chance he would have been convicted if the prosecutor was good at his or her job. But, also, part of being good at that job is knowing when you have a strong enough case to move forward. In a case this high profile, prosecutors want to be very confident they will get a conviction before they proceed since they only get one bite at the apple. Nobody wants to be known as the San Diego florist who used to be a lawyer, the former DA from up around SF that let the Zodiac walk. 

Without a single piece of physical evidence they could point to that connected him to one or more of the crimes, the risk was too high. Especially, knowing high profile defense attorneys would be lining up to take the case for free (the fact that Belli was apparently a shitty criminal defense attorney notwithstanding).
Quote
Like
Share

csmith
Old Newbie
csmith
Old Newbie
Joined: February 27th, 2014, 4:58 am

April 12th, 2018, 4:50 pm #8

Regal_Legal_Beagle wrote:
csmith wrote:
Sierra wrote:

The DNA tests did not rule out ALA. The test results were almost useless to the Zodiac investigation (right now). The only way it would be useful is if it matched a person who shouldn't have had contact with the letter; like Cheney or Giakowski.

new-zodiac-dna-story-t8003.html

It could have been ALA, or someone was trying to implicate him.
Yes I know, & I agree.  I still feel ALA is the "best" suspect, but the physical evidence(other than DNA)should have implicated him, something should have at least, meanwhile the amount of circumstancial evidence against him would lead to a conviction 99 times out of 100 cases, but not this one, & that is another facet that makes this case such a puzzle inside of a riddle inside of a mystery.  & so amazingly compelling.
Of course he was never tried, so we don't know if the circumstantial evidence would have convicted him. I think there's a good chance he would have been convicted if the prosecutor was good at his or her job. But, also, part of being good at that job is knowing when you have a strong enough case to move forward. In a case this high profile, prosecutors want to be very confident they will get a conviction before they proceed since they only get one bite at the apple. Nobody wants to be known as the San Diego florist who used to be a lawyer, the former DA from up around SF that let the Zodiac walk. 

Without a single piece of physical evidence they could point to that connected him to one or more of the crimes, the risk was too high. Especially, knowing high profile defense attorneys would be lining up to take the case for free (the fact that Belli was apparently a shitty criminal defense attorney notwithstanding).
I still wonder if it is in fact true that Vallejo(I believe it was Vallejo anyway)was going to arrest & indict him for the case only to see him die before they could do so.  Anyway, to address your point, I don't think there's much doubt that most prosecutors would take that case in today's justice system.  The circumstancial evidence against him is overwhelming, imo, & far greater than any other suspect we know of.  I don't know if they would prove he wa Z, but I think there's a good chance they would get a conviction.
Quote
Like
Share

ratman
DOJ
Joined: February 24th, 2007, 11:52 pm

April 14th, 2018, 11:02 am #9

ALA was only Graysmith's suspect. They would have never come close to trying him. Any judge would label it all circumstantial and hearsay evidence and refused to try it.
Quote
Like
Share

Regal_Legal_Beagle
Old Newbie
Joined: February 1st, 2018, 6:21 pm

April 15th, 2018, 4:46 am #10

ratman wrote: ALA was only Graysmith's suspect. They would have never come close to trying him. Any judge would label it all circumstantial and hearsay evidence and refused to try it.
You shouldn't let your personal biases and opinions cause you to state things that simply aren't true. Right or wrong, some at Vallejo PD never gave up trying to nail ALA for this. To say Graysmith was the only one who thought of him as a suspect is false.

Further, that's not how the justice system works. 
Quote
Like
Share