Why Zodiac was never caught?
-
Murray_Hewitt — 11 years ago(January 03, 2015 12:08 PM)
Well, we don't know for sure it was Zodiac or just a random passer.
The book and the movie differ a lot in the details surrounding this incident. In the book, when the two patrolmen see the man, instead of driving straight past him, they ask him if he had seen anything unusual in the last few minutes. The man replies he saw someone with gun running down a nearby side street. The officers, believing the suspect they were looking for was black, let the man go without further questioning. In subsequent letters, the Zodiac taunts the police about the encounter, mentioning it as one of two opportunities they missed in capturing him on the night of the murder.
R
G
B -
cgsofwa — 11 years ago(January 15, 2015 04:21 PM)
I think the methods issue was part of it, as well as the limited technology they had available to them back then. Look at the Green River Killer case. They hung on to good physical evidence until DNA technology became so reliable. I also think that communications, or lack of, between departments played a huge role as well.
-
longcandle — 11 years ago(October 16, 2014 01:31 PM)
The only thing investigators had were
fingerprints, which may or may not have belonged to him
, a very generic physical description, a generic criminal profile and his handwritingwhich in 1969, wasn't much.
So now you're
NOT
so confident about the fingerprints? Huh, fiendfilms? Which is why you keep listing them as reasons to eliminate Arthur Leigh Allen as a viable suspect?
Do you realize how many times you've contradicted yourself over the last couple of years while being a complete a$$hole on this forum? Seriously, what can you possibly hope to contribute? -
fiendfilms — 11 years ago(January 15, 2015 05:55 PM)
You're right Longcandle, I've never been very confident about the Zodiacs alleged fingerprints. But in regards to Allen, his DNA, handwriting and a forearm print ruled him out as a suspect. All of those things, just not the fingerprints, have eliminated him as a suspect for me. Have a good day Londcandle.
-
longcandle — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 01:06 PM)
You're right Longcandle, I've never been very confident about the Zodiacs alleged fingerprints. But in regards to Allen, his DNA, handwriting and a forearm print ruled him out as a suspect. All of those things, just not the fingerprints, have eliminated him as a suspect for me. Have a good day Londcandle.
"forearm print"
?
Is that a new CSI Jim Sty technique? You have used that term at least half a dozen times in the last year-and-a-half; I never corrected you then because I was being polite. I believe that you mean "palm print"you ought to just shut up about anything relating to forensic science and the Zodiac killer.
Have a great day, Jim Styslinger. -
theunopeneddoor-697-442391 — 10 years ago(November 12, 2015 09:57 PM)
Fingerprints are actually a poor way of tracking someone anyway for a couple of reasons:
- We don't REALLY know if prints are unique. Sure we're TOLD they are, but there's no proof of this. No one knows this for sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10775477/Why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique.html - Fingerprints are examined by eye even today. Forget what you see on CSI and the like. There are not computers that analyze them. PEOPLE look at them and PEOPLE make mistakes.
https://www.gofundme.com/sinnersbible
- We don't REALLY know if prints are unique. Sure we're TOLD they are, but there's no proof of this. No one knows this for sure.
-
whereisamber — 9 years ago(April 24, 2016 06:46 AM)
I thought computers ran the initial matching (which is how it's possible to have a national database) but once the computer found a match, a human examined them and made he final determination.
Note: I'm not arguing with you or supporting the other people here. I'm only asking for my own curiosity because I think forensics are interesting. -
samantharifkinftb — 9 years ago(April 15, 2016 12:51 PM)
I agree. The Stine murder was the closest police ever came, and it was ultimately because of incredible and downright bad luck Zodiac got away. I know Fouke and Zelms have always denied they spoke to the man they saw on Jackson Street, but even if they're telling the truth, Zodiac probably couldn't believe his luck when they drove away. The fact that the dispatch stated the killer was black was just the biggest fluke of all. In some really macabre way its almost like he was meant to get away.
The lack of DNA was always a crucial factor to this investigation, too. Or rather, the lack of knowledge surrounding DNA. Its easy to watch this film or research the Zodiac case and judge how it was handled by today's standards. Crime, crime dramas, crime documentaries etc. are so prevolant now we all have a basic knowledge of just what can be accomplished with DNA and criminal profiling. But we're going back to 1969: the term 'serial killer' hadn't even been coined. Pretty much all the Zodiac crime scenes had police officers traipsing around, touching potentially key pieces of evidence. As Detective Bidou (an officer at the LHR scene) said, if these murders happened today the crime scenes themselves would be handled completely differently: forensic scientists taking earth samples, the bodies remaining in situ for 24 hours - all this just didn't happen.
But Zodiac was (and is) no means invincible. Whether inadvertently or not, certain clues and evidence were left behind i.e. the fingerprint and gloves in Stine's cab, the palm print on one of the letters and the saliva recovered from the stamps. He managed to get away with it for a number of reasons. But I think we can guarantee that if he committed these crimes today, with the exact same methods and manner, he probably would have been caught after the first murder. -
cookiela2001 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 12:56 PM)
I do think something that helps many serial killers remain loose is that they often choose victims outside their personal circle or connected to a secret life. So to the police, the killer could be practically anyoneand how do you investigate everyone?
It's really not funny but one situation I always kind of laugh about is the married killer who slay victims on business trips or at his home when his wife was awaythen buried them in the woods behind his house.
Then he became a suspect, and the police asked the wife if they could search the property, and she got all indignant and ordered them away, saying, "You're telling me my husband is a SERIAL KILLER???"
Then a week later one of their kids came skipping into the house with a moldy skull from out back, chirping, "Mommie, what's this?" -
jasonbourneagain — 11 years ago(November 22, 2014 04:26 AM)
PS Perhaps someone could drop a link for detailed analytical summary if such exists - why Zodiac wasn't caught?
It depends on who you think is the Zodiac killer. There are other theories and other summaries. There are other movies besides this one.
I just saw this movie for the third time. I'm not sure if it's still in the Wayback Machine, but if you want to look it could still be there. It's an article in the Vallejo Times that talks about Arthur Leigh Allen being brought to trial by Det. Mulanax of Vallejo PD. He discusses the evidence against him. As the movie states before the credits, he died of a heart attack before the trial. -
zender8584 — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 03:58 PM)
This just in: browsing the IMDB forums on a film you are about to watch is not a good idea if you want zero spoilers. If you want basic info about the movie prior to watching it (such as things that might offend you or running time), might we suggest the movie's main page.
The Anne Sellors fan club: http://www.imdb.com/board/21856457/board/threads/