Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

New lead in the Zodiac Killer Case ?


  • Please log in to reply
400 replies to this topic

#31    TheBloom

TheBloom

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:45 PM

I think what people are forgetting is the sketch is a sketch. Of course it wont be an exact match. It's a representation of what the police THINK he looked like.


#32    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:34 AM

View PostRandi, on 27 March 2011 - 11:45 PM, said:

I think what people are forgetting is the sketch is a sketch. Of course it wont be an exact match. It's a representation of what the police THINK he looked like.
Good point my friend, However we know the sketch is very accurate. The sketch was made after three witnesses saw a man leaving Paul Stine's Cab right after he was killed. The three witnesses watched the suspect from approximately 60 feet away as he wiped down the cab with a cloth after killing Stine, they had a very good look at him. As a matter of fact a few days after the sketch was circulated throughout the Bay Area in the form of a wanted poster, the witnesses requested the sketch be altered to make it more accurate. Now perhaps Zodiac was wearing a costume that day ( fake glasses, clothes to make him looks bigger ), we don't know for sure, but the sketch really looks like the man who killed Paul Stine.

Still nothing new on the pic.


#33    TheBloom

TheBloom

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:54 PM

View PostJVE, on 28 March 2011 - 12:34 AM, said:

Good point my friend, However we know the sketch is very accurate. The sketch was made after three witnesses saw a man leaving Paul Stine's Cab right after he was killed. The three witnesses watched the suspect from approximately 60 feet away as he wiped down the cab with a cloth after killing Stine, they had a very good look at him. As a matter of fact a few days after the sketch was circulated throughout the Bay Area in the form of a wanted poster, the witnesses requested the sketch be altered to make it more accurate. Now perhaps Zodiac was wearing a costume that day ( fake glasses, clothes to make him looks bigger ), we don't know for sure, but the sketch really looks like the man who killed Paul Stine.

Still nothing new on the pic.


I understand and completely agree, I think it just niggles at me when people nitpick at the tiniest details in a police sketch. Often they are very accurate, but it's near impossible to get everything an exact match. Thanks for the info :)


#34    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 March 2011 - 02:20 AM

View PostRandi, on 28 March 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

I understand and completely agree, I think it just niggles at me when people nitpick at the tiniest details in a police sketch. Often they are very accurate, but it's near impossible to get everything an exact match. Thanks for the info :)
You made a very good point, a sketch will never be perfect. The best example of this is in the case of Dan "D.B." Cooper, the unidentified man who hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft on November 24, 1971. The first sketch of Cooper was not accurate and it took the help of the TV show Unsolved Mysteries to make a more accurate sketch. For years the sketch of Cooper was not accurate and I'm sure it didn't help the investigation. But in the case of Zodiac, or at least the killer of Paul Stine, we have 3 witnesses and can be sure the sketch was accurate, not perfect of course, but still very close.

Still nothing new on the picture.

Edited by JVE, 30 March 2011 - 02:25 AM.


#35    ellesfg38

ellesfg38

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:03 Apr 2011

Posted 03 April 2011 - 06:27 AM

Does anyone know how tall Darlene was? Because witnesses claim the suspect to be 5ft 11 to 6ft. So, if Darlene was like 5ft 1 or something the guy next to her in the picture couldn't possibly be around 6ft. Also, I am very suprised no one has come forward claiming to know this man, He has a ring on his ring finger so that indicates that he must have been married and he's also wearing a watch (I know the watch part is probably irrevelant but Zodiac is a watch brand maybe could have been inspiration to his name?) I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there. It's uncanny how much the composite sketch looks like the man in the photograph. I really do hope something comes of this. I've been trying to follow this case the best I can and it just flabbergasts me how the suspect has never been caught. There's got to be someone out there that knows something.


#36    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2011 - 10:06 PM

View Postellesfg38, on 03 April 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

Does anyone know how tall Darlene was? Because witnesses claim the suspect to be 5ft 11 to 6ft. So, if Darlene was like 5ft 1 or something the guy next to her in the picture couldn't possibly be around 6ft. Also, I am very suprised no one has come forward claiming to know this man, He has a ring on his ring finger so that indicates that he must have been married and he's also wearing a watch (I know the watch part is probably irrevelant but Zodiac is a watch brand maybe could have been inspiration to his name?) I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there. It's uncanny how much the composite sketch looks like the man in the photograph. I really do hope something comes of this. I've been trying to follow this case the best I can and it just flabbergasts me how the suspect has never been caught. There's got to be someone out there that knows something.
Thanks for sharing.

According to most reports Darlene Ferrin was approximately 5 feet 5 inches tall, so it's safe to say the man on the picture is between 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet tall, the same height "Zodiac" would be.

Well we don't know if the watch brand "Zodiac", popular in the 60's, was indeed an inspiration for the killer's name, but it's one of the theory. Arthur Leigh Allen, who some people still think is the best suspect in the case, had a "Zodiac" watch like that one. Note the logo on top of the watch is the exact same logo of the killer:

Posted Image
(courtesy Zodiackiller.com)

Still nothing new on the pic, it's really strange. If indeed the name of the man on the picture was released then nobody know about it.

Edited by JVE, 03 April 2011 - 10:07 PM.


#37    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 03 April 2011 - 11:02 PM

This page provides some background information on the picture and who the man could be. It also talks about Tom Voigt (the man who first posted the picture online) and Darlene's sister Pam and discusses how neither is considered all that credible - especially Pam.

Pam has identified the man in the picture as Richard Gaikowski, but most find that to be a misidentification.

Here's some side by side comparisons of the "mystery man" next to Richard Gaikowski and Jim Pihillips (Darlene's ex-husband). The page linked to also mentions Bryan Hartnell, one of the Zodiac's victims, as a possible match with the "mystery" man, but that idea is largely dismissed and Tom Voigt seems to be the only person that thinks it's a possibility.

Posted Image


Posted Image


Based upon the small amount of information available about the picture and the man in it my hunch is that it's simply a photo of Darlene Ferrin with her ex-husband Jim Phillips

Edited by -Left Field-, 03 April 2011 - 11:21 PM.


#38    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2011 - 11:25 PM

View PostJVE, on 03 April 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

Thanks for sharing.

According to most reports Darlene Ferrin was approximately 5 feet 5 inches tall, so it's safe to say the man on the picture is between 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet tall, the same height "Zodiac" would be.

Well we don't know if the watch brand "Zodiac", popular in the 60's, was indeed an inspiration for the killer's name, but it's one of the theory. Arthur Leigh Allen, who some people still think is the best suspect in the case, had a "Zodiac" watch like that one. Note the logo on top of the watch is the exact same logo of the killer:

Posted Image
(courtesy Zodiackiller.com)

Still nothing new on the pic, it's really strange. If indeed the name of the man on the picture was released then nobody know about it.
Interesting stuff JVE, I wasn't even aware of the watch association.  No surprise there, I don't really keep up with things like this and tend to avoid them for the most part because the business of murderers (particularly on the serial murderer scale) tend to depress me and I don't need anything more than my job for depression inspiration. :P  Which brings me to my next thought...  Perhaps this was a disgruntled Zodiac employee?

I'm sure this avenue has been explored.  Or, at least, I'd be surprised if it hasn't.  But that doesn't mean that it didn't click in my head as soon as I saw your post.


Oh, and dekker...  I totally feel you dude.

Quote

ARGH!! I just spent 1/2 an hour typing a response and pressed the back button on my browser by accident!!!

when i regain the will to live i will respond again.
Been there, done that, hate it.  I remember typing out a huge response with references and formatting...  it took me over an hour to compile and type...  and then I must have hit a random key combination and it was all gone.  I was stunned.  I sat looking at my monitor for a good 40 seconds without moving and barely breathing.  I was in total shock.

That is why I type most of my responses and copy/paste them into notepad now, saving them at regular intervals.


#39    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 April 2011 - 03:09 AM

View Post-Left Field-, on 03 April 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

Here's some side by side comparisons of the "mystery man" next to Richard Gaikowski and Jim Pihillips (Darlene's ex-husband). The page linked to also mentions Bryan Hartnell, one of the Zodiac's victims, as a possible match with the "mystery" man, but that idea is largely dismissed and Tom Voigt seems to be the only person that thinks it's a possibility.

Based upon the small amount of information available about the picture and the man in it my hunch is that it's simply a photo of Darlene Ferrin with her ex-husband Jim Phillips[/font]
It can't be Bryan Hartnell, Bryan was around 6 feet 6 inches tall, the man on the picture is not that tall, so it can't be Bryan. It doesn't even looks like Hartnell. The man doesn't look like Gaikowski too.

I have seen the comparison made by the site Zodiackillerfacts.com and to me this comparison is not accurate. You can clearly seee that the nose, the ears and the jaw is different, to me the man on the picture is definitely NOT Darlene's ex-husband. The comparison made by this site is, to me, not evidence that the man is indeed Jim Phillips.

But thanks for sharing.


#40    WORKING CLASS AL

WORKING CLASS AL

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2011 - 04:18 AM

Has anybody thought about the idea that maybe its not the ex-husband , but a new malre friend that she was seeing-because he filled a "type"?  My sister for example picked back to back boyfriends who were dark skinned,dark eyed, shaved head, mustache/goatee, and both werre losers.  If you looked at certain pictures of either of these winners.....the kind of look alike.  Just because the had the 1960's "birth control" glasses and ubiquitous 60's short sleeved white button down leisure shirts.  If she had met a man who filled a type for her....that would make sense,it also might have served Zodiac's purposes ( if thiswas Zodiac or he did know his victim) that this young lady felt a certain comfort with men who had this kind of wholesome bookish/nerdy look.

JUST MY OPINION AND OBSERVATION

P.S. _ J.V.E. -I expect an autographed copy of the first book Brother!!!!

Let’s drink to the causes in your life:
Your Family, your Friends, the Union , your Wife

“ Boys on the dock”
The Dropkick Murphys

#41    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 April 2011 - 09:09 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 03 April 2011 - 11:25 PM, said:

Interesting stuff JVE, I wasn't even aware of the watch association.  No surprise there, I don't really keep up with things like this and tend to avoid them for the most part because the business of murderers (particularly on the serial murderer scale) tend to depress me and I don't need anything more than my job for depression inspiration. :P  Which brings me to my next thought...  Perhaps this was a disgruntled Zodiac employee?

I'm sure this avenue has been explored.  Or, at least, I'd be surprised if it hasn't.  But that doesn't mean that it didn't click in my head as soon as I saw your post.
Well the only link we have between the watch brand and Zodiac is that the man who was the prime suspect in the case for years, Arthur Leigh Allen, had a "Zodiac" watch, but the killer never talked about the watch brand in one of his letters. Of course since the symbol of the brand is the exact same as the one used by the Killer, since both the brand and the killer were named Zodiac then it would be easy to think the Killer found his nickname/symbol because of the brand, but we have no evidence that he did. But it's one of the interesting theory. The watch is one of the interesting fact linking Allen to the case, but we have no real, solid evidences against him.

View PostWORKING CLASS AL, on 04 April 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:

Has anybody thought about the idea that maybe its not the ex-husband , but a new malre friend that she was seeing-because he filled a "type"?  My sister for example picked back to back boyfriends who were dark skinned,dark eyed, shaved head, mustache/goatee, and both werre losers.  If you looked at certain pictures of either of these winners.....the kind of look alike.  Just because the had the 1960's "birth control" glasses and ubiquitous 60's short sleeved white button down leisure shirts.  If she had met a man who filled a type for her....that would make sense,it also might have served Zodiac's purposes ( if thiswas Zodiac or he did know his victim) that this young lady felt a certain comfort with men who had this kind of wholesome bookish/nerdy look.

JUST MY OPINION AND OBSERVATION

P.S. _ J.V.E. -I expect an autographed copy of the first book Brother!!!!
Very interesting observation Al, thanks for sharing.
We know Darlene was very popular with men, she had a lot of male friends and after divorcing Jim Phillips she had another husband, Dean Ferrin. As a matter of fact maybe she was too popular; Darlene's sisters claim a man delivered gifts, followed and harassed her in the months before her murder. We can't be sure if it's true, but if these allegations are true then this is maybe the proof that Darlene knew her killer, then the importance of finding the name of the man on the picture. Again : I don't believe the man on the picture is indeed Jim Phillips, right now we have no evidence to backup this claim, sadly.

And about the book: Don't worry Al, I won't forget you my friend.  :tu:

Edited by JVE, 04 April 2011 - 09:11 PM.


#42    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,252 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 05 April 2011 - 12:15 AM

I'm going to dispute whent that picture was taken:

"Police believe the photo was taken in San Francisco in the summer of 1966 or 1967."

Na-uh... I'd be surprised if anyone in San Francisco would be wearing a long sleeved winter sweater, what look to be wool pants, and winter boots in the summer. At the very least, their estimation of the time of year it was taken is likely wrong. I woudn't expect her to be in shorts and a tube top, but not what is clearly winter clothes.

Also, the man in the photograph is wearing a wedding ring, she doesn't appear to be uncomfortable around him, she has her arm around him and she is slightly leaning comfortably in toward him. (if anything, she looks semi-annoyed with the photographer)

I don't follow this old story, but that picture rings as someone she knows at least relatively well... but regardless...that photograph wasn't taken in summer.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#43    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2011 - 12:28 AM

View PostMissMelsWell, on 05 April 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

I'm going to dispute whent that picture was taken:

"Police believe the photo was taken in San Francisco in the summer of 1966 or 1967."

Na-uh... I'd be surprised if anyone in San Francisco would be wearing a long sleeved winter sweater, what look to be wool pants, and winter boots in the summer. At the very least, their estimation of the time of year it was taken is likely wrong. I woudn't expect her to be in shorts and a tube top, but not what is clearly winter clothes.

Also, the man in the photograph is wearing a wedding ring, she doesn't appear to be uncomfortable around him, she has her arm around him and she is slightly leaning comfortably in toward him. (if anything, she looks semi-annoyed with the photographer)

I don't follow this old story, but that picture rings as someone she knows at least relatively well... but regardless...that photograph wasn't taken in summer.
Interesting, thanks for sharing, I didn't even thought about looking at her clothes. But the boots she is wearing doesn't looks like winter boots, it looks like the kind of boots a 20 something years old woman would wear during any seasons. Same for the sweater, seems like something a woman could wear during spring and even colder summer days. Perhaps you are right, but her clothes don't really look like winter clothes, after all the weather in San Francisco is not as hot as the weather in LA, maybe it was a cold summer day, who knows.

And I agree with you, she doesn't appear to be uncomfortable around him and I'm sure she knows this man at least relatively well.


#44    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,252 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 05 April 2011 - 12:44 AM

View PostJVE, on 05 April 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Interesting, thanks for sharing, I didn't even thought about looking at her clothes. But the boots she is wearing doesn't looks like winter boots, it looks like the kind of boots a 20 something years old woman would wear during any seasons. Same for the sweater, seems like something a woman could wear during spring and even colder summer days. Perhaps you are right, but her clothes don't really look like winter clothes, after all the weather in San Francisco is not as hot as the weather in LA, maybe it was a cold summer day, who knows.

And I agree with you, she doesn't appear to be uncomfortable around him and I'm sure she knows this man at least relatively well.


no way... I live in Seattle and have all my life our summers are even cooler than SF's, I've also been to San Francisco more times than I can count... no one dresses like that in summer in Seattle or San Francisco unless they're a total dork (and by all accounts, this young woman was no dork). I don't care if it was the 60s and that she was in her 20s.

Even the print on her sweater is a winter print. They would have been wearing small flats, Keds, or some kind of sandal. Never boots and never long sleeved winter printed sweaters. Summer time is for button up blouses, tees or other light cotton wear. If it was chilly, they'd throw on a cotton cardigan sweater or a light cotton casual jacket.

No way. I'm standing firm on my knowlege of fashion and the weather in San Francisco in summer. Once the weather hits into the low to mid 60s in San Fran or even Seattle, women ditch their long sleeved sweaters more or less. Especially in the late 1960s when appropriate dress was far more an issue than it is now.

You can't apply today's standards of dress to the 1960s. Ya sure, today you seen young girls wearing stupid Uggs in summer, but that would not have been the case in the 1960s (and even today you'd see those Ugg girls wearing their fugly boots with shorts or jeans with a light blouse, never a winter printed sweater.)

Edited by MissMelsWell, 05 April 2011 - 12:47 AM.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#45    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2011 - 12:52 AM

View PostMissMelsWell, on 05 April 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

no way... I live in Seattle and have all my life our summers are even cooler than SF's, I've also been to San Francisco more times than I can count... no one dresses like that in summer in Seattle or San Francisco unless they're a total dork (and by all accounts, this young woman was no dork). I don't care if it was the 60s and that she was in her 20s.

Even the print on her sweater is a winter print. They would have been wearing small flats, Keds, or some kind of sandal. Never boots and never long sleeved winter printed sweaters. Summer time is for button up blouses, tees or other light cotton wear. If it was chilly, they'd throw on a cotton cardigan sweater or a light cotton casual jacket.

No way. I'm standing firm on my knowlege of fashion and the weather in San Francisco in summer. Once the weather hits into the low to mid 60s in San Fran or even Seattle, women ditch their long sleeved sweaters more or less. Especially in the late 1960s when appropriate dress was far more an issue than it is now.
Ok Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us, I think you are right, the more I look at the picture and the more I think you are right. Very good call Miss, I didn't noticed what Darlene was wearing. The fact we don't know the exact time the picture was taken is very frustrating, and we still don't know how the authorities/the website got a hold of the picture.  :hmm:

Perhaps knowing the exact time the picture was taken won't solve this enigma, but then again maybe it hold the answer to this mystery. If you want to share more please do.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users