Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New lead in the Zodiac Killer Case ?


JonathanVonErich

Recommended Posts

Again Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, Miss. Again we can't be 100% sure that the Killer took his name/symbol from the watch brand but it's a logical and interesting possibility.

I wonder what happened to Darlene's daughter, Deena. When Darlene was killed Deena was not even 2 years old, it must have been terrible to grow up without her mother. In an interview conducted in 2001 Mildred Ferrin, Darlene's ex mother-in-law, said that Deena was now a mother herself and that Darlene's husband at the time of the murder, Dean Ferrin, remarried and had two children. Since then we have nothing about Deena. I guess she was able to move on with her life and have a life of her own, which is a great thing.

Here is a picture of Darlene and Deena, in late 1968, one year before the murder. What's tragic about this picture is the fact both of them are next to the Chevrolet Corvair Darlene would soon die in.

darleneprize.jpg

(COURTESY: ZODIACKILLER.COM)

Nothing new on the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man's resemblance to the composite sketch is also rather alarming. Right down to the horn rimmed glasses and the fact that the bangs are combed straight back but I don't want to speculate. Someone must have taken the picture and knew them at that time. It was taken inside a house. You can see the fireplace and a baby picture behind them.

Thing is, back in this time, there weren't as many different eye glasses styles and a lot of men wore their hair in a similar fashion. The sketch isn't very clear, but I agree that you can see a difference in the nose and jaw. While Darlene looks peeved in the picture, she doesn't look as if she fears the man in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah more confirmation that the photo on the first page was taken in winter maybe? And possibly far closer to the murder than originally thought?

If this photo above was taken in "late '68" I would assume that means Sept, Oct, Nov, or Dec. Look at what she's wearing here. This is what I'd expect a young woman to wear in late fall early winter San Francisco in 1968. I'm going to go with October, early October. A bright light swing coat, bright plaid pants and it's obviously not very cold or that baby would be bundled up and she's not. The baby is under a month old I'm sure.

So who's the baby in the frame in the first page photo? Looks to me like it's Darleens daughter. Which would mean that the first page photo with the man, would have been taken in late 1969, not the summer of '66 or'67--just by looking at that first picture everything scream WRONG about the date.

Also, if you look carefully at the above picture, you can just make out a red brick fireplace in the livingroom of the house which looks to be about the same height as the fireplace in the first picture. Beyond that it's tough to pick up more details; other than in the first photo, there's nothing hanging on the wood paneled wall above the fire place, in this photo on this page, there's clearly a mirror, or possibly a print above the fireplace. Was the first photo taken in the livingroom of her own home? Looks to me like that could be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who's the baby in the frame in the first page photo? Looks to me like it's Darleens daughter. Which would mean that the first page photo with the man, would have been taken in late 1969, not the summer of '66 or'67--just by looking at that first picture everything scream WRONG about the date.

We don't know who is the baby in the frame, and it's almost impossible to say if it's indeed a picture of Deena Ferrin. It could be a picture of Darlene when she was younger, who knows. But I'm sure the picture showing Darlene with the "Unknown" man was taken BEFORE the picture of Darlene and her baby was taken. I have read that after having her baby Darlene kept her hair shorter than she did before, and in the first pic Darlene have long hair, so I am sure the first pic was taken before 1968. She also looks younger on the first picture, my guess is that the first pic was taken before she had her baby. Again it's hard to tell since we have absolutely no way of knowing when the picture was taken. I'm wondering who came up with the "summer of 66-67" fact and how this person got the information. But judging by Darlene's hair I would guess that the first pic was taken before late 1968.

Also, if you look carefully at the above picture, you can just make out a red brick fireplace in the livingroom of the house which looks to be about the same height as the fireplace in the first picture. Beyond that it's tough to pick up more details; other than in the first photo, there's nothing hanging on the wood paneled wall above the fire place, in this photo on this page, there's clearly a mirror, or possibly a print above the fireplace. Was the first photo taken in the livingroom of her own home? Looks to me like that could be possible.

Since the beginning I had the feeling the picture was taken at Darlene's house, sadly we don't have this information. Your comment about the height of the fireplace is amazing, very well done. Again it doesn't prove 100% that the picture was taken at Darlene's home, but I'm pretty sure it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thanks for sharing.

You may not think it is her ex, but that doesn't mean it isn't. It almost seems you don't want it to be her ex because that would be too boring. You'd prefer it be someone that adds something new to the case, or that it is in fact the Zodiac himself.

Despite what you see in the comparison between the "mystery man" and James Phillips the two pictures are similiar enough to believe it could be the same person. When viewing the picture of James Philips that they use you should also keep in mind that it is from his highschool yearbook, which means he was likely 14-18 years old at the time (I'd guess closer to 18 than 14). The "mystery man" looks like he is probably in his 30s, which would mean if the pictures are of the same person there is at least a 12 year difference between the two images.

Even with that the pictures show that the person has the same hairline. I also think the ears look very similar. The area just below his ear seems to match up pretty closely as well.

As for the nose, at first glance they don't look like a match, but you need to keep in mind that the pictures are taken from different angles. If the "mystery man" had his face turned slightly more to his right in that photo then the noses could very well be a closer match than you realize.

The only thing between the two photos that throws it off for me is the chin. The "mystery man's" chin looks bigger than what we see in the yearbook photo of James Philips. The reason for that, however, could be the fact that the "mystery man" is almost looking straight at the camera where as in the James Philips yearbook photo he has his body aiming away from the camera with his face turned towards the camera which could result in making his chin look more thinned out.

I think you're dismissing the similarities between the two pictures without looking at them as closely as you should (while again also keeping in mind the age difference there would be between the two if both pictures are actually James Philips).

It'd be nice if a photo of an older Philips could be found to use as a comparison rather than the yearbook photo we have available.

Edited by -Left Field-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not think it is her ex, but that doesn't mean it isn't. It almost seems you don't want it to be her ex because that would be too boring. You'd prefer it be someone that adds something new to the case, or that it is in fact the Zodiac himself.

Ok read all my previous posts. I always stated that it was my opinion and my opinion only and always said I was open to the idea that it could be indeed Jim Phillips, but to me the evidences showing that the "Unknown" man is indeed Jim Phillips are weak, and since we only have one picture of Mr. Phillips then we have to compare this one and only picture with the Unknown man, and in my opinion the there is more differences than similarities, so Right now (until we have another picture or more evidence) we can't be say the "Unknown" man is indeed Mr. Phillips.

I said in previous post that it could be him, but in MY OPINION it's not him.

And again read my previous posts: I never said the "Unknown" man is linked to the case, never said that he could be Zodiac, I just find strange the fact that after 5 months we still don't know the identity of this man.

Don't accuse me of anything sir, I think my previous posts clearly show that I only want to find the truth and that I am open to any possibilities.

Despite what you see in the comparison between the "mystery man" and James Phillips the two pictures are similiar enough to believe it could be the same person.

Only your opinion, and I respect it, but to me the two pictures are showing more differences than similarities, not because I want to perpetrate a mystery but because I realy don't think they are the same person.

I am not the only one thinking there's more differences than similarities, read other people's comments and check other forums, you'll see that probably most people think Mr. Phillips is not the man on the picture. But I'm open to the idea that he might be, I just don't think the evidences are strong enough right now.

It would be great to have another picture of Mr. Phillips, right now we can only compare the "Unknown" man with this picture of Mr. Phillips, and again IN MY OPINION there's more differences than similarities (nose, jaw, ears).

I think you're dismissing the similarities between the two pictures without looking at them as closely as you should (while again also keeping in mind the age difference there would be between the two if both pictures are actually James Philips).

What, because I have a different opinion that yours means that I didn't do my Homework ??!

You need to respect other people's point of view, sir.

I have seen The pic you posted with all the Red "X", supposedly showing the similarities, probably a long time before you even did, and to me the pic is not conclusive evidence that the man is indeed Jim Phillips, so right now I have to think the "Unknown" man is not Jim, simply for the fact that after 5 long months nobody came forward with a name.

Again read my previous posts:

- When I said Jim Phillips was not the man on the picture I always stated that it was MY OPINION and that I could be wrong, and that I was open to the possibility that it might be him.

- I never said the man on the picture had a link with the Case, I just want to find out his name, who he is and what is the link between him and Darlene.

- I never said I was right, never said I was wrong, I was always stating my opinion, just like you did.

- Everytime I wrote something about the Zodiac case I never mentioned the "Unknown" man as a possible suspect in the case and clearly stated that we can't be sure this man have a link with the murder of Darlene.

Edited by JVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ps: Sorry for the bad grammar in my previous post. I replied while writing an essay for one of my classes at the same time. Not the best idea. :(

Here is the pic you posted:

Unidentified%20Man%20and%20Jim%20Phillips%20Comparison%20Points.jpg

(Courtesy:Zodiackillerfacts.com)

I respect everybody's opinion and again will share mine.

In my opinion you can't positively say that both pictures have that many similarities. I agree on the hairline ,yes, but can't agree on the jaw, ears and nose.

Perhaps, like you said, that if we had another picture of mr. Phillips it would prove to be a match, but based on these two pictures I don't see how somebody could be 100% sure that the "Unknown" man is indeed Jim Phillips. It's maybe only a question of age/angle, but to me it's almost impossible to say that Jim is the "Unknown" man BASED on the comparison of these two pictures.

Sorry to repeat myself but read again my first posts: I clearly stated that yes, it could be Jim Phillips, that I was open to this possibility, however to me the comparison of these two pictures is not a good enough evidence to think that the man with Darlene is indeed Mr. Phillips.

Edited by JVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to repeat myself but read again my first posts: I clearly stated that yes, it could be Jim Phillips, that I was open to this possibility, however to me the comparison of these two pictures is not a good enough evidence to think that the man with Darlene is indeed Mr. Phillips.

I agree with that statement. Those two pictures are not enough to state both individuals are James Phillips.

Taking another look at the picture (since you reposted it) I actually just noticed something else. The chin area, not only is Phillips chin smaller than the "mystery man's" is, but the length of the chin going from the bottom lip to the bottom of the chin is different. The unknown man has more space in that area than Philips does in his yearbook photo. But with that said, you also have to take into account that Phillips lips are parted, which moves the lower lip down a bit and could be the reason for the apparent spacial difference

I have to admit I'm uncertain about the nose too. When I first look at it appears as though it is definately not a match, but then I try to vision the unknown man with his head tilted in the same manner as Phillips is in his yearbook photo and I'm able to see how the angle could be the reason for why the nose looks different when comparing the two pictures.

No concrete conclusions can be drawn about the man being James Philips based upon these two pictures, but there is enough of a resemblance that it keeps me from dismissing the notion that the unknown man is indeed Mr. Phillips.

Anyone know what year Darlene Ferrin and James Phillips divorced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who released the photo in the first place? and who distributed it? Presumably someone who knew either Phillips or his young wife would say "That's Phillips, nothing to see here move along" ... wouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking another look at the picture (since you reposted it) I actually just noticed something else. The chin area, not only is Phillips chin smaller than the "mystery man's" is, but the length of the chin going from the bottom lip to the bottom of the chin is different. The unknown man has more space in that area than Philips does in his yearbook photo. But with that said, you also have to take into account that Phillips lips are parted, which moves the lower lip down a bit and could be the reason for the apparent spacial difference

Good point, I agree with you.

No concrete conclusions can be drawn about the man being James Philips based upon these two pictures, but there is enough of a resemblance that it keeps me from dismissing the notion that the unknown man is indeed Mr. Phillips.

I agree that no concrete conclusions can be drawn based upon these two pictures, we can only share our opinions. A lot of people can't accept the fact that it could be Mr. Phillips and won't even bring his name as a possible answer. Perhaps I stated too often that I thought it wasn't Mr. Phillips (and I'm sorry for that) but at least I shared the information here, shared the two pictures and said that Mr. Phillips could indeed be the "Unknown" man. Like I said I don't think it's him, but I can be wrong and I respect everybody's opinion, after all it is really hard to reach a conclusion based only on these two pictures.

Anyone know what year Darlene Ferrin and James Phillips divorced?[/font]

They married in January 1966. They divorced in 1967.

Who released the photo in the first place? and who distributed it? Presumably someone who knew either Phillips or his young wife would say "That's Phillips, nothing to see here move along" ... wouldn't they?

The picture was first shown on the website Zodiackiller.com last November, we don't know how the webmaster got the picture and by who, I have read that it was by a former investigators/police officer, we don't know for sure.

Like I said many times : many of Darlene's family members are still alive, her ex-husband Dean Ferrin is still alive, many people who knew Darlene are still alive, so if indeed the "Unknown" man was Jim Phillips then I'm sure one of them would have come forward with the information. The fact that after 5 months we still have no answer is perhaps proving nothing, but it's still really strange.

This is really frustrating :

- We don't know who gave the picture to the Website.

- We don't know when the picture was taken.

- We don't have another picture of Mr. Phillips, don't even know if he is still alive.

If zodiackiller.com or America's Most Wanted received informations about the identity of this man then they are not sharing them with the general public.

Edited by JVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture was first shown on the website Zodiackiller.com last November, we don't know how the webmaster got the picture and by who, I have read that it was by a former investigators/police officer, we don't know for sure.

Like I said many times : many of Darlene's family members are still alive, her ex-husband Dean Ferrin is still alive, many people who knew Darlene are still alive, so if indeed the "Unknown" man was Jim Phillips then I'm sure one of them would have come forward with the information. The fact that after 5 months we still have no answer is perhaps proving nothing, but it's still really strange.

This is really frustrating :

- We don't know who gave the picture to the Website.

- We don't know when the picture was taken.

- We don't have another picture of Mr. Phillips, don't even know if he is still alive.

If zodiackiller.com or America's Most Wanted received informations about the identity of this man then they are not sharing them with the general public.

So, here's a really weird question.... and you're going to think I"m off my rocker here.... but the man in the photo doesn't bother me, but there is something about her that DOES bother me. Are there other pictures available of Darleen from around roughly the same time period? I'm still hung up on her manner of dress. That sweater and her boots are really bugging me... they just don't look like something that someone would have worn in 1966 or 67! And for that matter, her haircut doesn't either. That outfit AND haircut to me looks totally preppy 1985. The sweater is too large and boxy and the print just isn't 1967. I don't know, it's probably stupid for me to read too much into it. It probably is her from 66 or 67... I'm sure I'm overthinking it and it's just what it appears to be, and the Glitteratti side of my personality has simply run amok. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's a really weird question.... and you're going to think I"m off my rocker here.... but the man in the photo doesn't bother me, but there is something about her that DOES bother me. Are there other pictures available of Darleen from around roughly the same time period? I'm still hung up on her manner of dress. That sweater and her boots are really bugging me... they just don't look like something that someone would have worn in 1966 or 67! And for that matter, her haircut doesn't either. That outfit AND haircut to me looks totally preppy 1985. The sweater is too large and boxy and the print just isn't 1967. I don't know, it's probably stupid for me to read too much into it. It probably is her from 66 or 67... I'm sure I'm overthinking it and it's just what it appears to be, and the Glitteratti side of my personality has simply run amok. LOL

No, no don't worry, I really like your questions, when you work on an investigation it's important to ask questions and to not be afraid of asking these questions.

Well we don't know exactly when the picture was taken so finding other pictures around the same time period is a little bit tricky. But you know what's strange ?? In 10 years of "investigation" and research into this case it's actually the first time I have seen a picture of Darlene with this kind of Hairstyle.

Darlene was killed on July 4, 1969 so the picture couldn't be from the 80's. But I like it, like your questions, like I said I didn't even thought of "Investigating" what she is wearing on the picture, I think you are doing a very good job.

Here is a pic of Darlene from 1966. She was 18.

ferrinpic.jpg

(courtesy: zodiackiller.com)

Another picture of Darlene, taken shortly before her murder.

darlenecolor69.jpg

(courtesy: zodiackiller.com)

I like when people are not afraid of raising interesting questions. Like I said what I found weird at first was not her clothes but rather her hair, never saw her with this hairstyle before, but I agree that what she is wearing doesn't seems to fit with what most women were wearing back in the 60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't believe this was a new lead in the case at all.I remember back then,the sister of the victim doing talk shows and talking to the press openly,about her sister knowing who the killer was,and witnessing him murdering another individual,is why he took no chances,and murdered Darlene as well.Now that is just speculation,but i have to say i am a little dissapointed they still have yet to identify the killer (s) in this case(so they say)tho all signs seem to point to suspect Richard Gaikowski,.I remember this case all to well, as most California native would being born there and merely being hostages in their own cities or town.Luckily i was born in 76 and only caught a brunt of the after math of the zodiac case,but then he was still lose (as he is today) writing letters and taunting the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't believe this was a new lead in the case at all.I remember back then,the sister of the victim doing talk shows and talking to the press openly,about her sister knowing who the killer was,and witnessing him murdering another individual,is why he took no chances,and murdered Darlene as well.Now that is just speculation,but i have to say i am a little dissapointed they still have yet to identify the killer (s) in this case(so they say)tho all signs seem to point to suspect Richard Gaikowski,.I remember this case all to well, as most California native would being born there and merely being hostages in their own cities or town.Luckily i was born in 76 and only caught a brunt of the after math of the zodiac case,but then he was still lose (as he is today) writing letters and taunting the police.

Thanks for sharing.

The problem with the statement of Pam, Darlene's sister, is that we don't know if what she told was indeed the truth. I have already shared what she said, that Darlene knew her killer and that a man was following her and harassing her in the weeks before her murder, but this statement is controversial and many people believes Pam created this story just to bring more attention to the case. So we can't be 100% sure that what she said is indeed the truth or something she created. My opinion is that she was right, but with no solid evidence to back up what she claims it's hard to believe her statement 100%.

Richard Gaikowski is a very good suspect, I agree, but we have no solid evidences against him. There's a lot of interesting facts linking Gaikowski to the case, but it was the same thing with Arthur Leigh Allen : Only interesting links but no solid evidences, sadly. At one point I was sure Gaikowski was indeed the Zodiac, but after reading everything I could about him I can't say he was indeed the Killer, we have no solid, real evidences against him, only interesting links. Sadly he died many years ago and can't defend himself. He could be the Zodiac, yes, but right now the evidences against him are very weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing.

The problem with the statement of Pam, Darlene's sister, is that we don't know if what she told was indeed the truth. I have already shared what she said, that Darlene knew her killer and that a man was following her and harassing her in the weeks before her murder, but this statement is controversial and many people believes Pam created this story just to bring more attention to the case. So we can't be 100% sure that what she said is indeed the truth or something she created. My opinion is that she was right, but with no solid evidence to back up what she claims it's hard to believe her statement 100%.

Richard Gaikowski is a very good suspect, I agree, but we have no solid evidences against him. There's a lot of interesting facts linking Gaikowski to the case, but it was the same thing with Arthur Leigh Allen : Only interesting links but no solid evidences, sadly. At one point I was sure Gaikowski was indeed the Zodiac, but after reading everything I could about him I can't say he was indeed the Killer, we have no solid, real evidences against him, only interesting links. Sadly he died many years ago and can't defend himself. He could be the Zodiac, yes, but right now the evidences against him are very weak.

True,you make a very good point.The only reason why i came to the conclusion that the man known as "Gaik" Richard Gaikowski was the zodiac killer and i still think he is to this day,is because the 911 phone operator identified his voice,to being the one making the phone call the night, of one of the murders,he worked at or for a small under ground, news media source in the San Francisco area around one of the known Zodiac killer crime scene.I believe if i can recall he was around or near Riverside during another murder.He looks very close to the Zodiac composite,than the rest of the suspects.It's also possibility that 2 killers could of have been operating at the same time around then.I just don't believe there have been enough evidence to point at Allen,unless he was killing off on his own in cases that had nothing to do with the Zodiac murders,or was thrill killing when the Zodiac started to recieved lots of publicity,is yet to be determined.Why people still bring up his name as a possible suspect i am not sure,i don't know if its because the 3 teens who lived on Washington street spotted a man who they say was Allen walking away from the scene, after wiping down he cab,or Mike Mageau,after being interviewed in the hospital after being attacked saying that the man who attacked him was Allen is still also unclear.At some point i thought investigators cleared Allen name from the suspect list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True,you make a very good point.The only reason why i came to the conclusion that the man known as "Gaik" Richard Gaikowski was the zodiac killer and i still think he is to this day,is because the 911 phone operator identified his voice,to being the one making the phone call the night, of one of the murders,he worked at or for a small under ground, news media source in the San Francisco area around one of the known Zodiac killer crime scene.I believe if i can recall he was around or near Riverside during another murder.He looks very close to the Zodiac composite,than the rest of the suspects.It's also possibility that 2 killers could of have been operating at the same time around then.I just don't believe there have been enough evidence to point at Allen,unless he was killing off on his own in cases that had nothing to do with the Zodiac murders,or was thrill killing when the Zodiac started to recieved lots of publicity,is yet to be determined.Why people still bring up his name as a possible suspect i am not sure,i don't know if its because the 3 teens who lived on Washington street spotted a man who they say was Allen walking away from the scene, after wiping down he cab,or Mike Mageau,after being interviewed in the hospital after being attacked saying that the man who attacked him was Allen is still also unclear.At some point i thought investigators cleared Allen name from the suspect list.

Again thank you for sharing, you make some good points.

You are right, there's a lot of interesting facts linking Mr. Gaikowski to the case and I think he is the best suspect we have, but sadly we have no solid evidence, only circumstantial evidence.

I have seen the "MysteryQuest" episode about Zodiac, I have the entire season on DVD. Yes, Nancy Slover, the police switchboard operator who spoke to the Zodiac back in 1969, clearly said that Gaikowski had the same voice Zodiac had back in 1969 but I have a problem with this statement. First of all I'm having a hard time believing that somebody can remember someone's voice for so long (40 years). She spoke with Zodiac for less than 3 minutes, how is she able to clearly remember his voice ?! Yes, I'm sure the conversation she had with him traumatized her, but 40 years is a very long time. Also I'm feeling like she answered under a lot of pressure. Perhaps she felt the pressure from Tom Voigt (who was sitting next to her and was expecting an answer), she must have felt the pressure from the TV Show, she must have felt the pressure of giving an answer that would make everybody happy. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, after all she was traumatized about the event of 1969 and people said she had a good memory, but I have my doubts.

Well people still talk about Allen simply because there's a tremendous amount of facts linking him to the case and because for years he was "Suspect number 1". A lot of people still think Allen was Zodiac (or was involved in the case), including a lot of investigators who have worked on the case. If we could talk to David Toschi, who investigated this case for years, I'm sure he would say that Allen was indeed the Zodiac, a lot of people really thinks he was the Killer. Yes, there's the Mike Mageau factor, the fact that out of many pictures picked Allen as being the one who shot him, but even for those who don't believe Allen was the Zodiac they have to agree that the list of facts linking him to the case is in a way very impressive.

I don't think Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac, but in my opinion I think he enjoyed the fact so many investigators thought that he was the Killer, I think he liked the "notoriety" that the investigation gave him. Of course, in his later years, he was miserable because of it, his life was basically a living hell and he was sick of being associated with the case, but I think he took pleasure of pretending being the Zodiac.

But You could be right about Gaikowski, after all he is the best suspect we have.

Edited by JVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again thank you for sharing, you make some good points.

You are right, there's a lot of interesting facts linking Mr. Gaikowski to the case and I think he is the best suspect we have, but sadly we have no solid evidence, only circumstantial evidence.

I have seen the "MysteryQuest" episode about Zodiac, I have the entire season on DVD. Yes, Nancy Slover, the police switchboard operator who spoke to the Zodiac back in 1969, clearly said that Gaikowski had the same voice Zodiac had back in 1969 but I have a problem with this statement. First of all I'm having a hard time believing that somebody can remember someone's voice for so long (40 years). She spoke with Zodiac for less than 3 minutes, how is she able to clearly remember his voice ?! Yes, I'm sure the conversation she had with him traumatized her, but 40 years is a very long time. Also I'm feeling like she answered under a lot of pressure. Perhaps she felt the pressure from Tom Voigt (who was sitting next to her and was expecting an answer), she must have felt the pressure from the TV Show, she must have felt the pressure of giving an answer that would make everybody happy. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, after all she was traumatized about the event of 1969 and people said she had a good memory, but I have my doubts.

Well people still talk about Allen simply because there's a tremendous amount of facts linking him to the case and because for years he was "Suspect number 1". A lot of people still think Allen was Zodiac (or was involved in the case), including a lot of investigators who have worked on the case. If we could talk to David Toschi, who investigated this case for years, I'm sure he would say that Allen was indeed the Zodiac, a lot of people really thinks he was the Killer. Yes, there's the Mike Mageau factor, the fact that out of many pictures picked Allen as being the one who shot him, but even for those who don't believe Allen was the Zodiac they have to agree that the list of facts linking him to the case is in a way very impressive.

I don't think Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac, but in my opinion I think he enjoyed the fact so many investigators thought that he was the Killer, I think he liked the "notoriety" that the investigation gave him. Of course, in his later years, he was miserable because of it, his life was basically a living hell and he was sick of being associated with the case, but I think he took pleasure of pretending being the Zodiac.

But You could be right about Gaikowski, after all he is the best suspect we have.

Well with the whole voice situation,i guess it's like remembering a person's eerie face who has done something really wrong and taunted you afterwards.Like in this same case a c*** tail waitress by the name Sandy Betts ,who reported after leaving a club one evening i am guessing it was,said a strange man had been following her,she eventually lost the guy,and drove home ,only to see him parked in front of her house as she drove by she locked eyes with this guy,and later reported that was the same guy who followed her in the Zodiac composite,tho i haven't seen any claims to that being Gaikowski or Allen(if true).My point is with something as scary,and unforgetable as this knowing you talked or saw a guys face who has had one state totally under sieged, do to his behavior being that of a pyscho path,i would remember the voice to,even if it was 30 or 40 years ago.I'm 35 now,and except for my voice getting a little bit deep (not much) people from my past say i still kinda sound the same as then.I can agree with you with the sister's theory because her stories have been all over the place and really has zero credibility to it.With the former 911 operator i don't know call me odd but i find her story to be a little more believable.But i don't disagree with anything you have stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with the whole voice situation,i guess it's like remembering a person's eerie face who has done something really wrong and taunted you afterwards.Like in this same case a c*** tail waitress by the name Sandy Betts ,who reported after leaving a club one evening i am guessing it was,said a strange man had been following her,she eventually lost the guy,and drove home ,only to see him parked in front of her house as she drove by she locked eyes with this guy,and later reported that was the same guy who followed her in the Zodiac composite,tho i haven't seen any claims to that being Gaikowski or Allen(if true).My point is with something as scary,and unforgetable as this knowing you talked or saw a guys face who has had one state totally under sieged, do to his behavior being that of a pyscho path,i would remember the voice to,even if it was 30 or 40 years ago.I'm 35 now,and except for my voice getting a little bit deep (not much) people from my past say i still kinda sound the same as then.I can agree with you with the sister's theory because her stories have been all over the place and really has zero credibility to it.With the former 911 operator i don't know call me odd but i find her story to be a little more believable.But i don't disagree with anything you have stated.

And I'm sure you are right, like I said I believe Miss Slover was indeed Traumatized by the event of 1969 and she said that the Killer's voice haunted her for many years. I'm just a little skeptical about her statement not because I doubt her sincerity and her memory but more because I don't very like how "MysteryQuest" showcased the entire event ( Tom Voigt by her side, all these cameras around her ). Everybody would have felt the pressure of giving an answer in these conditions, but knowing how traumatic the events of 1969 were for her a part of me believes her statement. I'm 50-50 about it I guess.

You make a very good point about Sandy Betts. I had the pleasure of exchanging 2 or 3 e-mails with Sandy many years ago (around 2002 or 2003 If my memory is correct), very nice lady. She never said anything about Allen but she clearly stated that there were a lot of similarities between the man who followed her and the Composite sketch of Zodiac. Haven't heard from her since then, I know she was still involved in some of the "Zodiac Task Force" meeting created by Tom Voigt from Zodiackiller.com years ago, I hope she's still doing fine.

So you said you were born in 1976. When you were growing up did your parents/family members told you anything about the case, how he terrorized the entire Bay area, if they were afraid of what he could do, if they were reading the newspapers back then...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure you are right, like I said I believe Miss Slover was indeed Traumatized by the event of 1969 and she said that the Killer's voice haunted her for many years. I'm just a little skeptical about her statement not because I doubt her sincerity and her memory but more because I don't very like how "MysteryQuest" showcased the entire event ( Tom Voigt by her side, all these cameras around her ). Everybody would have felt the pressure of giving an answer in these conditions, but knowing how traumatic the events of 1969 were for her a part of me believes her statement. I'm 50-50 about it I guess.

You make a very good point about Sandy Betts. I had the pleasure of exchanging 2 or 3 e-mails with Sandy many years ago (around 2002 or 2003 If my memory is correct), very nice lady. She never said anything about Allen but she clearly stated that there were a lot of similarities between the man who followed her and the Composite sketch of Zodiac. Haven't heard from her since then, I know she was still involved in some of the "Zodiac Task Force" meeting created by Tom Voigt from Zodiackiller.com years ago, I hope she's still doing fine.

So you said you were born in 1976. When you were growing up did your parents/family members told you anything about the case, how he terrorized the entire Bay area, if they were afraid of what he could do, if they were reading the newspapers back then...???

Yes,Well bits and pieces,and with the Zodiac still being at large as i was getting older,and writing taunting letters and murders still going we had to be in the house earlier than normal,the SF police forced it more than our parents.and i never understood why,until a friends parent told us that a very evil man was harming people.My mom wanted me and my sisters basically to just be kids,live free and not worry bout anything.

Edited by yuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 19 America's most Wanted featured a new picture of one of the Zodiac Killer's victim, Darlene Ferrin. Pictured with Ferrin is a man of unknown identity. The man on the picture closely resembles the composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer that was formed based on eyewitness' descriptions back in 1969 shortly after the murder of Paul Stine. Police believe the photo was taken in San Francisco in the summer of 1966 or 1967.

Here is a link to the picture: New Picture of Darlene Ferrin

(Source: Zodiackiller.com and Mr. Tom Voigt)

Many people still think Darlene Ferrin knew her killer or that the two were somehow connected, so is that Zodiac on the picture with Darlene ?? For now the identity of the man on the picture remains unknown, but Zodiac Investigator Tom Voigt and others are trying to find his identity.

I'm not saying the man on the picture is indeed Zodiac, it could be simply a friend of Darlene or a family member. Some people think the man on the picture is Darlene's ex-husband, Jim Phillips. However many people think the man on the picture don't really looks like mr. Phillips, so we can't be 100% sure about the identity of this man. Again, I repeat, I'm not saying the man on the picture is indeed The Zodiac Killer. For now the identity of the man is unknown, and I really think we need to find out the identity of this person. I have seen pictures of Darlene's ex-Husband and in my opinion he doesn't really looks like the man on the picture, but I'm no expert. Some people think Zodiac knew Darlene/Darlene knew Zodiac, so perhaps the picture is indeed showing Darlene with her killer. I'm trying to find more about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,Well bits and pieces,and with the Zodiac still being at large as i was getting older,and writing taunting letters and murders still going we had to be in the house earlier than normal,the SF police forced it more than our parents.and i never understood why,until a friends parent told us that a very evil man was harming people.My mom wanted me and my sisters basically to just be kids,live free and not worry bout anything.

Thanks for sharing.

I have read that even if Zodiac wrote his last, authentic letter on July 8, 1974 (Red phantom letter) most people in the Bay area were still afraid that he might kill again or write another letter. The fact that many copycats were sending fake letters to the medias/authorities (including a letter supposedly written by David Toschi himself in 1978) wasn't helping either.

his name is richard joesph gaikowski, editor for a rival newspaper to darlene ferrin's husband

the bay area newspaper was called "Good Times" he also followed Darlene when she moved to the bay area

Hi Stacey, thanks for sharing.

If you read some of the previous posts in this thread you'll know that we have already talked about Mr. Gaikowski and that we have no solid evidence, only circumstantial evidence linking him to the case.

We can't accuse somebody of being a Serial Killer without having solid evidence against this person. There's interesting facts linking him to the case, I agree, but nothing solid.

The FBI and Bay Area authorities have investigated the possibility that Mr. Gaikowski could indeed be the Zodiac Killer ( not just recently but even back in the 80's ) and they have found nothing against him, no real evidence linking him to the murders.

The fact that he "followed Darlene" is one of the interesting link, but sadly we have no real evidence that he was indeed following Dee, it's only speculation and to my knowledge we have absolutely no evidence that Gaikowski even knew Darlene.

I agree that Richard Gaikowski is a very interesting suspect, the best we have in this case. But without real evidence we can't say "Richard Gaikowski is the killer", we just can't do that right now. But perhaps some real evidences will come our way one day. I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,but in the 80's there were suspicious letters if i could recall sent to these news outlette taunting police, whether they were authentic or fake i don't know.But i basically lived in the Visitation Valley area.Candle Stick Park,where the professionals Giants and 49ers played,was 5 blocks or so down the street fro my home.And South San Francisco was near also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,but in the 80's there were suspicious letters if i could recall sent to these news outlette taunting police, whether they were authentic or fake i don't know.But i basically lived in the Visitation Valley area.Candle Stick Park,where the professionals Giants and 49ers played,was 5 blocks or so down the street fro my home.And South San Francisco was near also

Ok, great. Well the letters you are talking about must have been fake because the last, authentic letter from Zodiac was written in 1974. In this last letter Zodiac gave himself a new nickname, "The Red Phantom". Some people think that he wrote a letter in 1978 to KHJ-TV TV Channel in Los Angeles and that this letter was kept secret, was not revealed to the public because the authorities didn't wanted to create a panic and to spread fear in the city, but we can't be sure that this was an authentic Zodiac letter or just another hoax. In my opinion it was just another Copycat.

So you must be proud of The Giants then. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.