Message Board
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
cruz

Registered:
Posts: 45
Reply with quote  #46 
Dennis's interview is now up at Vinnie Langdons site!! Along with a chat with Jack's biological son Charles.
jimmy54

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #47 
Thanks, cruz.

It took me awhile to figure out how to find the episode, but for those of you that are interested in checking it out, on Vinnie Langdon's homepage scroll down to the [U]News![/B] section for the link.
JoAnneMB1

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #48 
An update on the case can be viewed here: Click Here. This interview features Dennis' brother -- and Jack's biological son -- Charles.
DiamondD

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 716
Reply with quote  #49 
2 quotes from the article;

"Charles says his father never told him he was the Zodiac,"

and

"Charles says he doesn't know if his father was the Zodiac Killer. "I don't know…I can't answer that,"

Because of these 2 quotes is it reasonable to assume that Charles was not involved and did not assisted Zodiac in his adventures?
nalabindi

Registered:
Posts: 32
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondD
2

Because of these 2 quotes is it reasonable to assume that Charles was not involved and did not assisted Zodiac in his adventures?



since charles is, what, age 29, it seems.... obvious?
cruz

Registered:
Posts: 45
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondD
2 quotes from the article;

"Charles says his father never told him he was the Zodiac,"

and

"Charles says he doesn't know if his father was the Zodiac Killer. "I don't know…I can't answer that,"

Because of these 2 quotes is it reasonable to assume that Charles was not involved and did not assisted Zodiac in his adventures?


He wasn't born yet...
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #52 
Here is an update on the hood.

The material the hood was made of is called "JUTE"
Jute is made from natural fibers and has been available since the late 1800's.

The Zodiac symbol that is sewn on the front of the hood is made up of two different types of thread, one type is "POLYESTER" which became available around 1951, and the other type of thread used is called "OLEFIN" which became available around 1961.
ChadShaft

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wd707
I only posted here a few times, but can someone correct me but I read from hartnell's account that he said the zodiac symbol stiching on the hood was white. but dennis showed the hood and it was like a gold color.

Also I noticed it said the symbol was like 3 x 3 (hartnell said that) and denni's zodiac symbol on the front looks bigger then that.

So that either means 1 of 2 things. that means this hood is a fake and not the zodiac's or this means this hood isn't the hood for sure used at lake berryessa.


Or Hartnell could be off in his description. The little details tend to blur, especially during an attack like that. The truth is Hartnell could be way off on details.

I'm not saying he is, but it has to be considered as a real possibility.
schnitz

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #54 
white thread turns golden after aging

so white thread would look golden after almost 40 years

but that dont not explain the huge zodiac symbol on the front when hartnall said it was much smaller
DiamondD

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 716
Reply with quote  #55 
Here is a little blurb on eyewitness recollection.


A recent study (Wells, et al, 1998) examined the first 40 cases where DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. In 90% of the cases, mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role. In one case, 5 separate witnesses identified the defendant.
Huff (1987) studied 500 wrongful convictions and concluded that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60%. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1981).
Cutler and Penrod (1995) examined eyewitness identification accuracy from controlled studies performed in "natural setting." In the typical study, a person enters a convenience store and performs some memorable action (such as paying in pennies) to ensure drawing the clerk's attention. Later the clerk views a photospread and identifies the "customer." The percentage of correct identification ranged from 34-48% and the percentage of false identification is 34-38%. It is hard to know how far to generalize such studies, but they suggest that eyewitnesses are almost as likely to wrong as to be correct when identifying strangers. Moreover, these results occurred until highly favorable circumstances: extended duration, good lighting, clear visibility, and no "weapons focus."

JoAnneMB1

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #56 
Thanks for that info, Diamond D. It certainly sheds some light on the recollection of crime victims!


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #57 
I don't think that it's a good idea to totally disregard eyewitness testimony, especially in this case since there isn't much else to go on. Wouldn't that mean that the composites are no good either?
I believe that BH has an analytical mind and he was seriously checking his attacker out specifically so he could tell authorities once this ordeal was over. There is no reason to believe otherwise, IMHO.
scarlett

Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #58 
In regards to eyewitness accounts, I have heard myself from investigators that one of the most UNRELIABLE pieces of evidence, from their standpoint is the "eyewitness" account. They know that 5 different people can witness the same crime, and all 5 will give slightly different versions. From their standpoint, that is a virtual nightmare, since it can create reasonable doubt, since none of the 5 can actually agree fully on the account.

I think anyone under such duress at the time, regardless if he thought this guy just wanted money or whatever, might be a little sketchy on some of the minor details. If someone is holding a gun to you, are you looking at the symbol on his clothes...or the gun?


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #59 
From what I've read, I think Jack knew that Dennis thought he was Z.
I don't know how long that the PA system was in Dennis's possession though. Jack may not have had access to it once he realized that Dennis suspected him.
jimmy54

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #60 
dmartin wrote:
I don't think that it's a good idea to totally disregard eyewitness testimony, especially in this case since there isn't much else to go on. Wouldn't that mean that the composites are no good either?

There are three Z sketches/composites, which look nothing like each other. That's been part of the problem in this case.

The 'top suspect' for so many years, Arthur Leigh Allen looked nothing like any of them.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!