Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Possible Identiy of the Zodiac KillerFollow

#1 Aug 30 2008 at 6:42 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,196 posts
Looks like the Zodiac Killer has been identified after all these years after. Pics on link.

Kris Pickel wrote:
Zodiac Killer's Identity And Weapon Uncovered?
Local Man: Zodiac Killer Was My Stepfather
Reporting
Kris Pickel

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ― The Zodiac Killer attacked at least eight people, terrorizing the Bay Area and taunting police in the 60's and 70's. Thursday, the FBI confirmed to CBS13 they are now running laboratory tests on some items that may link a suspect to the killer.

The evidence was given to the FBI by a Pollock Pines man who also claims he recently found the disguise worn by the Zodiac Killer during one of his attacks.

"The identity of the Zodiac Killer is Jack Tarrance. He's my stepfather," says Dennis Kaufman.

Eight years of Dennis Kaufman's life has been consumed with attempting to prove the only father he's known since he was five-years-old is none other than the Zodiac Killer.

"This a handwriting comparison I did," says Kaufman, showing handwriting samples claiming to be his father's and the Zodiac Killer's, which bear a striking similarity. Similarities Dennis says are no coincidence.

"The composite is a dead ringer," says Kaufman, showing composite sketch of the killer next to his stepfather's -- a resemblance that is undeniable between pictures of Jack Tarrance and descriptions of the zodiac.

Dennis also claims his stepfather, in a taped phone conversation, indirectly admitted being the zodiac killer.

"If I wrote a book and said I think my stepfather is the Zodiac Killer they wouldn't believe me," says Kaufman.

Jack Tarrance died in 2006. Dennis claims that while going through Tarrance's belongings, there were disturbing findings including a knife still covered with what could possibly be dried blood.

"It could be a knife he barbecued with or a knife he murdered someone with," says Kaufman.

Jack also left behind rolls of undeveloped film. Dennis plans to hand over the film to the FBI. On one of the rolls Dennis did develop, there were numerous gruesome images.

"Appeared to be people who were murdered," explains Dennis.

Just recently, Dennis remembered his stepfather asking him several times about the old PA system which led Dennis to take it apart.

"When I first opened it up that did affect me. My heart skipped a couple of beats when I saw it," he says.

The material folded and tucked inside, Dennis believes, may unmask the zodiac killer.

"It was a black hood with a zodiac on it," Dennis explains.

Dennis holds up a black hood with the zodiac sign on it. It's similar to the hood worn during the vicious 1968 Lake Berryessa attack, which is the possible key evidence connecting his stepfather to the killings. He also believes there are dozens more victims which were never linked to the Zodiac, including Dennis' own mother who, he claims, was suffocated.

"She sat there and told me Jack was trying to kill her and I didn't listen. I can only imagine how she felt. Imagine how scary that would be. That is what kept me going this whole time," says Dennis.

The FBI confirmed they are running DNA tests on items that Dennis gave them.

Dennis says there are postage stamps sent to him by his stepfather. Authorities are trying to get DNA profile of Jack Tarrance to compare to A DNA profile of the Zodiac Killer. The FBI told CBS13 they could get those results back any day.

(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)


If this is true, this guy will make some $ for a book and movie deal - maybe a sequel to the movie that was put out a little while back?

____________________________
'Lo, there do I see, the line of my people, back to the beginning, 'lo do they call to me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave...may live...forever.

X-Box 360 Gamer Tag - Smogster
#2 Aug 30 2008 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Oh sure, great, close one door....open another.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Los Angeles, California, police detectives are looking for a serial killer who they believe killed at least 11 people, many of them prostitutes, over a 23-year period.

Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief Charlie Beck said DNA evidence and ballistics tests have convinced detectives that the same killer is connected to the slayings in Los Angeles and Inglewood.

The victims were prostitutes or drug users who were sexually assaulted and then shot and dumped in alleyways or inside dumpsters, police said.


As long as we are not running short of crazed, psycho losers.


____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#3REDACTED, Posted: Aug 30 2008 at 7:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's my personal opinion that somebody should be judged on a crime, not by the act itself, but, rather, by the victims. You shoot and kill a prostitute, or a drug dealer? You shouldn't be charged on murder. Maybe for being a vigilante, but meh.
#4 Aug 30 2008 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Really?
#5 Aug 30 2008 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Paradox wrote:
It's my personal opinion that somebody should be judged on a crime, not by the act itself, but, rather, by the victims. You shoot and kill a prostitute, or a drug dealer? You shouldn't be charged on murder. Maybe for being a vigilante, but meh.

Gah, I can't type worth crap today.


Justice is supposed to be blind...

I'm a believer that a person who commited a crime and did his/her time, shouldn't have that held against them in the future. A drug dealer that went to jail for a couple years because of his crimes, gets out, and 3 years later gets murdered. He served his time, he shouldn't have that held as a reasonable excuse for someone murdering him.

Edited, Aug 30th 2008 12:07pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#6 Aug 30 2008 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Anyway, I'm sorta quite interested in this. I saw that film "Zodiac" that was made recently about this case. In the film, a case is made that the Zodiac Killer was a man named Arthur Leigh Allen. Given that the author of the book that the film is based on, Robert Graysmith, reportedly lost his job, his wife and his kids over his obsession with tracking down the Zodiac Killer, I'd hate to find out he got it wrong in the end.

Edited, Aug 30th 2008 12:19pm by Aripyanfar
Edit: I went and googled it, sorry for messing you up Tirrith.

Edited, Aug 30th 2008 12:21pm by Aripyanfar
#7 Aug 30 2008 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Anyway, I'm sorta quite interested in this. I saw that film that was made recently about this case. I'm bad at remembering some stuff these days. Can anyone tell me who the Zodiac Killer was tagged as being, in the film? Is that person a different person from Jack Tarrance?


Reading up a few sites, they say that the film had Arthur Leigh Allen tagged as the suspect.

Quote:
Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes face-to-face with his prime suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen,
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#8REDACTED, Posted: Aug 30 2008 at 8:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow and I thought I was a bit too tough in my stances. I'm not for shooting prostitutes and why I can see the merit in shooting a drug dealer, it's still not right. Locking the drug dealer in some deep dark hole in a jail? Sure.
#9 Aug 30 2008 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Anyway, I'm sorta quite interested in this. I saw that film that was made recently about this case. I'm bad at remembering some stuff these days. Can anyone tell me who the Zodiac Killer was tagged as being, in the film? Is that person a different person from Jack Tarrance?


Reading up a few sites, they say that the film had Arthur Leigh Allen tagged as the suspect.

Quote:
Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes face-to-face with his prime suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen,

Oh yeah sorry, after I posted that I thought I'd better google it and see if it was easy for me to find out. Thanks though! If
#10 Aug 30 2008 at 8:26 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Anyway, I'm sorta quite interested in this. I saw that film that was made recently about this case. I'm bad at remembering some stuff these days. Can anyone tell me who the Zodiac Killer was tagged as being, in the film? Is that person a different person from Jack Tarrance?


Reading up a few sites, they say that the film had Arthur Leigh Allen tagged as the suspect.

Quote:
Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes face-to-face with his prime suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen,

Oh yeah sorry, after I posted that I thought I'd better google it and see if it was easy for me to find out. Thanks though! If


Na, I didn't mean to sound like "Google it, ******************** I just said that because I didn't know myself, and didn't want to come off as some sort of movie genius when I wasn't.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#11 Aug 30 2008 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Well, it was a good movie, even if it tagged the wrong guy.

But of course none of the forensics and investigation has come in over this new collection of evidence. I suppose it's useless to speculate yet.
#12 Aug 30 2008 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
****
4,901 posts
Sweet. Looks like I'm off the hook.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#13 Aug 30 2008 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Well, it was a good movie, even if it tagged the wrong guy.

But of course none of the forensics and investigation has come in over this new collection of evidence. I suppose it's useless to speculate yet.

On CSI they would have had the DNA evidence back before you finished typing, those FBI are slackers.
#14 Aug 30 2008 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
People.

The Zodiac killer was FAKE. Made up. Like in the Wire.
It was a bunch of random murders mixed with lying cops, journalists, and mass hysteria.
Think about it.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#15 Aug 30 2008 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
It's my personal opinion that somebody should be judged on a crime, not by the act itself, but, rather, by the victims. You shoot and kill a prostitute, or a drug dealer? You shouldn't be charged on murder. Maybe for being a vigilante, but meh.

Gah, I can't type worth crap today.


Obvious troll.
#16REDACTED, Posted: Aug 30 2008 at 5:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not so much. Perhaps it is a tad too harsh, but oh well. It's not like I detest prostitutes, but drug dealers, who care only about money while they ruin peoples' lives (though, the same argument could probably be made for the heads of big companies) don't deserve to exist.
#17 Aug 30 2008 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Oh, you really believe that?

That's actually pretty funny.
#18 Aug 30 2008 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Paradox wrote:
but drug dealers, who care only about money while they ruin peoples' lives


No one forces people to use drugs. If people didn't use them, the sellers wouldn't have any business. The users are ruining their own lives (and by extension the lives of their families). Just as much, if not much more, responsibility for the damage to the people around the user falls on the user. And all of the responsibility for the damage to the user falls on the user.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19REDACTED, Posted: Aug 30 2008 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I understand, but if something is not available, people will not be tempted to use it in the first place.
#20 Aug 30 2008 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Paradox wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Paradox wrote:
but drug dealers, who care only about money while they ruin peoples' lives


No one forces people to use drugs. If people didn't use them, the sellers wouldn't have any business. The users are ruining their own lives (and by extension the lives of their families). Just as much, if not much more, responsibility for the damage to the people around the user falls on the user. And all of the responsibility for the damage to the user falls on the user.


I understand, but if something is not available, people will not be tempted to use it in the first place.


Business moves in where there is demand. No matter what you do, if the users want it, someone is going to sell it.

Similar to RMT in games. Ban all the RMT you want, as long as there are 1000s of people out there willing to buy, the RMT will always be there.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#21 Aug 30 2008 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
Paradox wrote:


...I understand, but if something is not available, people will not be tempted to use it in the first place.


I disagree with this, I know of many unavailable women who tempt me greatly.
#22 Aug 30 2008 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Paradox wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Paradox wrote:
but drug dealers, who care only about money while they ruin peoples' lives


No one forces people to use drugs. If people didn't use them, the sellers wouldn't have any business. The users are ruining their own lives (and by extension the lives of their families). Just as much, if not much more, responsibility for the damage to the people around the user falls on the user. And all of the responsibility for the damage to the user falls on the user.


I understand, but if something is not available, people will not be tempted to use it in the first place.


Oh jesus, how naive can you get?
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#23REDACTED, Posted: Aug 30 2008 at 6:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FTFY
#24 Aug 30 2008 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Paradox wrote:
Tare wrote:
Oh jesus, how naive can you get?


FTFY


Na, I think Tare was correct.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#25 Aug 30 2008 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
**
812 posts
Paradox wrote:

It's my personal opinion that somebody should be judged on a crime, not by the act itself, but, rather, by the victims. You shoot and kill a prostitute, or a drug dealer? You shouldn't be charged on murder. Maybe for being a vigilante, but meh.

Gah, I can't type worth crap today.


I know other people already commented on this but I just wanna say you're a moron. You really think people who kill prostitutes/drug dealers shouldn't get charged with murder?
You realize that not everyones situation is the same right? Not every criminal is an evil selfish loser.

I think people like you should be shot for being so stupid. We don't need you passing this kind of thinking on to any kids.

So what do you think about alcohol? Since we know that ruins people lives and is very addictive shouldn't people be allowed to go murder store owners or the owners of the booze companies?
#26 Aug 30 2008 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
It's funny that in a topic about uncovering a serial killer we seem to have found a Jack the Ripper fanboy.

For shame, Paradox.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 232 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (232)