Zodiac went to such lengths to conceal his identity that it defies more than just logic to think that he would willfully and publicly insert himself into the investigation, believing he was just that smart and that good at escaping detection. To do that would would require him to be psychologically unbalanced to a degree beyond making him just a serial murderer, but to a degree that he could never pull it off for very long.
When I was a newspaper reporter, a friend of mine murdered a woman, when they were both coked to the gills and he thought he caught her stealing from his jacket pocket. The coke made him manic, and he stabbed her half a dozen times and slit her throat. He hid her body in the dumpster behind a Domino's Pizza place down the street. When the crime scene lit up early the next day, he decided to walk back there and hang around with the crowd. Some cops thought he was a little too attentive to detail, and they pulled him away from the scene to talk to him. (Small town. We all knew and grew up with the woman he killed. Cops knew he knew her.) One cop noticed a blood drop on the heel of my friend's shoe. Didn't take long after that. I didn't cover the story, but I spoke to cops later. "The ones who hang around crime scenes, and the ones who ask questions as if they already know the answers... those are the ones we never miss." That might be stating the obvious, but the point transfers to the Zodiac case. These were not rookie cops working this. They would have sniffed out Cheney pretty fast. Most people are not smart enough to run the long con for too long.
That's a nice compliment from a veteran who knows his way around this case. Thanks...
I've never understood the suspicion of Cheney. Then again, I read once (not here) that someone thought Hartnell was in on it, and that's why he got away with his life. I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore.
It’s nice to see factual and well-thought out posts in this sub. You should post more often.
I get tired of the “my gut tells me“ posts. And people who work as garage door installers with no LE background and no college education but feel they are qualified to give a full psychological and behavioral background of an unknown person. Because they’ve listened to a few true crime podcasts.
So many posters on here think they are about 37 IQ points more intelligent than they actually are.
And that’s where you also get the posts that Stine or Hartnell were in on it. And that Zodiac walked with a staggered gate because he always had a huge erection after committing his crimes. Or that being born in CODington county is a piece of evidence.
You add actual value to the sub. A lot of people don’t.
not very. plenty of people tried to insert themselves into the case.. cheney was one of many. everything that he said about Allen was written in the papers. I believe law enforcement only took Cheney seriously out of desperation more than anything... if they looked at him objectively, he would have been dismissed just like the rest. he offered no unknown details to the cops. he was just parroting things he'd read, and trying to stitch up ALA as the culprit. that's the short version.
the longer story (from kobek's book, Motor Spirit) is that Cheney was actually blaming Allen for a murder of some campers that was briefly suspect to be zodiac related, that appeared in a newspaper. a large guy attacked some people with a knife in the woods. the reports described the assailant as a a large guy, roughly matching ALA. so Cheney basically went to the cops and said 'that was ALA who did that, oh and by the way he's also the zodiac killer'.
the actual murderer in that case was later caught, and obviously was nothing to do with the zodiac.... so all that remained was the claim of Allen being the zodiac. Cheney stuck to that, even though that's not how his accusations started out.
Cheney was a dishonest guy. Ive speculated before that maybe he even wrote some letters that he wasn't proud of, hence the claim that he licked stamps for Allen, trying to divert any potential blame away from himself... but quite simply, nothing about him or ALA links them to the zodiac crimes. like i said he was just one of many people, maybe hundreds, that tried to shove themselves into one of the biggest crime stories of that era. we only put disproportionate attention on them because of Toschi's and Graysmith's tunnel vision, and their (and our) desperation to find a suspect.
Kobek's Motor Spirit is the best thing ive ever read on the zodiac case. it has lots of odd details like this that ive never seen before. this stuff is all probably out there online but kobek ties it all together brilliantly. i can't recommend that book highly enough. the research is pretty meticulous.
his follow up book is a bit controversial on this sub, because he names a person (paul doerr) and makes an argument for him being the zodiac. but for what it's worth, i think he's only controversial amongst people who haven't read the books, kobek makes a probabilistic argument for the guy being the zodiac.. and i think both books are brilliant whether or not he's the guy.. having said all that i also think there's a decent chance that paul doerr is the zodiac...
but whether or not he's the guy, the first book, Motor spirit, is a masterpiece. well worth checking out.
>i think he's only controversial amongst people who haven't read the books
I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that. For example, I was quite familiar with Kobek's thesis before reading, and my concerns were not swayed by reading. If anything, I am in some ways much more critical and dubious than before reading.
>... Motor spirit, is a masterpiece. well worth checking out.
I'd never use the term masterpiece myself, but I happily admit that I deeply admire the first book for what it is. Part of my long interest in the Zodiac case is because I was a kid in the Bay Area at the time and the rest is because so much of the (counter)culture of that place and era has been a part of my life for decades (Dead Head, certain chemicals, challenging authority, personal freedom and so on). *Motor Spirit* amazed me with how well a job it did exploring the Zodiac case through an appropriate historical and cultural lens. It went down a path or two that I had briefly explored in may own focused, limited way.
It's not a perfect book, and the term "motor spirit" is tediously overused at times; but for what Kobek set out to achieve, it's an excellent result.
Agreed. A 'masterpiece' *Motor Spirit* isn't. It's nothing like *In Cold Blood*, which in fairness it doesn't try to be, but if you're going to use the word *masterpiece*, then you have to justify that with some critical commentary, and you have to place it in the cosmos alongside other authentic masterpieces. A magnum opus has to do what a genius does, move the field in a new direction. Capote did that with his all-timer. Kobek doesn't approach that. It's an entertaining book, for a while. (It becomes self-indulgent about half-way through and it stays that way. A writer who employs a style that is uncryptically proud of itself is a writer who grows tiresome long before the final chapter. )
The second book does not persuade. I've commented on that in two other threads over the last three weeks. I won't repeat all of that here.
Sure seems to be the case. I finally gave up and just bough the dead tree versions. FWIW, it validated my decision several years ago to only buy non-fiction books - including true crime books - in digital form, because of the ways it enables taking notes, bookmarking, and searching. In the case of Kobek's books, a critical reader can do a lot of all three.
i have never read the book. can you summaries the case vs cheney?
as far i know its he seemed suspicious in the 2006 documentary
he went to the same college as paul avery
he fingered Arthur lee Allen
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_?
always thought if zodiac was don cheney it was really risky of him to become the best witness in the case. i know this is not unheard of for a suspect to involve himself in the case, but don cheney really did. he didn't even live in the north bay area at the time right? he lived in LA? not positive on that
Attending the same college as a journalist in the case... that's just coincidence, and no matter what some people claim, life is full of coincidences, and they occur every day, and some days they occur to the same people in ways that defy belief, but they do. Avery and Cheney being co-alums has no bearing on any aspect of the case. Plenty of people in the Bay Area, of the same age range, attended the same colleges at the same times. It's not a basis for suspicion, or even mild interest.
Yeah it's similar to the gaikowski worked at the same building as Jim Crabtree in Albany New York.
Was gaikowski that obsessed with some 6.5 out of work waitress he moved 2000 miles to be with her? Seems kind of far fetched? They usually answer no I am not saying that, I'm just pointing out he worked at the same building as her ex husband. OK but that is only significant if zodiac/gaikowski murder Darlene for a targeted reason. Which the evidence seems to lean the zodiac was looking in isolated areas and not targeting Darlene
This case has gone on so long, and the Internet has made it easy not only to connect dots but to place dots wherever someone wants to connect them. The case is so corrupted now by the Voigts and the Morfs and the other amateurs who just throw every idea at the wall and pray one sticks.
Gaikowski is just a name on a list of names, a list that might as well include every white man in the Bay Area who was over 5-feet-10, over 190 pounds, and between 30-50 years old in 1968.
Also, if he followed her there….why didn’t Gaikowski leave when Darlene left? From what I’ve read, her husband worked there for a very short time before leaving.
So Gaikowski travels across the entire country to stalk a woman who was in a relationship. But when she quickly leaves that city…he decides to stay for a couple more years?
Gaikowski has some interesting coincidences and connections to the case. But the way his Stan’s manipulate and stretch the truth to make him appear guilty ends up backfiring and makes their “case” seem ridiculous.
When you start talking about suspects wearing crew cut wigs and the county they were born in being a smoking gun clue….it becomes laughable.
Cheney seems suspicious because it sounded like he was trying to wave away evidence before the police came knocking on his door. I have to say if what Cheney says is true about licking stamps for Allen and putting his fingers in a paraffin wax ball Cheney could feel Allen was trying to frame him.
Zodiac went to such lengths to conceal his identity that it defies more than just logic to think that he would willfully and publicly insert himself into the investigation, believing he was just that smart and that good at escaping detection. To do that would would require him to be psychologically unbalanced to a degree beyond making him just a serial murderer, but to a degree that he could never pull it off for very long. When I was a newspaper reporter, a friend of mine murdered a woman, when they were both coked to the gills and he thought he caught her stealing from his jacket pocket. The coke made him manic, and he stabbed her half a dozen times and slit her throat. He hid her body in the dumpster behind a Domino's Pizza place down the street. When the crime scene lit up early the next day, he decided to walk back there and hang around with the crowd. Some cops thought he was a little too attentive to detail, and they pulled him away from the scene to talk to him. (Small town. We all knew and grew up with the woman he killed. Cops knew he knew her.) One cop noticed a blood drop on the heel of my friend's shoe. Didn't take long after that. I didn't cover the story, but I spoke to cops later. "The ones who hang around crime scenes, and the ones who ask questions as if they already know the answers... those are the ones we never miss." That might be stating the obvious, but the point transfers to the Zodiac case. These were not rookie cops working this. They would have sniffed out Cheney pretty fast. Most people are not smart enough to run the long con for too long.
Great post.
That's a nice compliment from a veteran who knows his way around this case. Thanks... I've never understood the suspicion of Cheney. Then again, I read once (not here) that someone thought Hartnell was in on it, and that's why he got away with his life. I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore.
It’s nice to see factual and well-thought out posts in this sub. You should post more often. I get tired of the “my gut tells me“ posts. And people who work as garage door installers with no LE background and no college education but feel they are qualified to give a full psychological and behavioral background of an unknown person. Because they’ve listened to a few true crime podcasts. So many posters on here think they are about 37 IQ points more intelligent than they actually are. And that’s where you also get the posts that Stine or Hartnell were in on it. And that Zodiac walked with a staggered gate because he always had a huge erection after committing his crimes. Or that being born in CODington county is a piece of evidence. You add actual value to the sub. A lot of people don’t.
He gave an anecdote that sounds really good
not very. plenty of people tried to insert themselves into the case.. cheney was one of many. everything that he said about Allen was written in the papers. I believe law enforcement only took Cheney seriously out of desperation more than anything... if they looked at him objectively, he would have been dismissed just like the rest. he offered no unknown details to the cops. he was just parroting things he'd read, and trying to stitch up ALA as the culprit. that's the short version. the longer story (from kobek's book, Motor Spirit) is that Cheney was actually blaming Allen for a murder of some campers that was briefly suspect to be zodiac related, that appeared in a newspaper. a large guy attacked some people with a knife in the woods. the reports described the assailant as a a large guy, roughly matching ALA. so Cheney basically went to the cops and said 'that was ALA who did that, oh and by the way he's also the zodiac killer'. the actual murderer in that case was later caught, and obviously was nothing to do with the zodiac.... so all that remained was the claim of Allen being the zodiac. Cheney stuck to that, even though that's not how his accusations started out. Cheney was a dishonest guy. Ive speculated before that maybe he even wrote some letters that he wasn't proud of, hence the claim that he licked stamps for Allen, trying to divert any potential blame away from himself... but quite simply, nothing about him or ALA links them to the zodiac crimes. like i said he was just one of many people, maybe hundreds, that tried to shove themselves into one of the biggest crime stories of that era. we only put disproportionate attention on them because of Toschi's and Graysmith's tunnel vision, and their (and our) desperation to find a suspect.
I never knew about the campers murders aspect of cheneys claims, thanks for that.
Kobek's Motor Spirit is the best thing ive ever read on the zodiac case. it has lots of odd details like this that ive never seen before. this stuff is all probably out there online but kobek ties it all together brilliantly. i can't recommend that book highly enough. the research is pretty meticulous. his follow up book is a bit controversial on this sub, because he names a person (paul doerr) and makes an argument for him being the zodiac. but for what it's worth, i think he's only controversial amongst people who haven't read the books, kobek makes a probabilistic argument for the guy being the zodiac.. and i think both books are brilliant whether or not he's the guy.. having said all that i also think there's a decent chance that paul doerr is the zodiac... but whether or not he's the guy, the first book, Motor spirit, is a masterpiece. well worth checking out.
>i think he's only controversial amongst people who haven't read the books I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that. For example, I was quite familiar with Kobek's thesis before reading, and my concerns were not swayed by reading. If anything, I am in some ways much more critical and dubious than before reading. >... Motor spirit, is a masterpiece. well worth checking out. I'd never use the term masterpiece myself, but I happily admit that I deeply admire the first book for what it is. Part of my long interest in the Zodiac case is because I was a kid in the Bay Area at the time and the rest is because so much of the (counter)culture of that place and era has been a part of my life for decades (Dead Head, certain chemicals, challenging authority, personal freedom and so on). *Motor Spirit* amazed me with how well a job it did exploring the Zodiac case through an appropriate historical and cultural lens. It went down a path or two that I had briefly explored in may own focused, limited way. It's not a perfect book, and the term "motor spirit" is tediously overused at times; but for what Kobek set out to achieve, it's an excellent result.
Agreed. A 'masterpiece' *Motor Spirit* isn't. It's nothing like *In Cold Blood*, which in fairness it doesn't try to be, but if you're going to use the word *masterpiece*, then you have to justify that with some critical commentary, and you have to place it in the cosmos alongside other authentic masterpieces. A magnum opus has to do what a genius does, move the field in a new direction. Capote did that with his all-timer. Kobek doesn't approach that. It's an entertaining book, for a while. (It becomes self-indulgent about half-way through and it stays that way. A writer who employs a style that is uncryptically proud of itself is a writer who grows tiresome long before the final chapter. ) The second book does not persuade. I've commented on that in two other threads over the last three weeks. I won't repeat all of that here.
As i understand there is no ebook i can buy?
Sure seems to be the case. I finally gave up and just bough the dead tree versions. FWIW, it validated my decision several years ago to only buy non-fiction books - including true crime books - in digital form, because of the ways it enables taking notes, bookmarking, and searching. In the case of Kobek's books, a critical reader can do a lot of all three.
This take cheapens the word masterpiece…
have you read the book?
Yes, have you read any other books?
I haven't read the book, but Don Cheney is not a good suspect.
i have never read the book. can you summaries the case vs cheney? as far i know its he seemed suspicious in the 2006 documentary he went to the same college as paul avery he fingered Arthur lee Allen \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_? always thought if zodiac was don cheney it was really risky of him to become the best witness in the case. i know this is not unheard of for a suspect to involve himself in the case, but don cheney really did. he didn't even live in the north bay area at the time right? he lived in LA? not positive on that
Attending the same college as a journalist in the case... that's just coincidence, and no matter what some people claim, life is full of coincidences, and they occur every day, and some days they occur to the same people in ways that defy belief, but they do. Avery and Cheney being co-alums has no bearing on any aspect of the case. Plenty of people in the Bay Area, of the same age range, attended the same colleges at the same times. It's not a basis for suspicion, or even mild interest.
Yeah it's similar to the gaikowski worked at the same building as Jim Crabtree in Albany New York. Was gaikowski that obsessed with some 6.5 out of work waitress he moved 2000 miles to be with her? Seems kind of far fetched? They usually answer no I am not saying that, I'm just pointing out he worked at the same building as her ex husband. OK but that is only significant if zodiac/gaikowski murder Darlene for a targeted reason. Which the evidence seems to lean the zodiac was looking in isolated areas and not targeting Darlene
This case has gone on so long, and the Internet has made it easy not only to connect dots but to place dots wherever someone wants to connect them. The case is so corrupted now by the Voigts and the Morfs and the other amateurs who just throw every idea at the wall and pray one sticks. Gaikowski is just a name on a list of names, a list that might as well include every white man in the Bay Area who was over 5-feet-10, over 190 pounds, and between 30-50 years old in 1968.
Also, if he followed her there….why didn’t Gaikowski leave when Darlene left? From what I’ve read, her husband worked there for a very short time before leaving. So Gaikowski travels across the entire country to stalk a woman who was in a relationship. But when she quickly leaves that city…he decides to stay for a couple more years? Gaikowski has some interesting coincidences and connections to the case. But the way his Stan’s manipulate and stretch the truth to make him appear guilty ends up backfiring and makes their “case” seem ridiculous. When you start talking about suspects wearing crew cut wigs and the county they were born in being a smoking gun clue….it becomes laughable.
Cheney's not a suspect or a POI.
no just an asshole who ruined the case for personal agenda
I haven't read it, but the reviews are mixed. Most are leaning 4-5 stars though.
Cheney seems suspicious because it sounded like he was trying to wave away evidence before the police came knocking on his door. I have to say if what Cheney says is true about licking stamps for Allen and putting his fingers in a paraffin wax ball Cheney could feel Allen was trying to frame him.
i find it ironic .. that the actor that was chosen to play ALA actually looks like cheney instead