A Few Questions

NEW TO THE ZODIAC CASE? ASK YOUR QUESTIONS HERE- Get your Zodiac questions answered here

A Few Questions

Postby FBZ » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:46 am

Forgive me if these have been dealt with before, but I haven't stumbled across them yet.

1) I was wondering if any of the witnesses (Mageau, Hartnell, Fouke or the kids across from the Stine scene) had ever been placed under hypnosis to see if it could evoke more details. I don't know if this would be a good idea either, with the possibility of creating false memories.

2) Would they have been able to turn the gloves in the cab inside out in order to obtain fingerprints from them? Although there's no guarantee they were left there by Zodiac.

3) I understand the possibility of being sued for libel, but what makes it suddenly ok to name a Zodiac suspect after they're deceased?

Thanks!
FBZ
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:30 am

Re: A Few Questions

Postby Quicktrader » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:41 am

FBZ wrote:Forgive me if these have been dealt with before, but I haven't stumbled across them yet.

1) I was wondering if any of the witnesses (Mageau, Hartnell, Fouke or the kids across from the Stine scene) had ever been placed under hypnosis to see if it could evoke more details. I don't know if this would be a good idea either, with the possibility of creating false memories.

2) Would they have been able to turn the gloves in the cab inside out in order to obtain fingerprints from them? Although there's no guarantee they were left there by Zodiac.

3) I understand the possibility of being sued for libel, but what makes it suddenly ok to name a Zodiac suspect after they're deceased?

Thanks!


1.) As far as I know about the only known hypnosis was made with a friend of Darlene Ferrin regarding the painting partie's guest. Mike Mageau was believed to not have seen much more than a glimpse on Z while Hartnell gave a detailled description of the hooded man anyway (thus both no hypnosis, imo). A second person hypnotised was the sister-in-law of Allen, which resulted in some code stuff but that could've been nonsense.
http://www.thequesterfiles.com/from_fol ... e_zod.html

2.) No gloves found as far as I know, Z wiped the cab afterwards with some palmprints still taken by the police (correct?).

3.) Naming a suspect is one thing, blaming a person of being Z is something else. If you'd blame someone of being Z, his or her relatives could still sue you for deffamation but as the deceased wouldn't be able to assert any claims it'd be pretty much without success, I'd say. If someone is still alive, he/she could very well get some restitution if you publicly blamed him of being a murderer.

QT
*ZODIACHRONOLOGY*
User avatar
Quicktrader
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:23 am
Location: Vienna, Austria (Europe)

Re: A Few Questions

Postby Richard Grinell » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:53 am

1. Hypnosis is a controversial topic, that as you stated, has the ability to create false memories, but also have memories implanted. None of the relevant eyewitnesses as far as I know have undergone hypnosis. Hypnotically induced testimony shouldn't be anywhere near a court of law, any more than soothsayers or prison inmate hearsay should be, and information gleaned from it treated with the utmost scepticism.
2. The leather gloves discovered in the front of the taxicab would not have provided an ideal surface for the retrieval of fingerprints in 1969. Rubber or latex gloves yes.
3. You cannot defame the dead, or their survivors. The naming of suspects or persons of interest in the Zodiac case comes down to a moral issue on behalf of the person suggesting or implying somebody may be Zodiac, and everybody has different values. While distasteful to many 'suspects' families or friends, one must always use a little introspection and place oneself in the same position. How would you feel if your beloved father was accused or suggested to be a 'crazed killer' who slaughtered numerous people. I personally, would find it extremely objectionable.
Richard Grinell
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:09 am
Location: Coventry, England

Re: A Few Questions

Postby FBZ » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:16 pm

Thank you for your answers, QT and Richard.

Hypnosis definitely seems to be hit and miss. It can lead to false memories or strengthen fallacious ones, but on the other hand it may bring up an unremembered fact (the bus driver in the Chowchilla kidnapping case was able to remember most of the license plate number of the perpetrators' van through hypnosis). Maybe Mageau, though not seeing much of Zodiac, would remember more details about the "Richard" he brought up later. It may lead to further avenues of exploration.

Richard Grinell wrote:2. The leather gloves discovered in the front of the taxicab would not have provided an ideal surface for the retrieval of fingerprints in 1969. Rubber or latex gloves yes.


I was thinking about it in terms of today's fingerprinting technology. First, if those prints would still be in there and second if nobody had put them on in the interim. How about touch DNA on them as well? Hopefully they're still in the evidence locker.
FBZ
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:30 am

Re: A Few Questions

Postby Coffee Time » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:14 pm

My understanding (I have no intention of watching the History Channel series) is that DNA was recently recovered from the insides of the cab gloves, but no further information has been disclosed. I wouldn't hold my breath, SFPD has been very tight-lipped since the ABC debacle and Perez/Kaufman fiascos. (They definitely weren't happy campers in 2002 when random people started ringing up the lab to ask about their pet suspects.)

A non-match to the 2002 partial profile may only indicate that the 2002 results were invalid (contamination and not authentic Z DNA), and SFPD probably aren't prepared to admit that publicly unless the glove DNA leads to a viable suspect. Just my two cents based on what's happened so far, I hope I'm wrong.
Coffee Time
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: A Few Questions

Postby Coffee Time » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:30 am

OK, Voigt posted tonight that two different partial profiles were found on the gloves. Sounds like the update came from someone who works on the show.

Not great news. With all the DNA ballyhoo, "partial profiles" (how partial?) and pants DNA belonging to Cheri = huge letdown...
Coffee Time
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: A Few Questions

Postby FBZ » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:00 am

Coffee Time wrote:OK, Voigt posted tonight that two different partial profiles were found on the gloves. Sounds like the update came from someone who works on the show.

Not great news. With all the DNA ballyhoo, "partial profiles" (how partial?) and pants DNA belonging to Cheri = huge letdown...


Yes, I had seen TV's update shortly after I posted that question here. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of that. A reasonable assumption could be made that one of the profiles for the gloves occurred during the manufacturing process. I recall seeing a show where they tested clothing for DNA fresh out of the package and were able to get a profile. Maybe the other one is Z's? It'd be nice to catch a break in the case for once.
FBZ
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:30 am

Re: A Few Questions

Postby CuriousCat » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:34 am

Coffee Time wrote:
Not great news. With all the DNA ballyhoo, "partial profiles" (how partial?) and pants DNA belonging to Cheri = huge letdown...


The thing I don't understand about the DNA and CJB, they already have the suspect's DNA. Riverside's pet suspect was cleared by DNA. I don't see what difference this would have made unless it was different from the original sample.
User avatar
CuriousCat
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:58 pm

Re: A Few Questions

Postby Richard Grinell » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:56 pm

FBZ wrote:
Coffee Time wrote:OK, Voigt posted tonight that two different partial profiles were found on the gloves. Sounds like the update came from someone who works on the show.

Not great news. With all the DNA ballyhoo, "partial profiles" (how partial?) and pants DNA belonging to Cheri = huge letdown...


Yes, I had seen TV's update shortly after I posted that question here. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of that. A reasonable assumption could be made that one of the profiles for the gloves occurred during the manufacturing process. I recall seeing a show where they tested clothing for DNA fresh out of the package and were able to get a profile. Maybe the other one is Z's? It'd be nice to catch a break in the case for once.


Yes, the TV show was the 2 part documentary about JonBenet Ramsey.
Richard Grinell
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:09 am
Location: Coventry, England

Re: A Few Questions

Postby FBZ » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:32 pm

Richard Grinell wrote:Yes, the TV show was the 2 part documentary about JonBenet Ramsey.


Ah, thank you. I actually didn't see it on there, but on the Buzzfeed Unsolved youtube series episode on JonBenet. The hosts are kind of annoying (and sometimes humorous) but they tend to do a decent job on overview of the cases.
FBZ
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:30 am


Return to NEW TO THE ZODIAC CASE? ASK YOUR QUESTIONS HERE

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron