×
all 25 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]BaseballCapSafety 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There are many fascinating people of interest. In the last year someone brought a local law enforcement man forward who right before the first killings was arrested and humiliated for picking up a couple from a lovers lane spot and bringing them to another location and “punishing” them. Then you have the second women’s ex-husband who hated her and was trained in the military as a code breaker. You have the guy who right before the murders took out a book on code breaking and the MiKado album from the local library.

[–]hemingwaysbeerd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any sources/info on these?

[–]BeautifulBarracuda5 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think it's most likely that his name was never put forward as a suspect. Among the known POIs, I found Robert Randolph Hauser most intriguing.

[–]mariospeedragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m with you. Likely never even a suspect, by RH is a very interesting selection. It’s all circumstantial , but there’s some interesting tie ins with his father being a graphic artist for movie posters. I’d say that doesn’t prove anything about being a slayer, but there’s definitely some film and graphic knowledge attached to the zodiac killer. RH (because he went by numerous spellings & also Riverside desk initials….) in film and math club, math scholarship to Berkley ….and I think most would agree that zodiac was a killer, but had some very above average intelligence. His addresses were rather close to zodiac crimes other than Stine murder. Lot of parallels, like a few other suspects, but it would have been interesting had RH ever been considered a subject to question at any point.

[–]LachiePhillipRyan 1 point2 points  (10 children)

I think it’s definitely Paul Doerr. Everything aligns perfectly especially once you look at it through the perspective of a 1970s jury. Hearing his daughter’s recollection really made the chances of coincidence effectively zero.

[–]doc_daneekaI am not Paul Avery 4 points5 points  (9 children)

really made the chances of coincidence effectively zero.

It's fascinating how many different suspects I hear that claim made about. I don't think most people have a good grasp of how common seemingly rare coincidences actually are when you have enough stuff to compare to.

I mean, look at the EARONS case, where there was a suspect who looked like a much, much better fit than Doerr does for the Zodiac, but he wasn't EARONS at all. He looked so good for it that there were people who refused to believe it wasn't him even after he was definitively ruled out by DNA. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there are still people out there who think he must have been involved, lol

He lived in all the right places, moving between them with suspiciously good timing. His fingerprints were apparently found at more than one house in Visalia that had been victimized by the Visalia Ransacker. His own home in the Sacramento area was in a weird sort of 'hole' where no EAR attacks happened, though they did happen to the east, west, and north of his neighbourhood. His brother worked in telecoms. There were some peculiar aspects to his history that would both potentially have left him with serious psychological trauma and high level connections that might want to make LE avoid prosecuting him.

I often use him as a sort of cautionary tale, noting that in any very well documented and lengthy series of events, there are going to be multiple people who match the details amazingly well, but who are not actually the guy at all. Coincidences are extremely common, and sometimes that's all they are.

[–]LysergicGothPunk -1 points0 points  (8 children)

What exactly do you think rules out Paul Doerr as a viable suspect though?
And what would the logical reasoning be for not considering him as a suspect if you have nothing that rules him out?

As far as I know, Paul Doer seems to be as worthy a suspect as any of the most recognized ones, even potentially more so than ALA.

Of course I could be wrong about that, I'm coming with humility, and I am incredibly curious about information that support any case made for or against any of their involvement.

[–]doc_daneekaI am not Paul Avery 0 points1 point  (5 children)

What exactly do you think rules out Paul Doerr as a viable suspect though?

I've never in my life said or suggested that he's ruled out.

The point is that I just don't see a terribly compelling case that he was the Zodiac. The actual evidence just doesn't rise to that level. It's just a whole host of purely circumstantial and coincidental stuff, and that's just weak. As I noted, it's fascinating how many different suspects are out there for which I hear claims about how their collection of coincidences clearly show guilt, and that's why I mentioned the so-called Mr Y in the EARONS case. He was a much better fit than any of those Zodiac suspects, and he very clearly was not EARONS

[–]LysergicGothPunk 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Fair. Although, I think what makes the mess here is that the majority of evidence against the most prominent suspects is also circumstantial or coincidental.

But yeah, I will say what you're saying makes sense- there are many suspects for many unsolved cases that are only suspects because of coincidence or circumstantial evidence.

With almost all the Zodiac suspects, it seems like there is so much coincidence- but if we look closer, or really- zoom out a bit, it becomes a bit clearer that having so many coincidences with a suspect is sort of common just as a fact of, idk... call it 'probability.' Iykwim

[–]doc_daneekaI am not Paul Avery 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Fair. Although, I think what makes the mess here is that the majority of evidence against the most prominent suspects is also circumstantial or coincidental.

Yup, and I tend to think that just indicates that the Zodiac isn't any of the named suspects. Literally the only one for whom there's significant real evidence is Allen, and for a bunch of reasons I really don't think he was the Zodiac either.

[–]LysergicGothPunk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've thought about that theory in passing a lot. I mean, there just seems to be so MANY viable suspects in the public consciousness that it seems very possible that the real killer was never even considered.

ALA seems to have just as much evidence against as for, though there is a lot there.

Think the same reason that this case frustrates people so much is the same reason it interests people so much. It's a giant, potentially unsolvable puzzle.

[–]LachiePhillipRyan -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Well Doerr not only shares 30+ traits with the zodiac but he also tried to kill his daughter on the same night as the first murder which ended in him angrily driving away with a gun. If you read all of the evidence as well as the extra testimony from his daughter he becomes the most likely suspect. Allen was only supported by an unreliable informant who had a personal grudge against him so non of it has evidentiary value.

[–]doc_daneekaI am not Paul Avery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you read all of the evidence as well as the extra testimony from his daughter he becomes the most likely suspect.

Yes, I've heard that said about a whole lot of people, and none of them have amounted to compelling cases to me. I get that you're all in on Doerr, but please don't pretend that the evidence against him is more than it actually is.

[–]huntforzodiac -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Did he have a moustache in the fall of 1969?

[–]LysergicGothPunk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't know that yet

[–]StompTheRight -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I jusy know that Arthur Leigh Allen was not the damn Zodiac!

[–]LysergicGothPunk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah from what I understand, he seems like a less likely fit to me, but I just purely don't know enough to feel comfortable ruling him out entirely. My intuition says Paul Doerr, followed by Joe Don Dickey/Richard Reed Marshall, but. Without anything beyond circumstantial evidence, and vague hunches, it's just impossible to truly know if someone was 'the guy'.

[–]Equal-Temporary-1326 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If not ALA, or a name in any report, then a Lost to the Beginningless and Endless Sea of Time Suspect, imo.

[–]Loud_Confidence475 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I imagine someone from Vallejo who looked identical to the sketch that it’s kinda uncanny and he was never a well known suspect or POI. 

[–]LachiePhillipRyan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Paul Doerr

[–]Equal-Temporary-1326 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As the most serious answer — I'll say someone whose name appeared in at least one police report somewhere at some point is the most likely bet because that's almost always what happens when suspects are caught or identified. If you look at the Colonial Parkway case, it was unsurprisingly someone who was closely on LE's radar and wan even interviewed by them on a few occasions. But unfortunately was dismissed due to passing a polygraph exam.

And LE said there that it's a Dead Suspect who Died years ago. So, that's almost certainly what's gonna happen if solved here.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-solves-colonial-parkway-murders-thanks-new-technology-bureau-says

[–]karmaisforlife 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My suggestion is that he has never been suspected and never been shortlisted

We get a new suspect at least once a year. The good ones all have one thing in common — a compelling story.

It’s essentially pareidolia: imposing what you want to see onto something that isn’t there.

The hardest thing to do with this case is:

a) Deal with the certainty of uncertainty b) Be comfortable with not knowing c) Accepting that will never be found

At this stage, DNA evidence may be a busted flush. Assuming that’s true, the only evidence that can connect someone to this case is a hood or a full confession.

Neither feels likely …

[–]Old_Thief_Heaven -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No suggestions, to be honest. After more than half a century of the crimes, it is impossible to prove 100% that someone was the Zodiac unless you happen to have the damn hood or something. We just have to wait for the lab work to do its thing and we'll see.

Regarding suspects or persons of interest, I wonder how Glenn W. Albertson was ruled out by the police back then. IIRC, I had read that they thought he didn't look bad at all, I suppose it had something to do with PH. I wonder what happened.

[–]RefrigeratorSolid379 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Could your question be any more cliche???? 🙄🙄🙄

[–]Signal-Mention-1041 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No real information exists that point in a concrete direction. The famous suspects are mostly there because of poor reserach.
The fact is that we don't know more than they did back in the 70's.
This is what we know: Zodiac is a white male, he's in the 20-50 age range, he most likely lives in or around San Fransico, he has a car, he has several guns and his gun skills are pretty avreage. He seems to not be that into killing, he's into the power and control aspect. He's avreage looking enough not to stand out.