Fred Manalli

Curly and circle dots anyone?

Trav,I agree, nothing to account for a height difference,but I did note the same similar facial features and of course,noted of Manalli's mention of his 'weight gain'. Would like to see if he has glasses in any of his photos. I am trying(its a longshot)to get a photo of him from 1968-1976.

It would be good to see another photo - Good luck.

So....though I'd try and focus on the more unique features of Zodiacs writing. Can't get more unique than a one-off (you will excuse the pun). I thought this would prove elusive as it's a unique ampersand from Zodiac and I was pretty sure I'd seen all of Manalli's and didn't recall any looking like it.

I was right...but then....AWWW come on Freddie, what are you doing to me. As in the regular zodiac ampersand a similarly constructed letter was found rather then an ampersand, it was Manalli's lowecase t's. This time it's an O and as far as I can tell it's a one off for Him as well.

Direction and flow very similar.

BTW I'm posting snippets as it were, not because I'm running out of similarities, on the contrary, there are too many and many more to come. I'm just having trouble with where to start lol.



EDIT: That ampersand is from page 2 of the bus bomb letter BTW

I also liked the half w's you posted that seem to be very similar between Zodiac & Manalli

Yes, they just keep coming don't they.

I'm trying to make it harder for myself to find things but Freddie is being "too clever" for me lol.

RE: Glasses

I think we only know for sure that Zodiac wore glasses at the Stine killing. It's possible that he did not wear glasses all the time or at all in his everyday life. As Trav said in an earlier post the glasses could have been worn by Zodiac as a focal diversion from his facial features.

With Manalli having taught at San Quentin Prison I have no doubt that he learned a thing or two about criminal activity. Disguises, even as simple as wearing glasses, may have been discussed or written about by one of his prisoner students. Manalli taught basic english and writing classes and as I recall teachers say to write what you know.

Seagull wrote:

RE: Glasses

I think we only know for sure that Zodiac wore glasses at the Stine killing. It's possible that he did not wear glasses all the time or at all in his everyday life. As Trav said in an earlier post the glasses could have been worn by Zodiac as a focal diversion from his facial features.

With Manalli having taught at San Quentin Prison I have no doubt that he learned a thing or two about criminal activity. Disguises, even as simple as wearing glasses, may have been discussed or written about by one of his prisoner students. Manalli taught basic english and writing classes and as I recall teachers say to write what you know.

Good points Seagull. Personally, I think whomever Z was, he likely wore glasses. I base that not just on the fact of the Stine sketch,but also at Berryessa,he apprently had clipson sunglasses over his regulare glasses. I dont know if Z would need to wear fake glasses if he already had a mask on his face. Then again,maybe he was thinking ahead in case his mask somehow came off and he wanted some insurance. The mystery guy seen by the Berryessa girls(if that guy was indeed Zodiac)did not have glasses. I dont have the report in front of me,but didnt somebody describe him as being 6ft-6ft2??

morf13 wrote:

Seagull wrote:

RE: Glasses

I think we only know for sure that Zodiac wore glasses at the Stine killing. It's possible that he did not wear glasses all the time or at all in his everyday life. As Trav said in an earlier post the glasses could have been worn by Zodiac as a focal diversion from his facial features.

With Manalli having taught at San Quentin Prison I have no doubt that he learned a thing or two about criminal activity. Disguises, even as simple as wearing glasses, may have been discussed or written about by one of his prisoner students. Manalli taught basic english and writing classes and as I recall teachers say to write what you know.

Good points Seagull. Personally, I think whomever Z was, he likely wore glasses. I base that not just on the fact of the Stine sketch,but also at Berryessa,he apprently had clipson sunglasses over his regulare glasses. I dont know if Z would need to wear fake glasses if he already had a mask on his face. Then again,maybe he was thinking ahead in case his mask somehow came off and he wanted some insurance. The mystery guy seen by the Berryessa girls(if that guy was indeed Zodiac)did not have glasses. I dont have the report in front of me,but didnt somebody describe him as being 6ft-6ft2??

You can take it straight from Hartnell...Zodiac did not appear to be wearing glasses on his head. Any other reports are second-hand info, and misinterpreted.






If Bryan could see the guys hair, I would think he would see regular glasses. Seems he was looking quite closely. Mike as well in 1969 reported "no glasses".

What Tahoe said!

OKAY,so we are looking for a guy that either DID or DID NOT wear glasses. That narrows it down

traveller1st wrote:

I was curious so I thought I'd see what this looked like. The height thing I can't account for but I wouldn't let facial features rule him out. I can see similarities. Particularly regarding the nose on the composite. If you look at it logically the I think the composite is trying to depict a long (or more on the long side than the short) nose and that would fit with Manalli. I've long pondered the nose thing as I'm sure we all have and wondered what the profile would look like.

It makes sense to me that the nose should have more of a pronounced profile than not because going by the length in the composite a flat nose at that length would look really weird.

His chin is interesting as well. It's a reasonably robust looking thing with a mound and a dimple. A feature that usually has the effect of making someone look heavy set or a 'bit of a bruiser' (think Marv in Sin City).

Last but not least, the glasses. I can attest to the fact that wearing thick rimmed glasses can do two relevant things to a person appearence. Providing a stronger focal point than the features, they can detract from things like a prominent nose or heavy eyebrows.

EDIT: Bear in mind this image is from 1957

For what its worth, the 3 girls at Berryessa described the mystery guy watching them as being 6ft-6ft2,certainly closer to Manalli's height(if the guy the girls seen was zodiac)
http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport10.html

What do you all think about Manalli's voice? Would someone in their thirties who learned to speak in Illinois sound similar to what is known about Zodiac's voice.

Reportedly, Zodiac sounded young (early 20s; Manalli was early 30s); he had some type drawl. He may have sounded similar to Richard Gaikowski (based on Nancy the dispatcher's remembrance).

What have I left out concerning voice?

patinky wrote:

What do you all think about Manalli's voice? Would someone in their thirties who learned to speak in Illinois sound similar to what is known about Zodiac's voice.

Reportedly, Zodiac sounded young (early 20s; Manalli was early 30s); he had some type drawl. He may have sounded similar to Richard Gaikowski (based on Nancy the dispatcher's remembrance).

What have I left out concerning voice?

Yeah,I think Hartnell described his voice as being like a student's, and Officer Slaight said Z sounded like he was early 20's. I wish there was a recording of Manalli, not that it will prove anything. Unfortunately, the 'voice' is probably the least valuable clue about Zodiac. Three people talked to him 43 years ago. One of them is dead. Not sure how reliable voice recognition would be now.

I am not sold on Manalli being Zodiac. I need more evidence,but his writing style,construction,and subject matter reminds me alot of Zodiac. He's definitely got my attention. On the other hand, I have alot of respect for Sherwood's handwriting examination,and he states without a doubt, that Zodiac wrote the desktop poem and Bates letters,therefore whomever Zodiac was, he HAD TO BE in Riverside 66-67.I also have respect for Traveler's first class writing comparison between Zodiac,and the desktop,and he made me believe that the desktop poem WAS FROM ZODIAC. I have seen Zero evidence that Manalli ever was there. In addition,I personally lean towards Zodiac killing Bates & writing the letters, and personally,I think her killer was around her age of 18 in fall of 1966,and therefore would have been around 21 or 22 in fall of 69 when Z was killing,and would line up well with the voice descriptions from Slaight & Hartnell. Remember, there was a driver in 1970 that terrorized female drivers in Santa Rosa that was very much like the Johns case. The Santa Rosa police said he was 23, and from Vallejo. They let him go. He would also line up well with a fellow classmate of Cheri's. I have 3 top suspects,one being Manalli,one being 'Jimmy', and the third being 'Al'. The first two I cant place in Riverside. The third,I can place in Riverside in 66-67 and in Vallejo up to 74,so thats what I have to wrestle with.

morf13 wrote:

patinky wrote:

What do you all think about Manalli's voice? Would someone in their thirties who learned to speak in Illinois sound similar to what is known about Zodiac's voice.

Reportedly, Zodiac sounded young (early 20s; Manalli was early 30s); he had some type drawl. He may have sounded similar to Richard Gaikowski (based on Nancy the dispatcher's remembrance).

What have I left out concerning voice?

Yeah,I think Hartnell described his voice as being like a student's, and Officer Slaight said Z sounded like he was early 20's. I wish there was a recording of Manalli, not that it will prove anything. Unfortunately, the 'voice' is probably the least valuable clue about Zodiac. Three people talked to him 43 years ago. One of them is dead. Not sure how reliable voice recognition would be now.

I am not sold on Manalli being Zodiac. I need more evidence,but his writing style,construction,and subject matter reminds me alot of Zodiac. He's definitely got my attention. On the other hand, I have alot of respect for Sherwood's handwriting examination,and he states without a doubt, that Zodiac wrote the desktop poem and Bates letters,therefore whomever Zodiac was, he HAD TO BE in Riverside 66-67.I also have respect for Traveler's first class writing comparison between Zodiac,and the desktop,and he made me believe that the desktop poem WAS FROM ZODIAC. I have seen Zero evidence that Manalli ever was there. In addition,I personally lean towards Zodiac killing Bates & writing the letters, and personally,I think her killer was around her age of 18 in fall of 1966,and therefore would have been around 21 or 22 in fall of 69 when Z was killing,and would line up well with the voice descriptions from Slaight & Hartnell. Remember, there was a driver in 1970 that terrorized female drivers in Santa Rosa that was very much like the Johns case. The Santa Rosa police said he was 23, and from Vallejo. They let him go. He would also line up well with a fellow classmate of Cheri's. I have 3 top suspects,one being Manalli,one being 'Jimmy', and the third being 'Al'. The first two I cant place in Riverside. The third,I can place in Riverside in 66-67 and in Vallejo up to 74,so thats what I have to wrestle with.

I would totally agree with the theory that Cheri Jo Bates' killer was her age, likely a student, and how that and more tallies with the statements you gave above.

As someone else stated somewhere on this board, I don't think Manalli is likely Zodiac but then he seems good for some of the homicides in California at that time. What I find compelling about Manalli is his vast knowledge of English lit and how that corresponds to much of what the Zodiac wrote; I also see a lot of similarities in Manalli's writing (as much as a layman can do so via an Internet copy of, probably, third or fourth generation copies. )

Sounds like you have three good possibilities.

What I recall abou Z voice was flat no accent no drawl monotone robotic measured even yong student twenties. IMO the killer of Bates would likely have been 19 to 25 much older or young and he would not have fit into the environment.

It seems weird to me to not investigate someone who is possibly a multiple murderer because they are dead and it might embarrass their family. The feelings of the victims families seems more important to me.

I'd like to believe that is not true. It is certainly a curious statement.

duckking2001 wrote:

It seems weird to me to not investigate someone who is possibly a multiple murderer because they are dead and it might embarrass their family. The feelings of the victims families seems more important to me.

I'd like to believe that is not true. It is certainly a curious statement.

Manalli was suspected in at least one murder. I wonder what police would think if they saw these letters? The guy mentions multiple times murder or violence, along with his dwindling mental state.

When I first got these letters back in late 2010 I contacted the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and told them I had them and asked if they would like copies. They quickly said yes and I copied all and sent them. They were not aware that the letters exisited. Later when a discussion of DNA came up I asked if there was any chance that Manalli could be exhumed and his DNA compared to DNA gathered from the victims I was told it was a possiblity.

There was semen found on two of the SRHM victims, Kim Allen and Therese Walsh.

morf13 wrote:

traveller1st wrote:

wow.

Oh I'd say there's a good chance he read it alright. Not least because DC is in it but also every thing and everyone else he name dropped including, Faulkner, Katherine Anne Porter, Eudora Welty, and Heart of darkness is in it which Manalli lists as one of his favourites

There was a thread at zk.com on 'HEART OF DARKNESS',one of Manalli's favorites:
http://zodiackiller.21.forumer.com/a/heart-of-darkness_post2407.html

This thread also mentions 'Lord Jim' which I think Manalli said somewhere he was also reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Jim

I still can't believe that with the reported drawings of one of the SRHM victims and the backpack of one of them turning up in this guys car, that LE weren't all over him like a rash, dead or not. I don't suppose we know who's backpack it was supposed to be do we?

Kim Allen was carrying a backpack. It is noted here-

http://www.santarosahitchhikermurders.com/allen.html

The last document on the page, item #5.

traveller1st wrote:

I still can't believe that with the reported drawings of one of the SRHM victims and the backpack of one of them turning up in this guys car, that LE weren't all over him like a rash, dead or not. I don't suppose we know who's backpack it was supposed to be do we?

The drawing and backpack were not found in Manalli's van, they were found in his home by his ex-wife and Don Emblen. They were found weeks after Manalli's death when his home was being cleared out. This is what Butch Carlstedt told me.

FWIW I have been told that the reason there was no publicity or announcement about Manalli's possible involvement in Kim's death is that SRJC did not want the negative publicity. I find that easier to believe than sparing Manalli's parents any embarrassment or whatever. Remember Manalli could not be charged with anything, he was dead. He did not have a criminal record of any kind.

A quick synopsis of where I am with this so far.

There's a lot more to do for one lol.

I'm trying to find something to rule him but to be honest I think it may come down to the wire and be beyond my amateur tinkering. I'm looking at Zodiac's less well known traits but that at least is something good to come from this. It's made me see things that I will use for future comparisons against other POI's writings.

This guy's writing has had me all over the place. It's like following a dwindling trail of breadcrumbs and when you think that's it done you trip over a loaf. As far as the Zodiac's missives are concerned Manalli's writing has been like a missing link. It seems to contain elements from all of the missives even the little peculiarities. Every little weird line shift or letter or spacing, every little tick, flick or stroke - they all appear.

I thought I'd done it. I thought I'd finally found something that I couldn't account for in the Zodiac stuff. I'll illustrate it in later work but basically it's a little flick that Manalli puts on the crossbar of his lowercase t's. It's pretty much a running theme through all his writing no matter what the style or year. I can find things that look like a flick but I can't say for definite if it counts and given it's prevalence in Manalli's writing I would have expected it to be somewhere.

There is reasonable evidence for it in the citizen letter (more to come on that letter BTW) but as for the bulk of the Zodiac stuff, nothing that would qualify.

Until.......LOAF! dagnammit.

It's in the Count Marco letter and it appears only once in the line "suggest you refer him to a shrink". It's in the word "to". The reason that Manalli puts that flick on his l/c t's (IMHO) is that it's an active remnant from joining the t to the next letter. In the Marco letter the author does just that and yes.....Manalli does it too and it's a match. There are other elements of the Marco letter that appear in Manalli's handwriting - quite a few actually and we're talking right down to the shape of the flicks on the end of some of the hand-drawn lines.

So that's roughly where it's at so far. There are other comparisons to come and have been started but seriously, another analogy, it's like putting together multiple, mixed up, jigsaws. I'll be working on one thing and then "oh, that's from the dripping pen card" or "that's from the citizen letter" etc etc, right across the whole range of styles.

Despite all of this, I'm still not convinced because we basically more compelling evidence of a different nature. Locations etc.

Sorry for the long post but I can't convey enough how unusual this guy's handwriting has been beyond mere visual similarities. Regardless of the outcome it's been and continues to be very intriguing and a learning experience and in that respect I'd like to thank Deb again for procuring the letters.

Seagull wrote:

traveller1st wrote:

I still can't believe that with the reported drawings of one of the SRHM victims and the backpack of one of them turning up in this guys car, that LE weren't all over him like a rash, dead or not. I don't suppose we know who's backpack it was supposed to be do we?

The drawing and backpack were not found in Manalli's van, they were found in his home by his ex-wife and Don Emblen. They were found weeks after Manalli's death when his home was being cleared out. This is what Butch Carlstedt told me.

FWIW I have been told that the reason there was no publicity or announcement about Manalli's possible involvement in Kim's death is that SRJC did not want the negative publicity. I find that easier to believe than sparing Manalli's parents any embarrassment or whatever. Remember Manalli could not be charged with anything, he was dead. He did not have a criminal record of any kind.

Ah ok thanks Deb.

Seagull wrote:

Kim Allen was carrying a backpack. It is noted here-

http://www.santarosahitchhikermurders.com/allen.html

The last document on the page, item #5.

Her backpack was found with her though so it can't be the one found in Manalli's house.