"I was once a roommate of the Zodiac Killer" Roommate was Jim Crabtree

Was she a good friend? Wouldn't the family members know her?

According to the report, JC's wife about 2 months pregnant, that wouldn't show much would it? Yes, I'm an ignoramus.

Still the family members should have known who he was..

bentley wrote:

traveller1st wrote:

Personally I think it sounds like Crabtree using his undeniable connection to the case as mental leverage to manipulate and influence/threaten people.

Very likely. I'm surprised even Crabtree would go boasting to a stranger, the last thing he needed was to get hauled in again.

There could be the possibility that Zodiac was using Jim Crabtrees name as a alias.

1. Evidence linking Crabtree to the murder of Darlene Ferrin: Zilcho.

2. Crabtree's alibi: Zilcho. So what? I don't have an alibi for Darlene's murder, either. There were no fingerprints left by the murderer at BRS, so fingerprints would be irrelevant anyway. Possibility that Crabtree was involved in writing the letters, including handwriting: Zilcho.

3. Motive for notoriously unreliable "witness" Pam Suennen to implicate Crabtree in Darlene's death: Darlene's family despises Jim. Darlene married Jim to get the hell away from her "parents." The marriage didn't last long. Big deal. If Jim ever, ever wanted to kill Darlene, you'd think he would have done it when they were in the Virgin Islands. Evidence that Jim was jealous of Darlene, or wanted her back: Zilcho. Evidence that Darlene continued to pester Jim after she married Dean (in other words, after that one time she tracked hm down to sign some papers in 1967): Zilcho.

4. Motive for Jim to bend over backwards to help Voigt frame Giakowski: Zilcho. Credibility of Voigt's claim that Jim has in fact supplied one iota of information or evidence implicating Gaikowski in any way whatsoever: Zilcho.

Is Jim an unlikable SOB? Most people think so. Does that make him a murder suspect? Nope. A lot of people have dragged Darlene through the mud, too, but apparently, she was not exactly Donna Reed. Is there any wonder that Jim had less patience for Darlene's supposed shenanigans than Dean did? No. So what? Darlene was friendly, with a sympathetic ear. The most popular waitress at the pancake house. In the 1960s, some people thought that was "loose." Big deal. Jim's an SOB. Big deal.

5. Is there a much, much better suspect in the murder of Darlene Ferrin? Yup.

Totally agree that Crabtree likely would have been checked out from every angle imaginable. He should likely have been ruled out in multiple ways. I know first hand that Crabtree was bitter and cold towards Darlene, but that doesnt make him a killer.

I thought we kind of put Crabtree to bed as a Z suspect? I'm sure he was highly scrutinized by LE at the time. Thomas, If you have a good suspect you should forward to Morf via a PM, or any host of other players on this site who continually investigate POI's. I'd be happy to help in any way I can, but we have to keep these kind of investigations off board, via personal messages, for obvious reasons.

Now I'm sure I've misunderstood some of your other writings, but I thought you were coming from the place where the persona of Z was a hoax? So there wouldn't really be just one killer, could be many, all unrelated to each other, and the only thing that's related is the writer of the letters, and all the other communications. Others have brought this up in the past, hey anything here is possible, but the one problem with a dispatcher, interceptor of police radio reports at the time of the crime is the obvious. If the guy is going to make phone calls, write letters, etc. like a ghost writer and isn't the actual killer, what happens if the cops just solve one of the crimes? Then the writer would be totally discounted as a fraud, it would be obvious to all.

I, like Morf, and many others have no vested interest that the person or potential POI's that come to my mind, if it was proven that none of them was a killer i would have no problem with that. At the end of the day we have unsolved murders and we'd like to see the killer or killers, if you will, be caught. So again if I can assist you in any way, I'd be happy to do so. There were/are certainly enough weirdos in Ca., and specifically the Bay Area, in the 60's to go around.

I have never heard of Mr. Crabtree but I wouldn't rule anything out at this point in time.

SteveAztec wrote:

I have never heard of Mr. Crabtree but I wouldn't rule anything out at this point in time.

Surely you have heard of him...Darlene's first husband.

Jim supposedly had a great alibi for the night Darlene was murdered. What was it?

Was it a truth telling contest two towns over? From the Simpsons. Reminded me. Is funny.

I know who Jim is, but memory fails me to any particularly noteworthy details about him in the case.

I hope that he was checked against prints and handwriting, not just for an alibi. Nothing personal against the man, but anyone who is checked out by police might as well be checked out right.

People say that he has some credibility issues, I don't know if that's true, or if it's relevant. True, being a jerk doesn't make someone a suspect, but it doesn't help either.

Interesting that this "skip" is an Abbie Hoffman fan. Wonder if he was a Good Times reader.

JIM CRABTREE DID LIE ABOUT HIS JULY 4TH, 1969 ALIBI

Back in 1970 Jim Crabtree claim that his truck was inoperative Jul 4th, 1969!
In 2010 Jim Crabtree claim that witnesses rememberd him partly because he drow his distinct truck Jul 4th, 1969!

SO...WHICH IS IT JIM CRABTREE???


In the Feb 3rd, 1970 police report it is stated that JC claimed that his alibi for July 4th, 1969, was that he, and his wife, was in Boulder Creek for some music event and that; " They had no transportation at this time as their old truck was inoperative" !!!

here is a copy of the policereport in question:


BUT

In Feb 2010, in the now closed Zodiaczee forum, JC, when asked about his albi for July 4th, 1969, he then used the very same truck as part of his alibi, indirectly saying that he indeed was driving that very truck that day, due to that him claiming that vitnesses saw/remembered him and his truck due to that the truck was a very distinct car!!!

Here are copies of JC's two posts about this truck/alibi:

Posted by JC: 20 Feb 2010 19:50

I was taken off the suspect list almost immediately.. next day after my arrest... Thank goodness I'm a friendly guy... I had been on a walk in Boulder Creek... July 4th, ya know... and I passed a family I didn't know having a barbeque in their back yard... we talked, exchanged pleasantries and they remembered when the cops talked to them... six eyewitnesses... even saw me drivin' my 1929 Model A flat deck truck... common car, right?

Posted by JC: 27 Feb 2010 15:26

several perfect strangers saw me at the time of the murder, one of them a judge, and definitely placed me 300 miles away, driving a 1929 Model "A" flat deck truck....

Also JB says he was 300 miles away from where Darlene Ferrin was murdered, the truth is the distance is 95 miles NOT 300 miles.


SO... WHY did JC lie about his Jul 4th, 1969 truck/alibi???

If Jim Crabtree did not tell the truth, this could have various reasons;

.he was afraid as police started questioning him
.he was just not precise or not sure anymore what he had done that day
.he was at home and had no alibi at all, trying to find some
.he had an alibi, however tried to get rid off any focus on him
.he lied because he was involved in the DF incident
.he lied as he had ordered someone for the DF incident

BTW, he mentions that he indeed had been in the area 'spent the evening at home'.

QT

The important thing is the witnesses give him an alibi. Forty years later he may not have remembered his truck was not working that weekend.

AK Wilks wrote:

The important thing is the witnesses give him an alibi. Forty years later he may not have remembered his truck was not working that weekend.

This or he was just screwing with everyone.

I would like to know when Jim became a suspect.

Some in the family allegedly saw Jim at her funeral. Did they think him capable of her murder then? If so, why didn't they say anything? Was LE not at Darlene's funeral? I believe that was common if someone was murdered.

It seems it was months before Jim was interviewed. If the family thought he was such a horrible person, why did it take the police (or was it DeLouise) to think of it? Even then, no mention of physical abuse by her family. Just that he was pretty much a loser.

While I think it the norm an ex-husband is considered, it doesn't seem like it was Darlene's family thinking he had anything to do with it.

AK Wilks wrote:

The important thing is the witnesses give him an alibi. Forty years later he may not have remembered his truck was not working that weekend.

AKW it was back in 1970 he stated that the truck was not working, and that was only 7 months after the murder.

And concerning the witness alibi, we only have Crabtrees Feb 20 & 27, 2010, word for it, noting about those witness statements in the policereports.

I mean there is NO DOUBT that JC told police back on Feb 1970 that his truck was NOT working, so how on earth would police have accepted an alibi by people saying they remebered JC because of that he drow his distinct 1929 red old truck???

PLEASE reread my above post again , JC alibi is INDEED a BIG problem.

I did read your post I am saying in 2010 on zodiaczee his memory may have been fauty when he said his truck was working that weekend.

AK Wilks wrote:

I did read your post I am saying in 2010 on zodiaczee his memory may have been fauty when he said his truck was working that weekend.

Come on AKW, in 2010 JC didn´t just say his truck was working, he said that the truck was the reason why the witnesses remembered him.

JC even claim he remembered there were 6 witnesses, that they had a barbecue in their back yeard that day and that one of them was a judge, that he talked with them and exchanged pleasantries etc !
How could JC remebber all thise details and then forget about the truck???

I´m realy baffled that you seem to bagatilize this IMO totaly obvious lie/manipulation about the alibi by JC, realy baffled...

The policeman may have wrote it down wrong. Perhaps the truck broke down in Boulder Creek. Also I am just saying it is possible he has faulty memory about an event 40 years ago. But as usual your work is excellent and it is a big discrepancy to the extent it can be done I am sure you and others will follow up.

I wish we had all the stuff from ZodiacZee,I vaguely remember the details of Crabtree's statements. I do seem to recall him saying his truck stood out alot.

tahoe27 wrote:

AK Wilks wrote:

The important thing is the witnesses give him an alibi. Forty years later he may not have remembered his truck was not working that weekend.

This or he was just screwing with everyone.

I would like to know when Jim became a suspect.

Some in the family allegedly saw Jim at her funeral. Did they think him capable of her murder then? If so, why didn't they say anything? Was LE not at Darlene's funeral? I believe that was common if someone was murdered.

It seems it was months before Jim was interviewed. If the family thought he was such a horrible person, why did it take the police (or was it DeLouise) to think of it? Even then, no mention of physical abuse by her family. Just that he was pretty much a loser.

While I think it the norm an ex-husband is considered, it doesn't seem like it was Darlene's family thinking he had anything to do with it.

This is from Zodiacfacts forum:
http://zodiackillerfacts.com/Darlene%20Ferrin%20and%20the%20%22Unidentified%20Man%22.htm

In 1970, members of Darlene Ferrin's family asked police to explore the possibility that Darlene's ex-husband James Phillips was somehow responsible for her murder. The Vallejo Police Department investigated and did not find any evidence to implicate Phillips, who also denied any involvement in Darlene's death.


And the question why JC wasn´t questioned until Feb 1970, here is JC own answer:

Theforeigner asked JC:
" Another thing I wonder about is; do you know why it took the police 7 months to get in contact with you? I´m asking because husbands and x-husbands are always the prime suspects in cases like Darlenes murder."

JC reply:
"Sure... because i didn't have a job... didn't surface in society... lived a very low profile life... Remember.. I didn't have a clue what was going on"

Theforeigner wrote:

tahoe27 wrote:

AK Wilks wrote:

The important thing is the witnesses give him an alibi. Forty years later he may not have remembered his truck was not working that weekend.

This or he was just screwing with everyone.

I would like to know when Jim became a suspect.

Some in the family allegedly saw Jim at her funeral. Did they think him capable of her murder then? If so, why didn't they say anything? Was LE not at Darlene's funeral? I believe that was common if someone was murdered.

It seems it was months before Jim was interviewed. If the family thought he was such a horrible person, why did it take the police (or was it DeLouise) to think of it? Even then, no mention of physical abuse by her family. Just that he was pretty much a loser.

While I think it the norm an ex-husband is considered, it doesn't seem like it was Darlene's family thinking he had anything to do with it.

This is from Zodiacfacts forum:
http://zodiackillerfacts.com/Darlene%20Ferrin%20and%20the%20%22Unidentified%20Man%22.htm

In 1970, members of Darlene Ferrin's family asked police to explore the possibility that Darlene's ex-husband James Phillips was somehow responsible for her murder. The Vallejo Police Department investigated and did not find any evidence to implicate Phillips, who also denied any involvement in Darlene's death.


And the question why JC wasn´t questioned until Feb 1970, here is JC own answer:

Theforeigner asked JC:
" Another thing I wonder about is; do you know why it took the police 7 months to get in contact with you? I´m asking because husbands and x-husbands are always the prime suspects in cases like Darlenes murder."

JC reply:
"Sure... because i didn't have a job... didn't surface in society... lived a very low profile life... Remember.. I didn't have a clue what was going on"

Yes....1970. It would seem they didn't think of him right away. So no red flags for them.

Jim's reply as far as why it took so long is his opinion of course. Seems like it didn't take LE too long to find him once they started looking.

What might his motive be? I've missed that bit. For murdering his ex-wife I mean.

He's public enemy no. 1 until proven otherwise, in my opinion. For several obvious reasons.

Qz1 wrote:

He's public enemy no. 1 until proven otherwise, in my opinion. For several obvious reasons.

Huh?

Why is he public enemy number one?

He is a law abiding citizen with no criminal record.

There is not one shred of evdience he was the Zodiac.

He was cleared by police.

Smithy IMO he has no motive to kill Darlene. He could care less about her. He had moved on had a new girl, did not hate Darlene, did not love her, was not obsessed with her, was not interested in her, had no financial or personal reason to kill her. And no reason to kill Cheri Bates, or Jensen, or Hartnell, or Stine. He was not the Zodiac.

He has been evasive, squirrely, of all Z's female victims Darlene was the only one who had been married. He was her ex-husband. She was promiscuous. She left him. He looks like the composite. The Zodiac sent a Phillips 66 road map. He seems to have "dropped out" shortly after the murders commenced. Z disappeared and he was living off the grid in a teepee. Very suspicious.

All he has is an inconsistent, questionable alibi and a cursory dismissal by an overwhelmed and somewhat inept police force in Vallejo. Or Solano County Sheriffs office or whom ever.

Much more has been made suspects or personal persons of interest with a lot less.

IMO he has not been evasive. He talked to police, answered all their questions, gave handwriting samples. He was cleared.

He also accepted Morf's invite to ZodiacZee and answered all questions put to him. Repeatedly. He was under no obligation to do that.

Yes he is IMO arrogant and obnoxious at times. He has a strong personality and strong views. He rubs a lot of people the wrong way. He follows his own path.

Lots of people dropped out of society in the 1960's!

I have not seen any evidence he was the Zodiac. None. Nada. Zilch.

He had no motive to kill Darlene, and it makes no sense for him to kill a half dozen others. He did not love Darlene, he did not hate her, he didn't care about her enough to kill her IMO.

I know others are troubled by him and find him suspect, that is fine, they can pursue further investigation of him, I will leave it to them, and Foreigner makes a valid observation about the discrepancy, lets just follow board rules, hosting rules and libel laws.