Gareth Penn

I agree with Mike Martin.

Both Tahoe27 and Solar Pons seem like good people, but the level of discussion I'm getting from them is about what I'd expect if I went down to my local bar (I don't drink, by the way) and started discussing the Zodiac case with the regulars there.

There's no one associated with the case that I have more respect for than Michael Rodelli, but we have different views, and I know we've ticked each other off at times. As both Mike R and Mike M have pointed out, when two people are pushing two different POIs, they're not going to have much patience for the other guy's examples.

The great thing about this site is that the various topics are partitioned. If you don't have much interest in Gareth Penn, you can concentrate on some other aspect of the case and never even run into the people on the other topics.

However, lest Tahoe27 think I'm afraid to engage him, let's discuss Donna Lass for a moment:

"We don't even know Zodiac had ANYTHING to do with Donna." Tahoe27

No, we don't. That's the whole point of having a discussion site like this. If we were 100% sure of something, there'd be no point in discussing it, right?

Every single police agency involved with the Zodiac case believes Donna Lass was a possible victim. And that includes The South Lake Tahoe Police Department. I discussed the case with Chief Ray Lauritzen back in 1990 (when he was still alive), and he assured me the Zodiac angle was as good as any. On the other hand, the SLT detective currently assigned to the case, Tom Conner, told me my Zodiac theory was as good as any. Mary Pilker, Donna Lass's sister, called me several times to encourage my interest in the case, knowing that I thought the Zodiac was involved.

I have my opinion; you obviously have yours. The difference is, mine is an INFORMED opinion.

Tracers talked about rudeness just now. I don't endorse Mike Martin's language, but I fully support the emotion behind it. I think one type of rudeness is to come onto a board and interrupt the flow of serious discussion with your offhand thoughts (if you can call them thoughts) on a topic upon which you obviously haven't done your homework.

If only people with certain levels of knowledge are going to be welcome to post in certain threads, perhaps that should be made clear at the beginning of the thread. That way no one's time gets wasted.

Sorry for the appearance of some of the pages in this thread. Page 15, appeared really wide, and hard to read, yet page 16 here appears normal. I am going to see if I can figure out how to fix it. Not sure of the cause

"If only people with certain levels of knowledge are going to be welcome to post in certain threads, perhaps that should be made clear at the beginning of the thread. That way no one's time gets wasted." tracers

We're not talking about "people with certain levels of knowledge" here. I don't pretend to know everything about the Zodiac case, even after a quarter-century of reading, writing, and talking to the various principals about it.

We're talking about people who have demonstrated a LACK of knowledge about the topic, who then openly complain about the existence of the topic itself, and who, in the meantime, attempt to shoot holes in the careful argument of a (relative) expert with five minutes worth of their "no-brainer" 2¢.

I think those people should keep their mouths shut and try listening for a while, for their own benefit.

That way no one's time gets wasted.

I get so tired of you guys who think you know it all. I have researched this case for years myself. You have no idea what I know or don't know so get over yourselves.

By the way, Mike Martin thinks you are Gareth Penn. Maybe you guys should do lunch.

Ray Grant is a real person.

Everybody, keep cool! Bickering is counter productive. Nothing wrong with good debate when it comes to the case, but accusations, and assumptions are counter productive

tracers wrote:

There seems to be some walking on egg shells around here regarding Penn and I don't see why.

I'm happy to tell you why. And if you need more enlightenment, read Ray Grant's books from 20 years ago. In over 400 pages, they say essentially the same thing I'm going to say here.

There isn't just one bogeyman -- one menacing presence -- lurking around the Zodiac case. There are two: the killer himself -- and Gareth Penn. You can scoff at this if you like, but if you do, you don't know much about Mr. Penn and you don't understand his history with or connection to this case.

By the time of his first magazine articles (1981), the Zodiac case had almost been forgotten. Gareth basically resurrected it, putting a new spin on the murderer that was an attention grabber from the word "Boo!"

Penn went directly to the public: radios, newspapers, books, phone calls, magazines. This public relations campaign was unprecedented and still is, especially since Penn openly and repeatedly identified his POI -- a living, breathing human being, not a dead guy. Penn also acted the part, a wicked, nasty part, legally threatening anyone who insisted on scrutinizing him, verbally slicing critics to ribbons, and describing in detail the utter hell he was trying to call down on Mike O'Hare and family.

Penn's menace has always been a palpable one. It oozes with almost every tortuous paragraph he writes, every verbal maze he creates to confuse, distract, and harangue his readers.

After spending some time researching the case, Esquire Magazine film critic Mike D'Angelo got the whole Gareth Penn thing. Reviewing the 2007 film Zodiac, D'Angelo wrote:

Jake Gyllenhaal is the weak link, projecting little more than dogged earnestness—but then, I think the movie erred in selecting Robert Graysmith as its source and nominal protagonist. Zodiac buffs know well that the true obsessive is a fellow named Gareth Penn, whose untenable yet mesmerizing theory maintains that various odd misspellings in Zodiac letters—"phomphit" in lieu of "puff it"; "cid" instead of "kid"—are part of an elaborate mathematical code.

With that "untenable yet mesmerizing theory" -- which he published in 1981 -- Gareth Penn not only resuscitated the Zodiac case for public consumption, but reshaped the public's image of the Zodiac killer.

B.P. -- Before Penn, in the 1970's -- the Zodiac was widely regarded as some semi-literate moron with barely a high-school degree. A.P. -- After Penn, 1980 onward -- the Zodiac was a criminal genius, an artistically-gifted mastermind whose frequent references to literature, drama, mathematics, cryptography, poetry, and yes -- even Old Norse and firearms -- created a diabolical Renaissance villain in the Hannibal Lecter mold.

Jack the Ripper with a genius IQ, the perfect foil for every armchair detective who ever sat down to crank a Rubik's Cube.

I mean, come on folks! Are you all honestly hanging around these boards to catch someone the likes of Arthur Allen -- or Gaik?? No! The man you're all after is the man Gareth Penn created -- the homicidal mega-genius who's fooled everyone for 42 years and counting.

I know most people take the Zodiac's contemporary image as some sort of given, but take it from a seasoned reporter: Without Penn's one-man, cross-country, relentless dog-and-pony show about the real meaning behind all the ciphers and literary references, Z was no more than a brazen maniac with a penchant for poorly-handwritten taunts. Robert Graysmith certainly did nothing to change that image. If anything, his books -- and suspect -- played into it.

Think about it. Virtually every other Zodiac "suspect" -- from Arthur Leigh Allen to Guy Ward Hendrickson -- fits the initial Zodiac mold. These guys weren't well-educated geniuses, but common ordinary joes who couldn't have possibly pulled off the braggadocio-driven series of woundings and homicides known as the Zodiac killings.

Then along comes Gareth Penn -- 30 years ago, seven years before Graysmith; nearly two decades before Voigt -- with his brilliant Harvard/Berkeley professor POI and two exhaustive books about how that professor used these terrible crimes to communicate incest at the hands of his own mother (that part doesn't come until The Second Power, another Penn book people should read before commenting).

We live in a society where images are created. They don't just drop out of the sky. The man who largely created the image of the Zodiac Killer we know today -- that crafty devil with a wicked pen -- wasn't the guy who pointed the finger at Arthur Leigh Allen, but the guy who pointed the finger at Michael Henry O'Hare.

Penn's book sold about 24 copies, and only half of those understood it.

For better or worse, Graysmith launched the case into the public's mind with his book in 1986. Then again with the Fincher movie based on his book.

The man Penn accused of being the Zodiac is not the Zodiac.

And Penn is not the Zodiac, he was in the Army in OK when Bates was killed, and Zodiac wrote the Bates letters.

He had a beard during key Zodiac times.

He is an interesting figure, and I still don't understand how he (correctly IMO) locked onto the Webster case. But I must admit I was disappointed by his answers to my questions on that case - he knows a lot less about it then I hoped. He says he never even heard of the Aardsma case!

And his current analysis of the Zodiac case relies on his binary number system which IMO makes no sense at all.

At times he is interesting and amusing to read, and you see a sharp intelligence and wit, and other times he is lost in the maze of his mind.

The only thing I know for sure is that Penn's beliefs/statements/ideas, whatever, are kind of hard to follow, and I need two Tylenols after, and that also goes for Farmer's case against Penn.

Everyone here is free to think as they like, but Penn has accused Ohare of being Zodiac.....and some people have accused Penn of being Zodiac. My personal opinion is that neither was Zodiac. I havent seen anything conclusively linking either to the crimes. Alot of fancy talk, and explanations, but no simple answers.

Place either guy at the scene of a crime, or in contact with a victim, or solid links, and I would be more interested personally.

Either way, no matter which side of the aisle you fall on, please keep this thread civil. Thanks

Ray,

Is Gareth going to go out with a bang? How's it all going to end? Surely he must have it all planned out, right? If you've been studying him for 20+ years, surely you must have an opinion, of which I'm genuinely curious.

Mike M., what I said was:

Quote :

There seems to be some walking on egg shells around here regarding Penn and I don't see why. He is a big boy and has spent the past twenty-plus years having some people disagree with his theories and conclusions. I seriously doubt he will be upset that some people at this board disagree with him or question his expertise. That all comes with the territory.

All I was getting at was that Penn is used to criticism and naysayers, so I don't see why some of the people here are acting like he is Moses delivering the Ten Commandments and has to be treated with kid gloves.

But thanks for your post. It was most revealing.

Oh deary me. Stephen Hawking is a genius, Einstein is a genius, Gareth worked in the local Library.

The Zodiac was a genius lol, the only Pi he was interested in was Apple.

Mensa the home for clever, clever I'm so clever children. Your constant dismissing of people with that high handed condescending tone is laughable. You all think your so intelligent, my god I've never seen such shambolic scraping the bottom of the barrel thinking in my life. Binary, Numerology the sculpture that could only be seen from the Apollo, except it was invisible Art so they wouldn't be able to see it either, excuse me whilst I laugh some more.
The only thing worse than Gareth Penn (count up those fifty questions your highness) are his little cheerleaders.

Keep spouting your nonsense all over the net, no ones listening, because there's nothing worth listening to.

No the Zodiac couldn't be ALA or JT or some peasant, he has to be a genius, he has to be a .. a... a, oh, I know I'll pick on a professor. Only a genius could be uncovered by Gareth, it couldn't possibly be the postman, or the cook or the hairdresser could it. It's all so Leopold and Loeb (stifles yawn) isn't it.

And if there is anyone that get's excited by a Rubiks cube I certainly know which organisation they belong to. There is a reason Ken Narlow kicked Gareth from his office, he doesn't suffer fools gladly and neither do I. He did make one mistake though he should have kicked him harder. I don't drink actually but you nuggets would drive anyone to drink.

If my post is deemed offensive feel free to remove it Morph

Solar Pons wrote:

Oh deary me. Stephen Hawking is a genius, Einstein is a genius, Gareth worked in the local Library.

The Zodiac was a genius lol, the only Pie he was interested in was Apple.

Mensa the home for clever, clever I'm so clever children. Your constant dismissing of people with that high handed condescending tone is laughable. You all think your so intelligent, my god I've never seen such shambolic scraping the bottom of the barrel thinking in my life. Binary, Numerology the sculpture that could only be seen from the Apollo, except it was invisible Art so they wouldn't be able to see it either, excuse me whilst I laugh some more.
The only thing worse than Gareth Penn (count up those fifty questions your highness) are his little cheerleaders.

Keep spouting your nonsense all over the net, no ones listening, because there's nothing worth listening to.

No the Zodiac couldn't be ALA or JT or some peasant, he has to be a genius, he has to be a .. a... a, oh, I know I'll pick on a professor. Only a genius could be uncovered by Gareth, it couldn't possibly be the postman, or the cook or the hairdresser could it.

And if there is anyone that get's excited by a Rubiks cube I certainly know which organisation they belong to. There is a reason Ken Narlow kicked Gareth from his office, he doesn't suffer fools gladly and neither do I. He did make one mistake though he should have kicked him harder.

Solar, you do have a way with words!

Thank You Tracers, fancy a quick one down the pub with Tahoe and I . I'll have a coke or perhaps a Pepsi.

Sounds good to me, Solar! We can all bring our copies of Zodiac For Dummies.

PLEASE READ TODAY'S POST IN THE SITE NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS SECTION!

I have taken note, but I do take exception to things that singled out Tracers,Tahoe and myself Morph, it was unwarranted and uncalled for not to mention churlish. That said I don't mind discussing aspects of the case whether people agree or disagree is fair enough but suggesting someone lacks intelligence merely for having the nerve to disagree or to query perhaps something that doesn't make sense should not warrant childish attacks. I therefore indulged in a little sarcasm, I shall not pursue it further, but if I see myself named again in some unwarranted Pseudo intellectual display I will just piss off as there is no need for it.

I agree, Solar. thank you. I agree with what you wrote.

And here we go again.

look, Azazel. just repost the last "relevant" post in this thread and get back it all back on track.

Here we go again..

Solar Pons wrote:

Oh deary me. Stephen Hawking is a genius, Einstein is a genius, Gareth worked in the local Library. The Zodiac was a genius lol, the only Pi he was interested in was Apple. Mensa the home for clever, clever I'm so clever children. Your constant dismissing of people with that high handed condescending tone is laughable. You all think your so intelligent, my god I've never seen such shambolic scraping the bottom of the barrel thinking in my life. Binary, Numerology the sculpture that could only be seen from the Apollo, except it was invisible Art so they wouldn't be able to see it either, excuse me whilst I laugh some more. The only thing worse than Gareth Penn (count up those fifty questions your highness) are his little cheerleaders.

Keep spouting your nonsense all over the net, no ones listening, because there's nothing worth listening to. No the Zodiac couldn't be ALA or JT or some peasant, he has to be a genius, he has to be a .. a... a, oh, I know I'll pick on a professor. Only a genius could be uncovered by Gareth, it couldn't possibly be the postman, or the cook or the hairdresser could it. It's all so Leopold and Loeb (stifles yawn) isn't it.

And if there is anyone that get's excited by a Rubiks cube I certainly know which organisation they belong to. There is a reason Ken Narlow kicked Gareth from his office, he doesn't suffer fools gladly and neither do I. He did make one mistake though he should have kicked him harder. I don't drink actually but you nuggets would drive anyone to drink. If my post is deemed offensive feel free to remove it Morph

Zam, Morf, and other moderators: With all due respect, if you allow this kind of sarcastic nastiness to continue, esp. with all the pleas that it cease and desist, this forum will go downhill like all the others.

It galls me that people who clearly can't write or even think straight and won't reveal their own identities, as I have; as Ray Grant has; as Rand has; etc. are allowed to bash those who've come here with a sincere interest in informing people and learning more about Mr. Penn, particularly via what he's chosen to post with the help of Zam.

It galls me that even after your hosts, Zam and Morf, have repeatedly ask that you stop picking fights, you continue to do so. You've come here with that mentality from other forums, and it's too bad.

Ray Grant -- who is not easy to get a hold of -- is another real gem in this pursuit, and he doesn't deserve to read this tripe either. Same with the other people I've seen post here about Penn who are genuinely interested in him. We're not attacking people or subject matter on other threads, and we deserve the same courtesy here.

I had planned to continue posting about Ray's books; the Kim Rossmo Zodiac geoprofile; and a host of other information about Mr. Penn for people who are interested.

But why waste any more time here, only to be insulted by nicks who feel they -- not the moderators -- own the forum?

morf13: I appreciate your handling of this. The JFK assassination boards make the Penn thread look like a pillow fight. Try going on one of those and disagreeing with someone's theory!

I have a confession to make: when I got up this morning, I headed straight to my laptop in hopes of editing the "over-the-top" stuff out of last night's posts, but it was too late.

I think I did go overboard on Tahoe27; Tahoe27, I apologize.

This happens on pretty much every message board, and the more serious a poster is, the more guilty he usually is of taking a nasty tone when he gets challenged. But I think we're all guilty in one way or another.

I think the problem both Mike M and myself have is, again, that if you don't take a suspect seriously, make sure that you at least sound serious in your objections, keep those objections factual, and avoid any verbal flourishes. I'll never visit most of the threads on this site, simply because I don't take those topics seriously and don't want to waste my time and that of the posters there with my complete rejection of their idea. Life's too short.

And, as always, I'm short on time. Tahoe27 and Tracers did bring up some good points with me last night. If you have a theory of the case, it's actually good that people take issue with parts of your argument, especially on a closed site like this, since that's how you either make your case stronger or modify it. I will try to answer those points later on.

Azazel and bblanco, I will be making some sort of general presentation in the next couple weeks, it's just a matter of organizing what I have and getting my scanner to work. I will talk to you soon.

Mike Martin: I got the "Modify" message while I was composing this, and thus read your post after writing what is above. First of all, as always, I appreciate the kind words. I will try to be worthy of them with lots of new information (most of which isn't in any of my earlier books) that I'll be presenting in a week or two.

In the meantime, let me suggest this:

Let's all take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to take the other guy's viewpoint into account. I seem to recall Jesus saying something about Don't worry about the splinter in your neighbor's eye, worry about the timber that's in your own eye. If Jesus said it, it probably applies to all of us.

I know I don't want to lose Mike Martin, this site doesn't want to lose him, but it would also be a mark against us if people who supposedly have such high ideals ended up driving Tahoe27, tracers, and Solar Pons away just because we disagree with them. There's room on this site for all of us if we can all just be a little considerate, and it's worth trying that first before we give up on the idea.

I see one apology so far here from Ray Grant....and thats a nice move on his part, thanks. Everyone else should take the same approach, and let this thread move on and get back...ON TOPIC!

Let's talk about Penn, and his involvement with the Zodiac case.

And there is room on this thread for a healthy debate on both sides of the argument for/against Penn, just do it in a professional way.

Yesterday, two moderators here expressed similiar things as I, yet they didn't receive the same reply as myself and Solar Pons did. I kept waiting...


I will accept Mr. Grant's apology. I too am sorry if by disagreeing I offended you. Obviously, if you believe he was Zodiac and/or involved, and you believe how you came to those conclusions, I offended you.

Which brings me to this:

MikeM wrote:

Do any of you -- Solar Pons, Tahoe, etc. -- stop to think for one minute that all you're doing is discouraging Mr. Penn from taking these questions? From answering them?

Now, I am not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm not the one accusing Penn of being the mastermind behind the Zodiac case. It's ok to accuse him of being involved in brutal murders, but whatever you do...don't say he isn't that knowledgable about the Zodiac case?

Zamantha is a friend. I have told her how awesome she is and how amazing it is that she actually jumps in there and DOES something. For those who are into Penn--this is good stuff. But I WILL voice my opinion and maybe you will come back with an answer that will intrigue me and maybe I will think it's hogwash. I will expect the same things from others when I post.

I don't have to agree with someone to respect them as a researcher. Respect as a person is a different story.

***

So...has Mr. Penn been invited to be a member here?