Gareth Penn

I think you'll find that most people who use their actual name have more skin in the game, published Z related articles, books, web sites, television, etc.. I can understand how they might feel in a heated debate with someone using a handle but they really should understand the reasons as Zaba stated above. We all share a common goal here.

You are an admin pushing your POI on the Gareth thread.
After insulting those intrested?
Forum rules doesnt apply to admins I guess.
My bad. I beg forgivness.

You post was deleted because it was off topic and had name calling and personal insults.

I did erase my off topic mention of a POI, it was meant as a comparison, but perhaps it was wrong.

My main point has been to discuss known indicators of a serial killer based on studies by people like John Douglas, and how Penn and O'Hare don't match this at all.

The point has been made, that is all I can do.

I am going to try to stay out of posting on this topic, because it seems that there are those who think Penn is a major suspect and those who don't, and right now the two camps can't seem to talk to each other!

Good luck to everyone in their research.

I think that the 'homicidal triad' mainly applies to lust-murderers. Zodiac wasn't a lust-murderer, so I don't think he need necessarily have displayed any of those traits.

At any rate, I think Gareth Penn is worthier of investigation as a Zodiac suspect than, say, Jack Tarrance. But I won't get bent out of shape over it.

I can't see either Penn or O'Hare using the terms "boughten" or "stove oil," which Z used. Any thoughts?

I agree with that, Rand, unless they were doing it as part of some elaborate game...which, truthfully, I highly doubt....Z played games, but they are not as "elaborate" as people think...

I'm an "Occam's Razor" type of person myself, which FBI and DOJ stats seem to bear out, meaning that usually the most simplest explanation for a crime is closest to the correct one.

Case in point - BTK - everyone thought he was some type of Zodiac-like "misguided intellectual" (as if we even know that Z is such, which we do NOT), and he turned out to be a local dogcatcher who had taken a couple of courses at the local community college and had disturbed penchants for Sears underwear catalog models and Barbie doll masks, and kept macabre souvenirs from his victims in his backyard shed...all the while being a deacon in his church and a local Boy Scout leader, or course...

NOT a "mysterious misguided intellectual artiste (bleccch)" by ANY means...

I have a feeling the same type of thing is true vis a vis the zodiac...

MikeM, you used to post as 'rcepam' on OPORD, so your statement is hypocritical. But, this has been discussed on ZodiacKillerFacts.com before, anyway. There are a lot of freaks on these boards who would not hesitate to harass someone, and if someone wants to remain anonymous, that's their business and does not make their opinion any less valid.

I've been trying to get my scanner to work all day. Sometimes I get a randomly "cropped" version of the page, sometimes I get a magnified image of text on the page (also random), and sometimes it works perfectly for no apparent reason. I wanted to reply to Gareth Penn's comments about me on his blog with examples from his own letters to me (which were in a box up in my attic). I'm hoping I'll be able to download the files onto this site without a hitch.

In the meantime, I wanted to back up Mike Martin's argument about the Zodiac. The FBI's Behavioral Science unit differentiates among serial killers using pretty much one standard--how organized they are. In fact, their minds are so made up about this criterion that Hannibal Lecter laughs about it in The Silence of The Lambs.

I would argue, in fact, that the Zodiac was easily the MOST organized serial killer in history.

In Riverside, he pre-selects Cheri Bates (because she's small in stature, according to Gareth Penn), then removes the middle wire from her car's distributor. When she comes out and can't start the car (according to the scenario commonly put out), the killer arrives and helpfully offers a lift in his car. He kills her down an alley between abandoned houses, three slashes to the throat which nearly decapitate her. He sends police and a local newspaper a rambling account of the murder. Then he manages to leave a scrawled poem on a desktop at the RCC library without being detected. Then he sends three loose leaf notes, including one to her father.

At Lake Herman Road, he gets the victims to exit the car on the passenger side by walking around the vehicle and shooting out windows. He then immediately shoots David Faraday in the temple, and puts five shots within the space of a half-dollar in the upper torso of Betty Lou Jensen (as she's running away), even though the area is pitch dark, because he's had the foresight to attach a pen light to the barrel of his rifle (just shoot where the light is pointed). All this time, he notices enough details about his crime to be able to recite them in a letter to the newspapers.

At Blue Rock Springs, he shines a flashlight at his victims, so they think he's a cop. He then pulls away slowly after opening fire, so as not to draw attention to himself. He then calls police to report the crime; as Nancy Slover says, he talks over her objections, as if he's either rehearsed the speech or written it down. He then calls three of Darlene Ferrin's relatives (her husband, his brother, and his parents), indicating he's aware of her identity somehow.

At Lake Berryessa, he dons a Zodiac costume for the one time he'll be in close proximity to victims for an extended time, so they don't get TOO good a look at him in broad daylight. He manages to outsmart Bryan Hartnell, who is both bright and very cagey, and gets him and Cecelia Ann Shepard tied up before stabbing them. He stops as he's walking away to recite his previous crimes on the side of Hartnell's car, having brought with him a magic marker for the purpose.

At Presidio Heights, he manages to stay at the cab for a minute or two after shooting the driver, then eludes police converging on the scene, and makes his escape despite the police presence.

He manages to convince Kathleen Johns of his benevolent intentions, then succeeds in disabling her car, then gets her to ride around with him for several hours. When she finally runs off, he goes back to her car, puts the tire back on, drives it to the intersection of Highway 132 and Bird Road . . . and sets fire to it.

He sends two dozen letters to the police without leaving a fingerprint or giving himself away.

I say all his actions had meaning . . . but even if they didn't, he relentlessly pursues his private agenda despite the manhunt after him, and remains uncaptured 40 years after he appeared.

I'd say he was pretty organized.

Before I forget--

Hi Bentley,

Very nice work on the various letter conversions for the pi sequence.

But the answer is . . . he chose ZODIAC because ZODIAC converts to yet another Michael O'Hare identifier, his date of birth to be exact.

HOW does it convert to that? Well, I'm taking a hiatus for a couple weeks after tonight, to prepare my presentation for the board; that should give you enough time to work on it.

But here's a clue: it had to do with something that was characteristic of the Zodiac killer.

Mike Martin can find this information on pages 322-323 of the 1993 edition of TZMS, by the way, so maybe you can PM Mike and he'll give you the answer. But I always liked to try solving a puzzle myself first.

First, here’s most of the post dealing with my questions for Gareth Penn’s Q&A, posted on page 3 of my Intro thread on this site:

Since anyone can look at the blog for himself, I will intersperse my comments in with his answers here:

Question #1

RG: You deny knowing Ray Grant, and yet, his book features several apparent missives from yourself, complete with hard-to-duplicate characteristic Gareth Penn high-handed tone (bordering on superciliousness). Let’s assume he’s a genius at faking your unique voice. But the book also contains pictures of you and Diane Merrill, apparently from Asilomar. How on earth did the clown get his grubby mitts on your family photos?

GP: I do not deny knowing Ray Grant. I was asked, “Why didn’t you ever sue your friend Ray?”, and I responded, “I don’t have a friend named Ray, nor do I know anyone, even casually, with that name. The last Ray I can remember having known…” (see above). You will note that I was not asked if I knew Ray Grant; I was asked why I wasn’t suing my “friend Ray [no surname]” It’s important, when you hold someone responsible for something he has said, that you quote what he actually said and not something that you have fabricated. I do not, in fact, have a friend named Ray, I do not currently know anyone with that name, and until you jogged my memory, I did not recall Ray Grant (you will note that I did not categorically deny ever having known anyone named “Ray” other than the ones I cited; I wrote “The last Ray I can remember”).

RG comments:

1. It’s important, when you examine what someone ACTUALLY says, that you take into account the context of his statements, and not just the strict semantics of his words. Gareth spends most of this paragraph parsing the previous Q&A and essentially expressing wonder that its readers misread a memory lapse on his part. But Gareth hasn’t been hailed on a railway platform here and asked out of the blue about one of his primary school chums. He is replying to questions from people on a Zodiac killer site (literally), and, until I jogged his memory, he didn’t remember someone named Ray with whom he exchanged two or three dozen letters in the years 1985-1990, and had numerous phone conversations with during that time, virtually all about the Zodiac case.

And, by the way, one of those letters, in January 1989, was entirely about Gareth’s possible involvement in the Zodiac murders (i. e., his being a conspirator with Michael O’Hare). I had mentioned some odd notes in his own letters in a previous mailing (November 1988), and he didn’t write back. In January 1989, I confronted him squarely: explain yourself, so I don’t think the wrong thing about you. And he refused to do it. He did write back, complaining that he was pressed for time, and the final paragraph of his letter begins with the words, “I hope this answers your question adequately . . .”

I had asked more than one question. He meant, “I hope this answers your suspicions about my being involved in The Zodiac Project.”

In other words, Gareth KNEW I suspected him; I’d told him I did.

Two things need to be mentioned here so the reader understands my own mindset in all this: 1, Gareth Penn doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and if you question anything he does, he will not only meet your objections, but take an inch or two off the top of your head in the process; his mild acceptance of my suspicion was, among other things, completely uncharacteristic of him. 2, Though Gareth Penn and I lived on opposite coasts and have never met face-to-face (to my knowledge), we were both “active Mensans”, and, in fact, both ardent reformers within Mensa. In fact, we both left Mensa because we couldn’t reform it (I lost the election for First Vice-Chairman of American Mensa in 1987; the current chairman, Elyssa Rudolph, is a friend of mine—I’ve visited her home and driven her places in my car). Gareth and I were both well-known to members of the American Mensa Committee, had any number of common acquaintances, and during those very important years in Gareth’s life (when he was writing and publishing Times 17), we belonged to the same group of people socially.

Gareth published Times 17 in 1987; I was one of the first people to order a copy and read it, and I called him immediately upon finishing it to lavish praise on his efforts. The next night I called him back for a follow-up, and his then-wife Diane Merrill answered the phone. Diane thanked me profusely because, she said, ever since Gareth talked to me he’d been in a great mood. I think it’s fair to say that Gareth took my opinion VERY seriously.

Gareth predicted, in 1988, that Michael O’Hare would commit suicide by jumping off the MIT Tower on May 17, 1989. Since I no longer trusted Gareth by that time, I called MIT security on the day in question and informed them of his prediction. After monitoring the situation with the police all evening, I called Gareth in California after midnight to tell him that Michael O’Hare hadn’t showed at the building. Gareth thanked me for the information without comment.

He wrote a book about Michael O’Hare, and still believes Michael O’Hare to be the Zodiac. But the person he talked to on the night when he, Gareth Penn, predicted O’Hare’s suicide, the person he talked to ABOUT that apparently abortive suicide . . . help Gareth out here, he can’t recall the guy’s name.

Now back to Gareth’s answer:

GP: Ray Grant is just one of hundreds of people with whom I corresponded a quarter century ago, most of whose names I have not retained. I would not characterize him as a “friend.” He presented to me a convoluted theory about the Zodiac’s use of firearms, apparently seeking my endorsement. I didn’t agree with him and told him so. He seemed to feel that he was entitled to my endorsement and became very bitter and accusatory. I haven’t read anything he has had to say since then and so have no idea what his current theories are. I gather from what you say that he has spent the last quarter century pouting. Now that he knows that I haven’t been paying attention to his slandering of me, he will probably pout even more. I regret that you feel that I am high-handed and supercilious, but I got the feeling that he felt the same way about me simply because I didn’t buy his theory. I don’t remember specifically, but I may have sent him those photos back in the days before I turned him into an implacable foe by having the temerity to disagree with him. Apparently, some people believe that because all men are created equal, the same is true of all theories, and I suspect that by not applying the principles of Jeffersonian democracy to other people’s ideas, you run the risk of being called “high-handed” and “supercilious.”

RG comments:

I came up with my Zodiac gun numbers theory in 1986, long before I accused Gareth of anything, and in fact a year or so before he sent me the pictures (which I think are circa 1987). It’s true that Gareth disagreed with my theory at the time. I sent it to him in a letter, he wrote back his objections, I answered those objections, reminding him that they made his own theory stronger, and he dropped the subject. All this happened maybe 25% of the way into our correspondence, so it’s hard to see it as what caused the rift between us. By the way, contrary to what might be expected from Gareth’s statements, he sent the last two letters in that correspondence (May 23, 1989, and May 22, 1990). I’m the one who stopped replying to him.

I’m sure the entire board wants to know what my “convoluted theory” was (and still is), so I’ll explain as concisely as I can:

1, the Zodiac went to extraordinary lengths to link his crimes, sending police letters about the details at each crime scene;

2, but the simplest thing he could have done to link the crimes—just use the same gun each time—he chose not to do;

3, why? because the gun numbers were themselves a sequence which contained a cryptic message?

4, the gun numbers sequence: 22 (LHR), 9 (BRS), 45 (LB—he showed the couple what Bryan Hartnell described as a .45), and 38 (PH—SFPD originally mistyped the shell casing in Paul Stine’s cab, and then chose not to correct it so they’d have a “key”).

The numerical sequence is 22-9-45-38.

If you apply those letters to the alphabet, and repeat the sequence, you get

V-I-S-L

Could ELVIS be the Zodiac? If so, there’s no “Mr. E”, is there?

Remember, I’m the one who says the Zodiac is “high class”.

If we try a backward alphabet, starting at Z (z = 1, y = 2, and so forth), we get

E-R-H-O

Could the Zodiac be Michael O’Hare? And could he be spelling his name backward, the same way it’s spelled in the pi/Morse-binary sequence (M.ERAHO)?

Anyway, that’s the “convoluted theory” Gareth’s talking about; it seems pretty simple to me.

If Gareth hasn’t been paying attention to my slandering of him, how does he know I’ve been slandering him?

Here are Gareth’s final thoughts about the Q&A, in which he returns to the topic of his relationship with me:

"I’m not sure I am grateful for having been reminded of Ray Grant, but I was interested to learn that he has been slandering me — and, as I infer from a couple of questions, my father as well; that was news to me. At all events, if you want to review this exchange, I have posted it at gz4216.blogspot.com.”

AK Wilks wrote:

You post was deleted because it was off topic and had name calling and personal insults.

I did erase my off topic mention of a POI, it was meant as a comparison, but perhaps it was wrong.

My main point has been to discuss known indicators of a serial killer based on studies by people like John Douglas, and how Penn and O'Hare don't match this at all.

The point has been made, that is all I can do.

I am going to try to stay out of posting on this topic, because it seems that there are those who think Penn is a major suspect and those who don't, and right now the two camps can't seem to talk to each other!

Good luck to everyone in their research.

What did I miss?

I dont know why this thread has sparked so many emotions. I agree that other POI's or SUSPECTS, shouldnt be thrown into the mix here, possibly overshadowing the topic at hand-PENN/OHARE, etc

At the same time, there should be allowed some questioning of theories and ideas regarding Penn & Ohare, so I dont want to see people shy away from posting here either even if they dont think PENN or OHARE were involved in the Z case.

Any supporters of PENN & OHARE as Zodiac suspects should be ready to answer to difficult questions about them, or be ready to explain things that dont add up. On the other hand, they should be free to talk about their PENN/OHARE beliefs without having other suspects thrown in here.


Also everybody, please keep the forum free of any name calling/insults.

Or, Z was a paranoid schizophrenic who lucked out with well-meaning but "unseasoned" local police departments (except San Fran), and exhibited both "organized" and "unorganized" traits...

Several serial killers exhibit both organized and unorganized traits...the Zodiac being one of them...

For example, the fact that he just left the bodies "where they lay" is a hallmark of a disorganized killer, whereas having a "murder kit", gun, rope, knife, etc. is a hallmark of an organized killer...Sadism as his primary motive - disorganized killer; crytograms - organized killer, and so on...

So, no, the zodiac is most certainly not the most organized serial killer in history, not at all...He is a "mixed bag" really...

Now comes the hard part: trying to document what I've said by downloading scans.

Let's begin by reviewing my relationship/correspondence with Gareth Penn.

I joined Mensa in 1984. In the July/August 1985 issue of The Mensa Bulletin appeared Gareth Penn's article about the Zodiac murders, "The Calculus Of Evil". I was one of several hundred people who wrote to Gareth immediately afterward, and my impression is that almost all of those people eventually drifted away, leaving a handful of correspondents including myself. During the period from the publication of his article and his last letters to me in May 1989 and May 1990, we exchanged letters often and talked on the phone at least as often.

Mike Martin is correct in characterizing my relationship with Gareth as that of protege/mentor. Gareth is ten years older than I, and I have a brother his age, so our relationship very much resembled the one I have with my older brother, who I used to follow around like a puppy. The notion that I would say something that Gareth disapproved of, and that I would then become combative in the way that he describes, is ludicrous. I respected Gareth's intelligence and opinion, and if he disagreed with something I thought, I didn't push it. As I said, I presented my gun numbers theory to him in 1986; he wrote back, disagreeing with it. I then wrote to him restating the theory and telling him how it backed up his own theory about Michael O'Hare, and Gareth simply dropped the subject. We're talking about three letters in late 1986: my initial theory, Gareth's negative response, my reiteration of that theory, and then we simply moved on and talked about other things.

But let's back up my version of events, beginning with a Gareth Penn letter from August of that year, which demonstrates my relatively petitionary role in our correspondence:

Well, maybe I can get it to work tomorrow?

Can you pls. provide proof that you and Gareth were Mensa members....or, if not for Gareth, then for yourself, as we do know that Gareth did publish in their bulletin...

Zaba, you can read some of Penn's old Zodiac articles from the Mensa journal online. Go to the references section at the bottom of his Wiki page, items 20-24. One must be a member to contribute, I assume.

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

After reading some of P's ramblings - I understand the back of a shampoo ingredients section more so than his ramblings....if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well then...

Thank you for the information Bentley; I will do that!

I am also exceedingly interested in Mr. Grant providing us with proof that he was, in fact, a MENSA member as he claims so often to be...

Simple proof of this should be easy to provide (he can "block out" things like his SSNO and address/phone number....not a problem at all.... )Proof of this, then, gives stronger credence/credibility to other things he might say...

If, in fact, this turns out to be a fraudulent claim, well, then...

Zabagliona wrote:

Thank you for the information Bentley; I will do that!

I am also exceedingly interested in Mr. Grant providing us with proof that he was, in fact, a MENSA member as he claims so often to be...

Simple proof shoudl be easy to provide; proof of this, then gives stronger credence to other things he might say...

If, in fact, this turns out to be a fraudulent claim, well, then...

Innocent until proven guilty...right? Lets give RAY the benefit of the doubt

Hi Morf...

OMG, I have never said Ray was guilty of anything, let alone being the Zodiac...

I simply would like proof he is/was in MENSA, that's all; it's very, very simple to provide...

Zabagliona wrote:

Hi Morf...

OMG, I have never said Ray was guilty of anything, let alone being the Zodiac...

I simply would like proof he is/was in MENSA, that's all; it's very, very simple to provide...

I wasnt implying that you said he was Zodiac....maybe the words "innocent until proven guilty" was a poor choice on my part as I didnt mean to infer that you or anyone else thinks Ray was Zodiac, or is guilty of ANY crime.

This is what the MENSA card looks like; just as this gentleman did when he posted his card, Ray can block his member number, or any other specific information they put on the card like address or SSNO or tel. number; I completely understand why that would need to be blocked out...

Note that the older American cards looked different, some were yellow and black instead of blue, and the older and newer international cards look different from both of these...I'm fine with that....I'll even take the letter welcoming him to MENSA with personal information blocked out...

I'm also fine with "letting this ride" knowing what the overall implications might be of not verifying this information...or thinking about why the alleged MENSA member would refuse to post the information...

Hi morf13,

I've got her on IGNORE, but when someone else quotes her, she shows up on my page anyway.

Look, this isn't discussion. It stopped being discussion any number of posts ago. It's personal attack and harassment. Period.

Several other Z sites have talked about me; this is the only one I actually post on (or have ever posted on, for that matter). But that can change.

Hasn't Gareth Penn acknowledged that I exist on his blog? How else did we encounter each other, if not as a result of his article in The Mensa Bulletin? We live on opposite coasts.

I am listed in the Mensa Membership List (yellow cover) for 1986 at my Northumberland Street address.

I am listed in the Mensa Membership List (green cover) for 1988 at my (current) Shady Avenue address.

Both entries list my birth date (4/29/51).

I drove the current chairman of American Mensa, Elyssa Rudolph, back to Pittsburgh from the Toronto RG in 1987; I've been to her house. I ran on a national slate in 1987 with her ex-husband (and ex-chairman of AM) Ralph. Ralph and I have shared hotel rooms (platonically, I might add). The issue isn't in doubt.

But I have had enough from this person. I can tell you a lot about Gareth Penn, but I'm not going to post on this thread any more as of tonight.

Why are people who have no interest in a topic allowed to come onto that thread and harass those who do have an interest in it? I don't get it.

This is basically why I've stayed off message boards all these years. It's just not worth it.

Zabagliona wrote:

....sorry Mike...
the "real people" thing is crap, and you know it...a lot of us who have minor-aged children ARE NOT GOING TO PUT OUR REAL IDENTITIES OUT THERE FOR THEIR SAFETY.... I am one of them. There are nutjobs everywhere, but "true crime" seems to attract some doozies, and I don't blame ANYONE for not putting their real identity out there.

I don't understand your response. First, you announce that you're the parent of a minor child, and then you make a big deal about how unsafe -- or potentially unsafe -- these websites are.

If this is really the way you feel, then common sense would suggest that you not post or argue theories about serial murder suspects on public websites. Why hang around a place you find unsafe?

Furthermore, why announce that you're the parent of minor children -- who takes their parenting responsibilities seriously no less -- if you don't think it's safe to do so?

Right now, you're pushing Ray Grant to prove he's a member of Mensa (a fact I've already verified, along with the fact that he was one of the brightest kids in his high school class at Taylor Allderdice. You probably wouldn't even ask all this if you had read his books, btw.)

But by your own reasoning, it should be unsafe to push anyone you don't know on a website like this to do anything. It's also odd that you would push him to prove details about himself, but be unwilling to provide any similarly verified details about your own life.

These arguments between identified and anonymous people are inherently imbalanced. The anonymous types -- most of whom are pushing their own theories -- will tear apart the identified types, bashing their credibility first and foremost. But they refuse to subject themselves to the same scrutiny.

That, to me, is the real crap.

He has chosen to be become a "public figure"; I have not. It's pure and simple. No one FORCED him to become a public figure; this is a CHOICE he made.

Once someone chooses to become a public figure, they also choose to take on additional responsibilities.