Gareth Penn

Size 12 seems large for a 5-10' - 6' guy, I would say the overwhelming percentage in that height are in the 10-11 range. AkWilks makes a plausible case for TJK's fake soles, I'm just not convinced they are the thing for hiking down to the beach and tussling around, and it's doubtful Hartnell would have missed them. A more refined version perhaps.



BTW Solar, I had also PM'ed the cab dash print and a couple of your other questions for Penn. Will be interesting if he can expand on them.

Havent the subject been up before? That the cast they made at the time was unreliable?
Perhaps I read that on Zodiackillerfacts.. Anyway I dont know if the prints are a way to include or exclude suspects.

Don't know about the casts but the photo looks reliable enough to me for determining size. It's just one of many Wingwalker prints they found leading in the proper directions so it's fairly certain Z left them. I have spoken to Key Narlow a couple of times about the prints, he remains steadfast that they were made by a 200+ lb. person. That's is the point I have questioned, whether a 20-40 lb. variance in weight would account for a detectable difference in the impression. It appears to be hard packed earth with just the top bit being deformed into the sole pattern, versus say a muddy area where the entire area under the sole would be pushed down.

I think some people also wear different size shoes depending on if they are boots, sneakers, dress shoes, etc, as they may fit differently

...and foot size can vary all over the place with height...my kids are 5'10" and 6'0" respectively, and they both wear Men's size 13 E shoes!

Wow, both are boys I trust.

The shoes size at Berryessa seems consistent with the range of heights given for Zodiac. The simplest answer is that it probably was his shoe and shoe size, but of course anything is possible. Would he really consider altering his shoes for LB?

No, one is a girl who plays tackle football!

Am I seeing this photograph right? Since when does an 11.5-12 inch footprint (allowing for extra tread) translate into a size 10 shoe?

Years ago, it was roughly 1:1 for men -- 10 inch foot for a size 10, 12 inches for a size 12. Now, as people have gotten larger, the numbers have too. See this conversion chart:

http://shoes.about.com/od/fitcomfort/a/men_inches.htm

Regardless, this footprint looks too large to be a size 10 shoe, and even accounting for additional tread, some of the tread would ride above the surface, never touching the ground. But maybe I'm missing something.

In any event, unless Gareth posts his DD-214, or offers some other written proof of his shoe size in 1968-69 (he's pushing 70 now, so today's size wouldn't be the same) it's best to take his pontifery on this topic with a grain of salt. (He still hasn't verified that he was in Berkeley from late June 1969 to early August 1970, though he has verified dates after August 1970).

He proberly would considering leaving shoe-prints. It wasnt the first time at the lake i guess.
I dont think Z used shoes that would make it hard for him to walk.
Im not saying that Penn was the man at the lake. But firstly Penns word doesnt mean that much in this case.
Maybe if he sent a picture with him measuring his foot haha. That proberly wont happen.
And I agree about the size. If there was multiple shoeprints, and they were measured, they proberly are correct sized.
I know myself that shoe size can vary depending on the shoe. I could easily put my feet in a size to small for a hour or two.

I am 5ft 11in and take a size 8 or 9 in sneakers and a 9 in ladies shoes, depends also on the make. Impact wise we have to take the Napa PD guys word when they tried to leave impressions in the same dirt but couldn't. He did seem to leave quite a few prints though going by the aerial shots, they covered them in cardboard lids.

It will be interesting to see Gareth's answers Bently, it will probably be hard for us to come up with fifty questions without repeating ourselves, we're not out to hang him anyway so there is probably only so many questions neutral observers would be interested in. I have toyed with the idea of giving him a puzzle to solve first with the result being that if he doesn't solve it we won't ask him any questions (Rubs chin whilst pondering a suitable task heh, heh)

Quote :

Appendix 6: The Sunday puzzle

t41m4w189o951xs234e12a14v9e27e24x9x2ntwoo2xt91j2h2r32uxaxe89nry151e389

Has anyone tried to solve that puzzle from Gareth Penn? I know, you might say: “who cares!”. But it may contain some useful bits of information. Besides, we’ll never know for sure if we don’t try…

Here are my results so far:

- It seems the text must be broken into <string, number> pairs. Here’s what it looks like after the transformation:

t41
m4
w189
o951
xs234
e12
a14
v9
e27
e24
x9
x2
ntwoo2
xt91
j2
h2
r32
uxaxe89
nry151
e389

- I can’t explain why, but it appears some text must be removed. This includes all the ‘X’s and some text inside the pairs (shown in red below):

t41
m4
w189
o951
xs234
e12
a14
v9
e27
e24
x9
x2
ntwoo2
xt91
j2
h2
r32
uxaxe89
nry151
e389

- Next we remove all the numbers. We concatenate all the resulting strings together and this leaves us with the text:

Two Seven Two Three
(or simply the number 2723).


There are good indications this is part of the answer. The number 2723 can be written as (7 X 389 = 2723) and the number 389 appears in the puzzle. That doesn’t look like a coincidence.

If we add all the numbers in the puzzle together, we get 2724. The numbers 27 and 24 are right next to each other in the puzzle.

If we count all the letters in the puzzle (excluding the ‘X’s) we come to 32. That number also appears in the puzzle.

The first number “41” is the year of birth of Gareth.

If we exclude all the ‘X’s, the remaining letters are : “MAEOJUANRY”. Which could be an anagram for “Moe January”.


I don’t know what “2723 Moe January” is supposed to mean. Perhaps “2723” is the ending part of a phone number? A street number? Part of a social security #? Perhaps the answer must be completed by looking at other numbers in the puzzle?

Isn’t it odd to see how Gareth and Zodiac both like numerology and ambiguous puzzles?

Hi-

Some shoes run big, some run small. I think we've all experienced that before. I doubt that for the relatively short period of time he was wearing them, IF someone were a size 12 that would explicitly rule him out against the 10.5 WW's. After all, no pain, no gain.

Mike

[quote="Thebes"]

Quote :

Isn’t it odd to see how Gareth and Zodiac both like numerology and ambiguous puzzles?

You're damned right it's odd.

What we need to measure is not the size of the foot or the upper of the shoe but the length of the shoe's sole. My son wears a men's' size 12. I just measured the sole of his dress oxford and it tapes out at 12 7/8 inches, or 32.7 cm for our metric friends. Perhaps a size 10 sole would measure 11 inches ( 28 cm). Surely one of you gentlemen out there can lay hands on a size 10 workboot or dress shoe and contribute to science.

Who says Zodiac liked numerology?

And 10.5 is nowhere near 12...no doubt about it.

Hi-

Zodiac was into misdirection and deception. Who here is willing to rule out someone who has a size 12 foot with absolute, 100% certainty? Is that all we need to know about someone?

I'm not saying that GP is a suspect but I am not willing to rule anyone out on that basis alone. You can curl your toes for a while, you know. Depends on the roominess of the shoe, etc.

Mike

mike_r wrote:

Hi-

Zodiac was into misdirection and deception. Who here is willing to rule out someone who has a size 12 foot with absolute, 100% certainty? Is that all we need to know about someone?

I'm not saying that GP is a suspect but I am not willing to rule anyone out on that basis alone. You can curl your toes for a while, you know. Depends on the roominess of the shoe, etc.

Mike

Agreed that prints alone cant rule someone in or out, but I have trouble with the size/weight of Penn. Mike, you know better than most perhaps regarding Fouke's description of Zodiac. I think if he is as stocky as indicated, that cant be Penn, pure and simple. Again, Penn looked like he was 165lbs. soaking wet. Take into account Fouke's description, and the weight test at Berryessa, along with Hartnell saying that Z was bulky, or heavy, I think that excludes Penn as Zodiac. If anyone has a photo of Penn ever being "stocky", "heavy", etc, please do post it here

I'm not going to rule anyone out by the size of his shoe, weight or the composite.
The Z was great at games, I'm sure he was into major deception. If the Z is alive
he is still into major deception........ come on everyone...keep an open mind on everything.
It's not over until it's over.....

morf13 wrote:

mike_r wrote:

Hi-

Zodiac was into misdirection and deception. Who here is willing to rule out someone who has a size 12 foot with absolute, 100% certainty? Is that all we need to know about someone?

I'm not saying that GP is a suspect but I am not willing to rule anyone out on that basis alone. You can curl your toes for a while, you know. Depends on the roominess of the shoe, etc.

Mike

Agreed that prints alone cant rule someone in or out, but I have trouble with the size/weight of Penn. Mike, you know better than most perhaps regarding Fouke's description of Zodiac. I think if he is as stocky as indicated, that cant be Penn, pure and simple. Again, Penn looked like he was 165lbs. soaking wet. Take into account Fouke's description, and the weight test at Berryessa, along with Hartnell saying that Z was bulky, or heavy, I think that excludes Penn as Zodiac. If anyone has a photo of Penn ever being "stocky", "heavy", etc, please do post it here

SFPD officer Donald Fouke in his November Memo described Zodiac as follows:

"White, Male, American, 35-45 years, 5-10, 180-200, medium heavy build, Barrel-chested, medium complexion, light colored hair, possibly graying in rear, may have been lighting that caused this effect. Navy blue jacket, brown pleated pants, baggy in rear. (Rust brown) Possibly wearing low cut shoes."



And in a newsarticle Oct 12, 1969 Zodiac is described as 170 p (found at PROJECT MK-ULTRA website )


In the article in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 12, 1969, about the murder of Paul Stine by someone who was later established to be the Zodiac, the suspect was about 40 years old, 170 pounds, with a blond crewcut, and wearing glasses.

http://www.sfgate.com/g/graphics/2008/12/10/Zodiac_Cabbie_Slain.pdf

SO altogether IMO It seems that the Zodiac suspect at the Paul Stine murder was considered NOT that heavy.
But due to that he might have carried the gun, pieces of Stines shirt, etc on the front/ under his jacket & possibly somthing else to illude a "punchy stomach" as disquise, they got a partly impression of a "heavy build".
Remember, Fouke in his memo, described the suspect as "Barrel-chested" which IMO could suport my theorie that Zodiac was carrying different items in the front/under his jacket.

And when you look at the face in the Zodiac composite it sure don´t picture a person of "heavy bulid", much closer to a "medium build" /170/180 pound.


I think it is important to give merit to what was given as description from the start, which ideed was in the lower end of the weight scale.

Yes he could have weighed 170 lbs., could have normally worn a size 12 shoe. Could have had long hair and a crew cut wig, could have been bald. Could have been different perpetrators at LB and PH. We don't know for sure. All we can do is take the evidence that's available and make our best assumption.

If those were not his usual shoe soles at LB then, in addition to Z having basically any size foot, any connection a POI has to the military is also suspect since he could have used them to indicate a military man was responsible.

Azazel wrote:

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. haha.. Just saying....

I keep replaying this quote by Azazel in my head. It's a good one, for me it makes sense. Whomever the Z is, did he convince the world he was not the Z. I think he did, that is now he got away with it. This could be true for alot of our POI's. The Z played games and tricks, was this indeed his best game/trick ever? I think so...

The Foreigner wrote: Remember, Fouke in his memo, described the suspect as "Barrel-chested" which IMO could suport my theorie that Zodiac was carrying different items in the front/under his jacket.

And when you look at the face in the Zodiac composite it sure don´t picture a person of "heavy bulid", much closer to a "medium build" /170/180 pound.


I think it is important to give merit to what was given as description from the start, which ideed was in the lower end of the weight scale.



I think The Foreigner is on to something. I feel he was closer t the medium build. But what items he was carrying, give him a much larger even barrel chested look. Hmmmmmm

Penn was NOT Barrel chested...if anything, he was the opposite, maybe bird chested.

Who gave that description in the beginning--in the paper 10/12/69? Wasn't Fouke or he would have been included in the composite (we all know that argument so any discussion should go to that thread of course). And it didn't match what the kids said. And it is full of goofs.

Lake Berryessa a bigger LOOKING weight, yes as he was carrying more. But SF?? A 9mm and a piece of shirt don't add weight. And wearing a derby-type jacket doesn't make someone who looked 165 look 180-200lbs.

Having a 12 shoe size and wearing a 10.5 and curling your toes when you know you are going to be hiking along a lakeshore...no way jose. A bigger shoe? Maybe. A size and a half smaller? I don't think so. The ONLY way I would say someone with a bigger shoe size is still in the running is because LB is still (for me) questionable.

This is my problem with folks who have POI's who don't fit the physical description. If he is a thin guy with big feet, we have to say "he bulked up with clothes, or he curled his toes, he wore a wig, he shaved..."

I agree with Bentley here. It completley ignores everything we know and makes ANYONE in the running. Mike Mageau saw him in a short sleaved shirt and described him as a stocky type--not Michael J. Fox.

Could Penn have been involved? Sure I guess, but he wasn't the guy Mike described or Fouke described and he wasn't the guy at LB. He didn't think Mike or anyone would see/describe him the night of July 4th--no smoke and mirrors there.

Is Penn screwing with everybody? Yep. He gave a phone number to the police department. Give them a call. He is willing to give his DNA. Talk LE into it. Those who like Penn as a suspect chip in for the tests! Would it matter? The Z DNA would probably then be argued as corrupt.

My mind can only stay so open for so long before it starts to close.

But hey, I love you guys! Keep investigating what you feel in your heart.

Tahoe27 wrote:

Who says Zodiac liked numerology?

For a full explanation, you can read my posts at http://www.opordanalytical.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=501&start=0

(And again, thanks for your help with the Phillips 66 map).

Quote :

Penn was NOT Barrel chested...if anything, he was the opposite, maybe bird chested.

Since some victims described the Zodiac in significantly different ways, wouldn't it be logical to suspect the Zodiac was more than one person?

That might be better than trying to fit a man with size 12 shoes into size 10 1/2...