Photo of Darlene & the Unknown Man

[AK Wilks]

I still don't understand the significance of the photo. Is this the only instance of Darlene ever having associated with a person that was not known to everyone else? That might be something, but I'm willing to bet that she had met people before that we wouldn't be able to identify and without even having a photo documenting it!

Better hold off on judgement until we get conclusive documentation of every person she has ever met.

I agree. Darlene knew a lot of guys and actively dated, so why is it of great significance that she is pictured in a photo with a man?

IIRC originally there was some discussion that this man was wearing a watch that had a large black "Z" on it, and along with the general appearance said to look like the Zodiac sketch, those and other reasons were cited as to why it was important to identify him. The feeling among some was perhaps this is Zodiac. Further examination showed that the watch did not have a "Z" on it and he really does not look much like the sketch. So all we have is a picture of Darlene with a man, with no special reason to think the man was Zodiac.

IMO the man in the picture is pretty well identified as likely being her first husband, but even if he is not, I don't see any real importance to the picture. But it has captured some people's imagination, it was on AMW and it is always good to solve a mystery.

From Tahoe:

Jim Crabtree @ left (thx to Sandy)

[morf13]

It should be pointed out, Crabtree states that he is NOT the guy in the pic

[AK Wilks]

It should be pointed out, Crabtree states that he is NOT the guy in the pic

True, and that should be considered. But at first the speculation was "maybe the guy in the pic is Zodiac, he has a "Z" on his watch". Given what we know of Jim Crabtree's being initially investigated by the police in Darlene's murder and then completely cleared, but his frustration with some researchers on the case and maybe the case in general, I am not shocked that he would say it is not him, as a way to say 'leave me out of this'. Also, our appearances change, and looking at a 45 year old picture, a person might not recognize themselves at first.

I am going more by the fact that there seem to be a lot of similarities. Also I tend to think even if it is not him, is it really significant that Darlene was pictured with a man her family does not know? Did they know every man she dated or was friends with? And if the watch does not say Z and he doesn't look much like the sketch, is there a special reason to wonder who is in the picture?

At the same time it is an interesting sort of question and maybe an answer will lead to something else.

[sandy betts]

If you see the pictures of Jim that Sandy posted compared to the guy with Darlene. IMO that is Jim but with that said I'm still keeping a open mind somewhat.

Thanks for bringing that up StitchMallone, I have no doubt that is Jim. As far as the family who lived in that house in S.F.or their relatives ,probably wouldn't remember who the guy was in that picture , he wasn't in Darlene's life for very long. More than likely they met Dean, her second husband and said that the man in that picture was not her husband.

Howard found friends of Darlene's and Jim's ,who said that for sure it was Jim in that picture. Darlene's sister told me that it was Jim, but after she got upset with me she changed her mind. The pictures I posted of him at his high school, shows the same sort of baggy pants and the same stance as the unknown man.
The wedding ring he had on ,indicates to me that he was married to her at the time of that picture and by the looks on Darlene's face it was towards the end of that marriage. So my guess would be that it was taken sometime between 1966 -67. Darlene was still in school in 1965.
There is a discrepancy as to Jim's height, one report showed he was 5 ft 6 another report and it was from his arrest showed 5 ft 9. Darlene is leaning into him in that picture , you can see that her left shoulder is down, look carefully she is not standing straight, so that would definitely make him look taller.

[Tahoe27]

While I do think it was a close comparison with Jim and the unknown man, I think we can easily morph someone into another.

This cracked me up!



Jim had a nubby chin--same to this day. I don't see that with the other guy. And in the PD report where he was actually booked (not just info relayed to them), LE said he was 5'6". That would be only 1" taller than Darlene.

[traveller1st]

Maybe it was taken early in the morning....when you're taller....you know....

[sandy betts]

Depending on which part of the police report we want to believe, it also shows he was 5 ft 9 ,162 # on page 63 of the booking report. Jim gave them the wrong S.S. number and wrong birth date changing it from 5-8-44 to 8-9-44 . I don't believe anything that this guy has to say, so for him to say that is not him,means nothing to me.
Maybe Morf can request a copy of his mug shot, by using the FBI number for Jim 139428F ?

As for the lighting ,depending on how much light and what direction it comes from, can hide certain things that can be seen in other pictures . Even the slightest movement of ones head can make the ears look different . I noticed that while watching President Obama giving a speech, his ears were very large at one point then not so much a moment later. Darlene's sister told me once that the coroner got Darlene's height wrong, ( that was back in 1990) I don't remember if she said he made her taller or shorter. I can tell you this much , everyone I met in her family were about 4ft 10 or 11 , except Leo who looked 5 ft 4.
I am actually 2inches longer when I am laying down stretched out, could that be why she measured longer on that table ?

[doranchak]

While I do think it was a close comparison with Jim and the unknown man, I think we can easily morph someone into another.

Here's the morph from the old board:

[morf13]

While I do think it was a close comparison with Jim and the unknown man, I think we can easily morph someone into another.

Here's the morph from the old board:

I have to say it's Jim, but on the other hand, if you watch very closely, the unknown man does seem to have a slightly longer looking face,and the nose seems slightly different. But even the posture and stance of both men look the same. The two photos definitely look very similar,and in the end,I have to say it's Jim. I'm still nagged by the fact Jim states it's not him. If he just came out and owned up to it,the mystery could be over. Why wouldn't he just own up to it? As much as he dislikes Zodiac researchers, you would think he might say something smart like "you guys are such great sleuths,and cant even figure out that the pic is of Darlene and her own Husband". I could totally see him saying something like that.


Regarding the guy LOPEZ on Tom's board, I am curious (if he is mistaken,or flatout lying)why & how he came up with the name ED REZENDES? Everybody is looking for him,and can't seem to find him. HE IS REAL! I FOUND HIM! HE EXISTS! HE IS ONLY A YEAR OLDER THAN DARLENE! But the problem is, at least according to him,he lived south of Vallejo and went to another high school altogether. He is 5ft6(too short to be the man in the photo in my opinion). So once again, how did this LOPEZ guy come onto Rezendes in the first place? By accident? Or is it a joke?

[duckking2001]

haha. Tahoe that picture is terrifying.