Zodiackillersite.com

Nice pics, Sandy! Apparently, Jim likes to wear his slacks a little long. You can see that even in the picture of Jim + watch, where he's squatting down: his pants don't ride up at the hem as much as do the pants of the other boys in the picture.

Jem wrote:The morph of Jim and Unknown Man looks like someone rocking back and forth. Maybe it's because Jim is leaning back just a tad, with his arm held behind his back. A very small change in angle can result in a significantly different appearance of length and size, making Jim's nose look shorter, for example.

Thanks Jem, I have tried to explain about the slightly different angles and how it makes his face look fuller when he holds his head up , it also shortens his nose. Slightly turning his head makes his ears look larger in one picture compared to another. (His lips are very full in all of the pictures.) The problem that some have is with his height, in one report he is 5 ft 6 then 5ft 9. Because Darlene is leaning into him and has her shoulder under his arm , makes him look taller. The style of boots that she has on, are not the type that has a high heal, they were flat. You can see she is leaning towards him ,because one shoulder is higher than the other, so it is almost like a slouch, making her appear shorter than she was.
There have been people who knew the both of them, who have seen this picture and said it is definitely Jim Phillips with Darlene. The person who posted the picture probably never met Darlene's first husband but perhaps did meet Dean and so when asked if that was her husband she had met , she said no that wasn't Darlene's husband. That is just my guess of course as to why she didn't think that was Darlene's husband.

I would think that Dean would know and Mike Mageau, it is thought that because it was so long ago they wouldn't remember. That is not what I believe, because I see pictures of people whom I haven't seen in over 50 yrs and I recognise them.

Yes, Darlene's leaning into this guy. And that way she's leaning (only the top half of her body) looks awkward to me. Like she doesn't feel quite comfortable being so close to him at that moment.

Also notice that the muscles on the right side of her face are contracted into a slight, but noticeable, grimace. As if she doesn't like his hand on her shoulder, or just being there with him right then.

And also notice that Darlene's left foot is forward. Something you might naturally do, albeit unconsciously, if you wanted to create a sort of psychological barrier between yourself and the person standing next to you.

They don't really look like they're a couple, imo. No wonder some people don't think it's Jim Crabtree. But I think she just wasn't too happy about something at the time the pic was taken. And that's why Mystery Man doesn't want to acknowledge. JMO, of course.

If it's Jim...this would have been at the beginning of their marraige. He was a long-haired hippy when they divorced.

When it was reported Jim was 5'9", it was relayed to the officers reporting it via mail or a phone call.

When it was reported Jim was 5'6" it was by the officers reporting it at the time who acutally had him in custody and booked him. I'll take door #2.

Two things puzzle me about this. First is that the man in the picture with Darlene looks like Jim Crabtree. Why wouldn't it be him? It surprises me that people think it's someone else.
Second, why does it matter? Do we think the guy in the picture murdered her? Has he got a pistol in his pocket, for instance? I don't get it.
If there are any other pictures of her with other unknown men - or a cat - then lets post them and see if it helps us solve her murder. I suspect it won't.
Eh?

smithy wrote:Two things puzzle me about this. First is that the man in the picture with Darlene looks like Jim Crabtree. Why wouldn't it be him? It surprises me that people think it's someone else.
Second, why does it matter? Do we think the guy in the picture murdered her? Has he got a pistol in his pocket, for instance? I don't get it.
If there are any other pictures of her with other unknown men - or a cat - then lets post them and see if it helps us solve her murder. I suspect it won't.
Eh?

Smithy, I agree. Besides, the fellow in the photo also has a wedding band on. You just don't get cozy with any female besides your wife and have photographic evidence unless you're the husband, son, brother, father or maybe uncle or cousin. I think the fellow is the wrong age to be anything but a husband, brother or cousin. We know it's not her brother. That leaves husband or cousin.

smithy wrote:Two things puzzle me about this. First is that the man in the picture with Darlene looks like Jim Crabtree. Why wouldn't it be him? It surprises me that people think it's someone else.
Second, why does it matter? Do we think the guy in the picture murdered her? Has he got a pistol in his pocket, for instance? I don't get it.
If there are any other pictures of her with other unknown men - or a cat - then lets post them and see if it helps us solve her murder. I suspect it won't.
Eh?

Lots of people look like each other...doesn't make them the same person. Darlene's sister said it was not Jim. Jim said it was not him...he's not a guy fond of having his photo on Zodiac message boards, but doesn't seem to have a problem with this one. Then you have a height issue. A big discrepancy there.

While it makes no matter if it was Jim...they were married of course, it has become a topic of conversation and if it's Jim and he is lying, some find that intriguinging.

This would be Jim too...fresh out of the military.

smithy wrote:Two things puzzle me about this. First is that the man in the picture with Darlene looks like Jim Crabtree. Why wouldn't it be him? It surprises me that people think it's someone else.
Second, why does it matter? Do we think the guy in the picture murdered her? Has he got a pistol in his pocket, for instance? I don't get it.
If there are any other pictures of her with other unknown men - or a cat - then lets post them and see if it helps us solve her murder. I suspect it won't.
Eh?

LOl smithy ,I like your humor. There shouldn't be any doubt that this guy is Jim Crabtree, he has been ID'd by friends that knew both of them. Darlene's sister Pam ID'd him, but when be became angry with me , she denied saying it was him.
I have seen Jim in person, that is him. The reason it has been so controversial is that a few thought the man in the picture could be Darlene's killer. ( We are not alleging Jim is her killer ) She looks unhappy with him because she probably was unhappy. The clothes she had on indicate cooler weather, my guess is that it was taken Oct, Nov, Dec, 66 or as late as Jan 67.
By then she had to have known she was going to leave him. A few months later, mid to late April 67 she was pregnant with Deena. I got pregnant on April 27th and had mine on Jan 28th.
I say she was done with him when that picture was taken and it shows. Jim's height is another issue, in one police report it shows him as 5ft 6 another police report he is 5 ft 9 did he ware 3 inch heals ? They did have them for men back then. By April 67 Jim's hair had grown longer than what that picture is showing, he grew a beard by March or April 67 according to her testimony in court papers.(She said he grew a beard and looked like a Hippie) I suppose a guy can grow a beard 6 or7 months and his hair would also be longer by then. Although I don't remember her stating that his hair was long ? When I saw him in 1995 he had very long curly hair and looked like he just stepped out of a 1969 time machine.

sandy betts wrote:The clothes she had on indicate cooler weather, my guess is that it was taken Oct, Nov, Dec, 66 or as late as Jan 67.

I believe it was determined the photo was taken sometime in 1965 if I'm not mistaken. Had something to do with the baby photo. I don't think it was determined 100% though.

Pam also spoke to Tom and said it was not Jim. I don't know why if it was so obvious it was Jim, she wouldn't just say "yep..that's Jim!". ??

Tahoe27 wrote:

sandy betts wrote:The clothes she had on indicate cooler weather, my guess is that it was taken Oct, Nov, Dec, 66 or as late as Jan 67.

I believe it was determined the photo was taken sometime in 1965 if I'm not mistaken. Had something to do with the baby photo. I don't think it was determined 100% though.

Pam also spoke to Tom and said it was not Jim. I don't know why if it was so obvious it was Jim, she wouldn't just say "yep..that's Jim!". ??

I noticed that baby photo , but could see that there was an older picture in the corner of that picture. I know that some people will show a baby picture and then when that child grows up , they attach the new one to the younger picture.
So that baby picture is meaningless I think.

Pam told me before she told Tom ,that the guy was for sure Jim Phillips. (She did not have the slightest doubt) It was shortly after that , that she became angry with me and told Tom a different story, making it look as if I lied about her telling me he was Jim P.(That was to make me look bad.) Remember that she also told Tom that Gyke was her sisters killer, then back stepped when Lyndon's book came out and said that she had always said it was Grant who killed her sister. I called her on that and asked how could she make that statement, when I saw her brake down crying when I showed her the picture of the man who was harassing the two of us at the same time back in the late 80's and through the 90's. She said he was Larry Kane , the man who killed Darlene. Her answer to me was : Sandy we will never be able to prove that he is the Zodiac, so what is the difference ?
Pam and I will remain friends, regardless of what she says or does. She and I have been through a lot together over the yrs., I am probably the only one who believes Zodiac has stayed in touch with her and has called her many times. I have seen some of the things he has left her. No one not even she could make that stuff up.