Does Dennis Know Jack?
Back in January, Dennis Kaufman gave an interview to an Internet radio station. Dennis Kaufman, for those new to the Zodiac case, is the self-proclaimed stepson of the Zodiac Killer. Kaufman, and his theories are the subject of much controversy in the circle of researchers looking into the Zodiac case. He has become a very unpopular person, to say the least. This is due not only to his claims that his stepfather, Jack Tarrance, was the Zodiac Killer, but also to Kaufman’s seemingly bellicose personality.
Those of you who are familiar with me, and my own site, know that I have opinions and theories of my own. You also should know that I believe that all sides of an issue should be heard. With the January interview, which lasted in the neighborhood of two hours, we had a chance to hear Dennis Kaufman’s reasoning as to why he believed that Jack Tarrance, now deceased, was the Zodiac Killer. I have to say, I was not convinced. I was, in fact, rather annoyed at the the lack of substance and the attacks against anyone who didn’t share Kaufman’s view.
The fact remains that Dennis Kaufman’s theories have received some attention in the national media, and continue to be a source of speculation among the public. It is for this reason that I am even discussing Dennis Kaufman or Jack Tarrance at all.
I have been a frequent poster, albeit for a short while, at Tom Voigt’s message board. Tom Voigt is the webmaster of ZodiacKiller.com, which remains the source of the most information and discussion of the San Francisco serial killer. After listening to the interview, which was broadcast over the Internet on January 11, 2007, I made a post under the heading reserved for discussion of Jack Tarrance as suspect. That post is presented below:
The following posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 at the ZodiacKiller.com Message Board
Any person who listened to the interview of Dennis Kaufman last night had the privilege of listening to two hours of exaggeration and outright lies. Up until last night, I even gave Dennis the benefit of the doubt. He presented an interesting story on his site. He had two hours to prove his case last night. He failed. He even proved his motivation for his accusation. He has some unresolved issues with his stepfather, who was very likely the kind of person Dennis described. However, no matter how nasty this man may have been, Dennis and his crony presented nothing worthy of foundation. He also claimed that his site was the only site that held no bias, the only site containing truth. I know he was referring to this site, but he has also visited mine. I am a member of this board and have become a frequent poster. I do not agree with Tom and Ed on everything and I express as much. Everyone seems to have their say here, as long as they don’t make terrorist threats, which Dennis readily admits to. Sure, everyone has opinions, including the webmasters here. But instead of bias, I see that Tom has provided an excellent medium for free discussion. Dennis Kaufman has lost all credibility with me. There is nothing he can say about Jack Tarrance that can’t be said about a multitude of other men. All of his so-called “facts” seem to be conveniently out of view. I heard the two of them blatantly lying with my own two ears. He has his own devil he wants to vilify further, at the expense of the truth.
It became apparent that Dennis Kaufman was a lurker at the message board, as well. I recieved an email from Dennis asking if I suffered from hearing loss and also attacking Tom Voigt’s credibility. It seemed that Dennis was upset because I said that he admitted to terrorist threats. I responded by saying that I would listen to the broadcast again, and if I had made any mistake I would admit to it publicly. It seems I had made a mistake, so I will make a public correction: Dennis Kaufman did not admit to making terroristic threats, he stated that he was arrested for making them. Anyway my response to Kaufman was as follows:
Email
Tue 1/16/2007 6:48 PM
From: Chris Yarbrough
To: Dennis Kaufman
Dennis,
I will certainly listen to the broadcast again and make any necessary corrections. I do not wish to misrepresent the facts. I stand by my claim that you said many things that were not true. I have tried to maintain a level of integrity and objectivity on my website. You have insulted my site, and others, with no cause. I sent an email with questions to the show. These questions were not asked. The answers may change my mind about your credibility. You may not be interested in my opinion, but I think that you are.
If you have compelling facts to prove your case, you should present them in an organized manner. You have not done this to my satisfaction. As for your included link, I really don’t see the relevance. I do not make my conclusions based on Tom Voigt’s views or opinion. We have very different ideas about the kind of person the Zodiac killer is/was. I did say that I believe that despite his different views, I believe he provides equal time for opposing viewpoints. Of course, in a forum of free expression, comments may become heated (look at any courtroom or session of Congress). In contrast, your website is far from being objective. Your comments regarding my colleagues are based on your own resentment of past events. The people you claim have been ruled out, have not been eliminated as suspects to the satisfaction of many investigators and researchers. The only time we hear of Jack Tarrance being a suspect is when you are the one making the claim.
When you left one of your posts on my message board, I had already heard many negative things about you. At that time, I felt that the riff between you and others may have been obscuring your message, which I found interesting. I said “like to make my own assessments. I will look further into your claims and currently welcome any input you may have.” I have looked at all the available information and have found nothing that raises my suspicions to the level of labeling your stepfather a “major suspect.” I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong. I encourage you to prove me wrong. You don’t know me, but I assure you I strive to be a fair man. If I have made a mistake, I will admit to it publicly.
As for now, your broadcast comments have left me with serious doubts about your credibility. I had wanted to present your side of the story on my website at some point. If your side of the story is limited to the comments and vagueness of the radio interview, I no longer feel the need. Below, I have posted the questions I would have liked to hear answers to the other night.
Did you ever ask Jack directly if he was the Zodiac? If so, what was his response?
Did you follow up on the taped interview that you planned for your stepfather’s stories? If so, where can one listen to the audio or read a transcript?
Can you definitely place Jack Tarrance at any of the murder locales? Receipts, cancelled checks, other dated documents indicating a location would be good.
Did Jack have anything in his possession that may have belonged to any of the Zodiac victims? Did he keep clippings regarding any of the attacks or letters?
These are certainly not all of my questions, but your response would be a good start.
Chris
Dennis responded with another hate inspired email which included exaggerated claims. He said nothing regarding my questions, although he did say he didn’t intend to insult my site. He apologized for my questions not being answered, but didn’t seize the opportunity to answer them. I responded by writing “You did insult m
y site, and every other site covering the Zodiac, except your own. I like facts, plain and simple. They speak much louder than speculations and assumptions. If you continue on your spiteful path, you will only reach more isolation and discredit. You are your own worst enemy.”
At this point, my displeasure with Dennis Kaufman had grown considerably, even since his Internet interview. I had reached the conclusion that Dennis Kaufman was an angry man. It seemed that anger that was behind his claims. I felt, and still feel, that resentment and anger for his stepfather has more to do with Kaufman’s claims than any so called evidence. I am no psychologist, but I think it is rather obvious that Dennis Kaufman has some serious unresolved issues regarding that relationship.
About a week later, I responded to a post from another member regarding the similarity between Jack Tarrance’s car and a vehicle seen at Lake Berryessa. I also expressed my frustration with Kaufman regarding some straight answers. That post appears below:
The following posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 at the ZodiacKiller.com Message Board
The Chevrolet Impala was the best-selling automobile in the United States. Its peak sales volume in 1965 (over one million sold) is a record. When I was a kid, we had an ice blue ’63 Impala, just like the one in DK’s photo, only in much better condition. I came across the car a few years ago; It is now somebody’s low rider. Compare blue Impalas to Chevy pick-up trucks today; Same model, same color, so what? The only person to actually see Zodiac at Lake Berryessa didn’t see him in a car.
I read Kaufman’s website without bias. It was interesting. I figured Dennis’ strange behavior (detailed on this site) might have been due to the fact that he was possibly raised by a serial killer. I felt there might have been something to his story. I then had an opportunity to listen to his interview. He had 2 hours to make his case. Instead, he distorted the truth and insulted the intelligence of anyone listening.
Like Graysmith, but with even less subtlety, Kaufman has a way of maneuvering the actual facts to create what amounts to fiction. If a person had convincing evidence would this be necessary?
I had some simple questions for Kaufman when he had the recent radio interview. He told me he had no control over the questions asked and apologized for them not being answered. The apology came after I had already sent him the questions again for a second opportunity for him to answer. He still has not answered. My questions weren’t that tough, I think he’s even hinted at the answers on his site and in the interview. A direct response would help separate the chaff.
For those interested, here are my questions:
1. Did you ever ask Jack directly if he was the Zodiac? If so, what was
his response?2. Did you follow up on the taped interview that you planned for your stepfather’s stories? If so, where can one listen to the audio or read
a transcript?3. Can you definitely place Jack Tarrance at any of the murder locales? Receipts, canceled checks, other dated documents indicating a location
would be good.4. Did Jack have anything in his possession that may have belonged to any of the Zodiac victims? Did he keep clippings regarding any of the
attacks or letters?These are some simple questions in hope of direct answers. There are a lot more, but I figured these would be a start. Dennis Kaufman dances around these issues, but never really says anything with foundation.
I know for a fact that Dennis monitors these discussions and has my email address. Perhaps he’ll answer with something besides anger and spite. I doubt it.
Today I finally received a response from Kaufman. He provided his answers to my questions, and refrained from the attacks of his previous correspondence. The email is as follows:
Email
Tue 2/6/2007 2:47 AM
From: Dennis Kaufman
To: Chris Yarbrough
I did directly ask Jack if he was the zodiac killer, and his response was, “WHAT TIME IS IT?” I do have this recorded.
I was able to spend a couple of months with Jack before he passed away, and I got alot of information from him during my visit. This information will all be in my book, “THE MAN BEHIND THE MASK.”
Jack lived less than a mile from Donna Lass at the time of her disappearence. Jack’s daughter, Lana, worked at the same casino as Donna at the time she disappeared….
There was some items found in Jack’s storage shed in 2001, that may have belonged to some of the victims. Some of the items were earings, and a silver ring with a large oval turquoise…….
Jack never keep any newspaper clippings that I know of……..
Take care…………Dennis Kaufman
I will commend Kaufman for not resorting to his usual spiteful tone, particularly since it probably took some effort on his part. I still cannot say that I am any more convinced of his claims than I was before. If Kaufman writes a book will I buy it? It would have to contain more than innuendo and suspicion. If Dennis Kaufman is ever going to be convincing in his claim that Jack Tarrance is the Zodiac, his book will have to have a hell of a lot more than what he has provided to date.
Related posts:
