Here is a link to what was found on Stine’s body. Maybe by process of elimination we can determine what would likely be missing.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/PSROD2.html

This document says that 7 keys, presumably on a key chain, were found on Stine so I’m not sure what keys Zodiac took. The cab keys most likely. If so those keys would be the property of the cab company and probably obvious car keys. Likely two keys, one for the ignition and one for the door and trunk locks. It does not seem likely to me that there would be other keys on the ring with the cab keys as more than one person would have been assigned to drive the cab.

Sounds like Paul was still wearing his wedding ring.

No wallet is listed so that seems definite.

I am not certain the Zodiac took Stine’s glasses. It is not in any articles that the glasses were taken and I have heard that they were found on the floorboard of the cab but of course that is hearsay so should be viewed as such. Evidence does support the scenario that they could have been found on the floorboard of the cab.

From the police report:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineReport1.html

Since Stine’s head was found to be resting on the floorboard when LE arrived the glasses could have been there, too.

Hope this helps.

Yes, very helpful, Seagull. Thank you.

So we have two or more keys, a wallet and obviously a piece of Stine’s shirt definitely missing.

I’m very interested in the glasses at the moment and was reviewing the discussions on the topic of Stine’s glasses at Tom’s site:

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/6 … qtgMeAo6Uk

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/4 … qthR-Ao6Uk

The conclusions seem to be:

1. Stine had very poor eyesight and would have needed them to be driving his cab.

2. They are not on his face in uncensored crime scene photos.

Tracers:
"I have seen a photo of the scene that shows an uncensored Stine’s face as he lies on the front seat. He is not wearing glasses. However, the area where his glasses would have been is free of blood. You can actually see an outline of sorts of congealed blood around where the glasses would have been. So it seems to me Stine did indeed retain his glasses and they were removed sometime after he died and before the pictures of him were taken".

3. The glasses are not listed in evidence as part of Stine’s belongings.

I know there was some speculation that glasses might be visible on the floor of Stine’s cab but this was far less than certain and would seem to contradict #3.

4. David Fincher, who had access to a lot of the original evidence, indicates that Zodiac took Stine’s glasses (and possibly wore them himself walking away from the scene).

So it seems like either the glasses were found in the cab and mistakenly not listed among Paul Stine’s possessions OR taken from the scene. Is it conceivable that this would have been something withheld by police? Obviously, my question about money in the wallet could only be answered by Zodiac since the wallet was missing.

I apologize for not starting this in an appropriate thread. I had a more immediate reason for asking.

If the glasses were on the floorboard they would not have been in Stine’s possession in the same way that the things in his pocket would have been. The glasses, if on the floorboard, would become part of the crime scene not a possession of Stine. Does that make sense? We know that Stine’s fare book was at the scene but not counted as being in his possession.

Still we do not know for sure if the glasses were truly missing or not. They could be one of the "hold backs" that LE used to definitely rule a proposed suspect in or out.

Is it conceivable that this [the glasses being found and retained] would have been something withheld by police?

Oh yes indeedy.

Is it conceivable that this [the glasses being found and retained] would have been something withheld by police?

Oh yes indeedy.

Why withhold it from their own documents though? It could certainly be in other paperwork though as we know we haven’t seen it all.

Zodiac already had the proof he needed…even better than "I took (or did not take) Paul’s glasses."

If Zodiac didn’t need/wear glasses…another good choice. Almost every POI since this case began wears glasses.

The main question is – why did Z take the keys at all?

Two for the car, one or two for his home. Another one for a place where he might have been writing texts or so. Another one or two for his bike or his families home. But what about the seventh? Is there any connection to the keys later copied by Zodiac, a post office box?

Then..why did Z take them? To get access where to?? Otherwise there would have been no reason at all to get Stine’s keys..!

QT

QT read the link to what was found on Stine’s person again. I think you are misunderstanding. Stine’s own keys were found on him, there were seven keys. It was the keys to the cab that were taken.

QT read the link to what was found on Stine’s person again. I think you are misunderstanding. Stine’s own keys were found on him, there were seven keys. It was the keys to the cab that were taken.

Yes. Which gets me thinking. Why did he not call this one in that night? Was it his intention, but because he was seen and he knew the cops were aware, he no longer needed to? Did he want it to seem like a robbery at first…missing wallet and cab keys? Why then take claim for it so soon afterward in a letter? Why this time take these things, but never before? I get the shirt, but why everything else?

Funny he later writes about making his future murders look like robberies. Stine’s case would have worked perfectly, but then what is the point…he gets no glory.

QT read the link to what was found on Stine’s person again. I think you are misunderstanding. Stine’s own keys were found on him, there were seven keys. It was the keys to the cab that were taken.

Yes. Which gets me thinking. Why did he not call this one in that night? Was it his intention, but because he was seen and he knew the cops were aware, he no longer needed to? Did he want it to seem like a robbery at first…missing wallet and cab keys? Why then take claim for it so soon afterward in a letter? Why this time take these things, but never before? I get the shirt, but why everything else?

Funny he later writes about making his future murders look like robberies. Stine’s case would have worked perfectly, but then what is the point…he gets no glory.

SORRY THIS IS SOOOOO LONG lol. I had to tell stories to illustrate scenarios. Yes I know, telling stories again (making crap up)

I wondered that too at one point T. I mean given his previous habit. He didn’t phone in LHR either although he did name drop it. On the night of the Stine murder he almost scuppered himself and ended up having to hide. Possibly stuck in a bush somewhere or high-tailing it out of there on foot then by vehicle. Maybe LHR was similar if you think about the potential witnesses and the short window of time he had to work in. More high-tailing and as such no phone call.

So why not phone them in the next day? for any of them? Well, I think that suggests that the phonecall had to be made at the time because it survived a purpose. I think that was to facilitate his escape. Probably not the first person to think that. It also serves other function but they still work if the call was made the next day. Those would be added menace, more PR, more attention. On the night/day it’s like a stop off on your escape. You stop and almost like a belt and braces approach you make sure the remainder of your escape remain as trouble free as possible by sending the cops and probably a lot of them, away from your location, in a hurry and, given where you are in relation to the police station you are almost instantly behind enemy lines and that line is moving away from you at speed.

The call is no use the next day because you have already escaped. SO in a way T, yes it was because the cops were already there, that he didn’t need make the call. I just expanded as to what I think the motivation behind it might have been

The Items.

As I was reading you questions T in your post and thinking, why the other items. I think you might have answered that without realizing. The bloody shirt – it turned out to be perfect yes but did it start off that way? I think the reason he had the keys and the wallet and the shirt is because I think they might have each other succeeded in rapid succession.

He took the shirt as proof. We know this because he used it for that exact purpose. I think that’s why he took the keys and the wallet as well but the shirt won. He want’s something as proof. The first thing he grabs are the keys and pockets them but I think he very quickly realises that they are crap, could be lots of similar sets, needs something more immediate as proof – not something that might be considered a hoax even if it’s proved real after tests. Next logical thing is the victims wallet, after all in there is his (the victims) identity. I wonder if paul’s wallet was in his back pocket. Would certainly explain why Zodiac was hauling him around so much in the cab and appeared to be struggling with the victim. He finally gets the wallet and after twisting and hauling poor Paul all over the front of the cab to get at his wallet he spots the exposed shirt that he’s pulled up and out of the way to get at the wallet. The tail has been blood stained and maybe more quickly than it might have been due to pushing or pulling it up out of the way. He sees that and think "Bingo" I can use that and send it a few times. Out with the knife.

So long story short. He took the other items because he kept changing his mind and as a result ended taking all three.

Robberies.

Always a possibility he used that as another level of disguise or misdirection. Michael Cole touched on the placement of murders in the SF represented by a map. http://zodiacrevisited.com/interesting- … homicides/

I seems to remember seeing something similar but more pertaining to the taxi robberies but I may have imagined that unless Michael’s piece he submitted to M.Kelleher’s site when it active made reference to that.

There was a theory bandied about that Zodiac shot Stine at Washington and Maple and he had to fight Stine’s corpse to stop the car. If this is the case he might of turned of the ignition and may have taken the keys because they had his pingerprints on them. This is speculation on my part, but it would makes sense as to why he took the keys.

I’ll go ahead and share the item that freaked me out the other day (and still does a bit)…

A few of you know of my long-time person of interest. He was a fairly well-known collage/assemblage artist and short filmmaker in San Francisco and died in 2008. In the late 1960s, however, he was virtually penniless, had given up his art career, withdrawn from friends and was working menial jobs as a movie theater attendant and selling beads on the street in Haight Ashbury. He reports struggling to control his real or perceived multiple personalities at the time.

In 2010, I had the opportunity to visit SF for the first time and visited a gallery which housed a lot of his works (ironically on Geary St., two blocks from Mason and Geary). I signed up for the gallery’s mailing list for announcements of new exhibits etc. and have periodically received emails, which occasionally had previous unseen works from my person of interest.

The other day’s email included a few works from 1992 which I had never seen. This was at a time when my POI was suffering from a severe congenital liver disorder and did not expect to have long to live. It is a collage entitled "Hospital Souvenirs" and shows him in a hospital bed with an IV along with an assortment of personal items. I blurred the identifying hospital band.

I’m not pushing a person of interest on anyone here, just offering the reason for my interest here for any feedback. I emailed the gallery and received a reply that it was recently received from the individual’s estate and already sold. They explained that it is a collage that is supposed to represent the items that he had in his pocket at the time he was hospitalized after breaking his foot while photographing the punk rock scene at Mahubay Gardens in SF. The term "souvenirs" struck me odd as did the need for a collage to memorialized the items in your pocket during a hospitalization for a broken foot.

Thoughts?

Bizarre….and it is creepy considering.

It also looks like he might be clutching something in the right hand palm, deliberately hidden in the shadow. Certainly a bit weird, and I’m no art critic but I’d say it’s a pretty bland piece unless of course the images have some very strong emotional meaning for the artist. It’s easy to get carried away with interpretations but I also found the perpendicular arms to be odd – could they allude to Washington/Cherry?

My guess is that he just needed Cherry St. to hold up his IV tube, james.

My amigo, traveler, was able to help confirm that the $100 bill is from the early 1980s (based on the signature of the treasurer) so the bill at least is consistent with the reported 1992 date of the work. Enhancing a bit seems to show something round in his hand like a ball but I can’t tell what it is.

The collage is certainly open to interpretation. He’s a strange dude so interpretations aren’t always too easy. It may have nothing to do with this topic but I will say that nothing in his artwork is ever there by accident.