I tend to believe that ALL of the eyewitnesses did their best to describe what they saw and I tend to think that we are doing a bit too much speculation to interpret what they really saw. I agree that Hartnell comes across as a very reliable, observant witness. Some of his observations might be wrong but he described what he saw to the best of his ability. I’m sure the other LB witnesses did as well but the fact is that we don’t know if they are actually eyewitnesses to anything here.

In looking at the description of the Lake Berryessa costume:

http://zodiackiller.com/SFPDNapa.html

…and the Stine composite sketches:

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

…it’s hard for me to reconcile Hartnell’s description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask’s eyeholes and Shepard’s alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses’ description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren’t describing the same person?

…it’s hard for me to reconcile Hartnell’s description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask’s eyeholes and Shepard’s alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses’ description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren’t describing the same person?

Yeah I can’t get my head around that first bit either. I guess it comes down to exactly what Bryan saw and through what shape of gap and at what angle and where the sun was. All of these factors add up to what he did see but they have to vie for position with that he thought he saw. Ditto for Cecelia. Given those determining factors and the circumstances, It’s not inconceivable for me to reconcile a lot of the information bearing in mind the situation.

As for changing the hair 2 weeks later ….. I wonder. I don’t think the info about the hair from Bryan and Cecelia was released at the time? was it? Can’t see anything about it the Chron archives. Could it have been released by any Napa newspapers or any newspapers for that matter or was that info kept tucked away in the police reports? And what about the 3 girls? I know an artists rendering of the person they described was printed in the Chron and was said to be of a man that several person saw acting suspiciously. Kinda makes you wonder if he saw that and (if it was him) decided he’d change his hair for the next one. Who knows. I think Zodiac was reactionary, he replied to challenges and requests and we know he was probably following all the newspaper reports concerning his activities. Since I haven’t any references to hair at LB prior to PH I have to wonder if something did make him alter his hair, was it something visual and that sketch is the only thing there was and it didn’t carry any description as to hair colour.

The descriptions are all over the map but maybe not surprisingly so. If the person described by the girls at LB wasn’t Zodiac then that clears up those discrepancies. I was watching or reading something crime related the other night, sorry can’t remember what, but at one point someone in LE was talking about witnesses and how greatly their accounts of the same thing or description of the same person can vary hugely depending on the witness, their perception and recollection. It caught my attention because, in a weird way, it made sense and specifically in regard this case. This included height, weight, age, hair anything you can think of.

Back to the hair as described by Bryan and Cecelia. Without actually doing a full investigation and just going on how I imagine the circumstances regarding seeing the hair. It was from low level looking up. Add to that Zodiac’s movements, head moving, leaning forward etc. IF he did have some hair on top (ie not a crew cut) well hair moves. IF it was ‘greased’ then that adds weight. Couple that with the affect of the hood possibly pushing down or at least resting on it and the sweat, well from the position of looking up into a narrow aperture, if they did get a glimpse, then the hair could well have hung down over the forehead but that doesn’t have to be a lot of, or long hair. Just long enough to sit slightly on the forehead and the could just be a portion of the combed back hair on top flopping forward under the weight of the hood, grease, sweat and movement.

Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy the girls saw was Zodac and he had greased his hair to make it darker and less curly. With Tahoe posting the excerpt from the BRS report concerning MM’s ’69 comments on the hair I think there’s a possibility that changing the hair might have been more of a standard thing than we thought. We go from short, curly, light brown almost blonde to brown/dark brown, combed, greasy to blonde crewcut possibly slightly red. Maybe we should be looking for a hairdresser lol. Or lex luther if we wanna hold on to the wig idea.

I know, there’s the question, why bother doing anything with your hair if your gonna wear a hood. Well. Why bother doing anything with your hair at any of the crimes? Purely to cause confusion if you are witnessed would be my assumption. In that respect it makes sense to mix it up. I think it’s possible he may have inadvertently been forced to make this more of a feature due to MM surviving and being able to gave a description.

If he did change his hair for Berryessa then it wasn’t for the benefit of his victims which is why I wonder if it could have been Zodiac the girls seen with this new, darker, greased hair? It wasn’t for he benefit of the other victims either. At LHR it was pitch black, at BRS he blinded them with a flashlight, at LB we have the hood and at PH he sat behind PS and I’m sure was pretty confident he wouldn’t be surviving to give a description. It’s two approaches, one to avoid being seen, much less identified, by your victims and then there’s the other aspect of altering appearance to sow confusion amongst witness statements (intended or not but I’m entertaining the idea it was intentional).

Basically I don’t see what the problem is. Changing hairstyles is surely something that would be employed to avoid identification and I don’t think there’s anything unlikely about achieving those given the descriptions we have. It’s not like he had hair half way down his back at PH.

Sorry that was so long but that’s pretty ALL my thoughts on the hair thing as it stands.

…I don’t think the info about the hair from Bryan and Cecelia was released at the time? was it? Can’t see anything about it the Chron archives. Could it have been released by any Napa newspapers or any newspapers for that matter or was that info kept tucked away in the police reports?

No. At least you won’t find Cecelia’s statement. It wasn’t in any newspaper and it wasn’t in any police report because as Collins states…he didn’t feel it was important at the time.

Of course he admits this years later when being interviewed for a Hollywood movie documentary. He also mentions in a newspaper interview things that didn’t even happen that day.

How a detailed description of what the guy looked like WITHOUT his hood at a time they were looking for their attacker would not be relevant is beyond me! I call BS.

***

Mike Mageau’s and Fouke’s statement of Zodiac are practically spot on. Height, weight, build and hair.

Here’s the video Tahoe posted at Zkiller.com to judge for yourself:

http://s254.photobucket.com/user/tahoe2 … B.mp4.html

Of course he admits this years later when being interviewed for a Hollywood movie documentary. He also mentions in a newspaper interview things that didn’t even happen that day.

How a detailed description of what the guy looked like WITHOUT his hood at a time they were looking for their attacker would not be relevant is beyond me! I call BS.

Mystifying for sure although it honestly really doesn’t say all that much that wasn’t provided by Hartnell or at least doesn’t contradict anything. To what end would he lie about this encounter? Air time in the documentary? What kind of things were mentioned in the interview that didn’t happen? Collins’ claims could certainly warrant a thread of their own actually.

Mystifying for sure although it honestly really doesn’t say all that much that wasn’t provided by Hartnell or at least doesn’t contradict anything. To what end would he lie about this encounter? Air time in the documentary? What kind of things were mentioned in the interview that didn’t happen? Collins’ claims could certainly warrant a thread of their own actually.

We may just have a thread. I know it’s been discussed quite a bit. Maybe at the old one.

TheForeigner posted this at the zk.com mb:

theforeigner wrote:
——————————————————————————–

And here is more from Dave Collins concerning his allged info from Cecelia Shepard.
Is he telling the truth? I don’t know, but I sure have my doubts!:

http://napavalleyregister.com/news/loca … 9fb6c.html

Collins said Shepard was the only victim able to give deputies a description of the Zodiac without his hood.

"She was incredible how she answered my questions while lying on this blanket in terrible pain and going in and out of shock. We used her description of the man to make a composite drawing"; Collins said, "Investigators canvassed the area with the drawing and found three young women in the same general area who were sunbathing. They said they saw the same man looking at them and acting suspicious about an hour before he attacked Shepard and Hartnell. They said for some reason he just up and left. They were three lucky girls."

——————————————————————————–

–The blue highlight is mine and um….no. They didn’t use Cecelia’s description for the drawing…how could they, Collins never reported it! And they didn’t canvas the area with it to find the girls. The girls came to their office.

Maybe he wanted to come across and knowing more. I truly don’t know, but he is bs-ing somebody. What would be the point of going to such lengths to get this description, then not think it important enough to write a report??

I tend to believe that ALL of the eyewitnesses did their best to describe what they saw and I tend to think that we are doing a bit too much speculation to interpret what they really saw. I agree that Hartnell comes across as a very reliable, observant witness. Some of his observations might be wrong but he described what he saw to the best of his ability. I’m sure the other LB witnesses did as well but the fact is that we don’t know if they are actually eyewitnesses to anything here.

In looking at the description of the Lake Berryessa costume:

http://zodiackiller.com/SFPDNapa.html

…and the Stine composite sketches:

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

…it’s hard for me to reconcile Hartnell’s description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask’s eyeholes and Shepard’s alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses’ description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren’t describing the same person?

I wasn’t saying, nor implying, that any other witness did less than their best, I was saying that if I could pick one to spend an hour chatting with, it would have to be Bryan. Even from a Courts perspective, I would think he’d be the most credible and believable witness to put on the stand if they had discovered Z’s identity. And it isn’t true or accurate to suggest that all witnesses did their best to describe as accurate as possible what and/or who they had seen. Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn’t until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don’s hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn’t until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don’s hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

Waaaaait a second. Don Fouke told Toschi and the boys that he and Zelms saw a suspect heading into the park; it was searched.
The Zodiac Killer alledged that they stopped and spoke to him – which Fouke’s always denied….. No?

Possible reasons for hair discrepancy:

1) Z got hair cut between LB and PH killings
2) Z wore a wig under the mask at LB
3) Z wore a bald wig, or something similar at PH
4) Some witnesses were mistaken
5) There was more than one killer
6) Hartnell did not mean to imply that Z had long hair, but accidentally expressed himself in a misleading manner
…

I gave more thought to this list and would like to revise it as follows:

Possible reasons for hair length discrepancy:

1) Z got hair cut between LB and PH killings
2) Some witnesses were mistaken
3) There was more than one killer
4) Z wore a bald wig, or something similar at PH
5) Z wore a greasywig under the mask at LB

First off, I initially included #6 to round out the logical possibilities, but it seems quite clear that Hartnell intended to say that Z had longish hair. In my opinion, it is such a low probability that I consider its likelihood to be negligible, therefore I would like to remove it from the list.

Please note that the above reasoning does not preclude the possibility, however, that Hartnell was mistaken. Although he seems like the best kind of witness, his memories could still be inaccurate. (I am not arguing that they are, just not acknowledging what modern research about human memory tells us. Personally, I believe him.)

Secondly, speaking about memory research, I would increase the likelihood that one or more of the witnesses are inaccurate, though this probabilistic approach does not specify who. Modern research into memory does show that witness memories (and all memories) are prone to alteration, even in people who feel confident in their memories. Studies have shown that each time we retrieve and recall a memory, we expose it to an innate tendency to modifications, especially when suggestive forces are at play. I would venture a guess that the people who have been interviewed the most have had the largest exposure to the forces that tend to distort original memories.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 160835.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 125736.htm

Thirdly, I had planned to lower the probability that Z wore a wig at LB under the mask. It seemed to me that a wig should not be greasy, and I thought it unlikely that somebody, even Z, would do something to make their wig greasy. As it happens, I googled the topic and it seems a wig might be made greasy in some cases. Even so, it seems to me rather uncommon behavior. I may be wrong. Does anybody here know about wigs?

Fourthly, it should be noted that the simplest explanation is for the change in the reported length of Z’s hair is that he got a haircut between the Lake Barryessa and Presidio Heights killing. That really is a pretty simple explanation for the apparent change in length. Have I lost track of something that would make that option seem more dubious?

Finally, just an observation that one of the effects of the changes to the list seems to be that the likelihood that there were two people involved seems to be going up by some perceptible amount, though I cannot quantify it.

Since it was mentioned elsewhere–by Welch Chappie, I think–maybe it is worth some attention. Does anybody have any strong sense whether or not there is support for the idea that there were two (or more) individuals involved in committing the Z crimes and writing the letters?

Tks,

G

I tend to believe that ALL of the eyewitnesses did their best to describe what they saw and I tend to think that we are doing a bit too much speculation to interpret what they really saw. I agree that Hartnell comes across as a very reliable, observant witness. Some of his observations might be wrong but he described what he saw to the best of his ability. I’m sure the other LB witnesses did as well but the fact is that we don’t know if they are actually eyewitnesses to anything here.

In looking at the description of the Lake Berryessa costume:

http://zodiackiller.com/SFPDNapa.html

…and the Stine composite sketches:

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

…it’s hard for me to reconcile Hartnell’s description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask’s eyeholes and Shepard’s alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses’ description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren’t describing the same person?

I wasn’t saying, nor implying, that any other witness did less than their best, I was saying that if I could pick one to spend an hour chatting with, it would have to be Bryan. Even from a Courts perspective, I would think he’d be the most credible and believable witness to put on the stand if they had discovered Z’s identity. And it isn’t true or accurate to suggest that all witnesses did their best to describe as accurate as possible what and/or who they had seen. Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn’t until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don’s hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

I know, Chappie, and points well taken. It’s a damn shame that the best eyewitness was the one who encountered Zodiac in costume. Figures… It may be fair to criticize Fouke for not submitting an official report of his encounter until Zodiac forced his hand but I don’t think this necessarily detracts from his observations. It would have been better to get them on paper right away but the observations are still detailed and, I presume, accurate to the best of his ability.

Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn’t until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don’s hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

Waaaaait a second. Don Fouke told Toschi and the boys that he and Zelms saw a suspect heading into the park; it was searched.
The Zodiac Killer alledged that they stopped and spoke to him – which Fouke’s always denied….. No?

It was never officially stated or acknowledged by Fouke and/or the SFPD until November 11, and the incident happened on October 11. Zodiac sent a letter on November 9th informing everyone that ‘two cops pulled a goof’ and claiming he had encountered them "As I was walking down the hill to the park" which is obviously him referring to Jackson St. Zodiac made this claim in writing to the public via The Chronicle on Nov 9 emphasising *Must print this part in paper* about the police encounter. Two days later, on the 11th, Fouke sends a Memo to Dave Toschi recounting his having seen a suspect on Jackson St.

I tend to believe that ALL of the eyewitnesses did their best to describe what they saw and I tend to think that we are doing a bit too much speculation to interpret what they really saw. I agree that Hartnell comes across as a very reliable, observant witness. Some of his observations might be wrong but he described what he saw to the best of his ability. I’m sure the other LB witnesses did as well but the fact is that we don’t know if they are actually eyewitnesses to anything here.

In looking at the description of the Lake Berryessa costume:

http://zodiackiller.com/SFPDNapa.html

…and the Stine composite sketches:

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

…it’s hard for me to reconcile Hartnell’s description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask’s eyeholes and Shepard’s alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses’ description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren’t describing the same person?

I wasn’t saying, nor implying, that any other witness did less than their best, I was saying that if I could pick one to spend an hour chatting with, it would have to be Bryan. Even from a Courts perspective, I would think he’d be the most credible and believable witness to put on the stand if they had discovered Z’s identity. And it isn’t true or accurate to suggest that all witnesses did their best to describe as accurate as possible what and/or who they had seen. Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn’t until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don’s hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

I know, Chappie, and points well taken. It’s a damn shame that the best eyewitness was the one who encountered Zodiac in costume. Figures… It may be fair to criticize Fouke for not submitting an official report of his encounter until Zodiac forced his hand but I don’t think this necessarily detracts from his observations. It would have been better to get them on paper right away but the observations are still detailed and, I presume, accurate to the best of his ability.

No I totally agree. I shouldn’t really be so quick to judge Don Fouke for not coming forward with this info because it is just as likely, if not even more so, that Don’s said nothing of it publically not because he wanted to, but because his bosses ordered him not to in order to protect the integrity and question of the Departments competence. Don says he told Pellissetti about his sighting either the very next day, or a day or two after the incident (can’t remember which exact day he said now off top of my head). AP confirms this saying "He never mentioned anything to me that day that he had seen anybody or had stopped someone. However, in subsequent conversations with him he mentioned that he had seen someone…" So if he was telling other officers, I can only assume the higher ups knew.

My thought is that Zodiac essentially confirmed that Fouke’s observations were relevant with his 11/9/69 letter. I totally agree that a report should have been filed at the time of the incident but I tend to give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac. The 10/13/69 letter refers to him hiding out "in the park" but he doesn’t make mention of any encounter with police. I don’t think there is any doubt that the 11/9/69 letter is what necessitated an official report from Fouke and I imagine it was a tad embarrassing for him, which seemed to be Zodiac’s motivation in writing about the encounter and demanding publication.

Based on the formal costume Zodiac wore at the Lake Berryessa murder, we can assume he made an effort to disguise himself deliberately and in a
more sophisticated way as time went on. And in what ways can someone disguise himself? Can you make yourself look older? yes, Younger? more difficult.
Can a thinner person make himself appear larger? yes A fat man looking thin? more difficult. Can you add eye glasses you normally don’t wear? How about hair?
easily changed from combed forward, to a pompadore, to cutting, to coloring, adding greasy kid stuff or vaseoline. Can you alter the appearance of your height
with a box shaped head dress? well how clever he was…yes he put much deliberate thought into the costume, it was part of the fun, the fantasy, the preparation.

My thought is that Zodiac essentially confirmed that Fouke’s observations were relevant with his 11/9/69 letter. I totally agree that a report should have been filed at the time of the incident but I tend to give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac. The 10/13/69 letter refers to him hiding out "in the park" but he doesn’t make mention of any encounter with police. I don’t think there is any doubt that the 11/9/69 letter is what necessitated an official report from Fouke and I imagine it was a tad embarrassing for him, which seemed to be Zodiac’s motivation in writing about the encounter and demanding publication.

Well I agree about giving Fouke the benefit of the doubt, but for a different reason. I give him the benefit of the doubt for not coming forward with his sighting because they were already on the ropes so to speak after failing to apprehend him after they got to the scene seconds after he had left it and then cordoned off the park with a huge search effort that proved fruitless. The last thing the higher ups needed was the public being told ‘Oh by the way, two of our officers drove past a man matching the teen witness description and walking away from the direction of the scene itself as they were responding to it.’

"Give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac."

Well, no (lol). Whether that was the cab drivers shooter (no one had any idea at this point that Zodiac was involved) or not isn’t really the point. He was in the immediate area and could have been a crucial witness. I think that after they realised Don’s description of the white male matched that of the cab driver suspect as given by the teens, they decided not to release it because they knew there was then a real possibility that the white male seen by Don and Eric was the offender.

It was never officially stated or acknowledged by Fouke and/or the SFPD until November 11, and the incident happened on October 11…. etc.

WC – you said "Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn’t."
The fact that the park was searched on the night of the Stine murder might indicate that Fouke at the scene prompted that action.
And the report? Fouke contributed to the composite, so he was certainly talking about his view of the subject right after the event. Nuh?
Fouke’s denied speaking to a suspect, then, since, and now. He still does. FIne by me.
Loves a good lie, that Zodiac fella. Likes to embarrass the po-lice. Loves it.