Sorry Smithy, wasn’t deliberately or intentionally avoiding responding to a post or question. Rite, let’s see…..

Rite, the post relating to Eric Zelms’s widow?

"I seem to recall telling naughty WC that I’m not "clutching at straws" saying that the Diana statement is hearsay." That was naughty, i’ll sentence myself to sitting in the corner facing the wall for one hour, suspended for the next 3.

I meant ‘clutching at straws’ Smithy in relation to your argument for dismissing the idea that Fouke stopped and spoke to Z not by any of the known sequence of events here, or because of some other specific reason or something the statement said that seemed to be questionable, and just attack the entire statement as ‘hearsay.’

"Back to the hair.
No, he didn’t wear a skin wig (that’s silly)."

You think that’s silly?? Wait till you hear the many supporters of Lake Berryessa man wearing wig under the hood. What’s the first thing armed raiders do before putting a balaclava on to cover their complete head? Of course, they put a wig underneath where it serves absolutely no purpose at all in an attempt to disguise yourself This is obviously needed to explain the hair and fringe difference between Lake B and Presidio attackers.

Now Mr Smith, it has come to my attention that one is fairly quick to question the ideas and posts of others and their specific theories, comments and ideas and that’s no probs at all. However, it hasn’t escaped my attention that you don’t seem to allow yourself to be scrutinized about what you personally believe and opinions oyu may have and this is because you very rarely, if ever, give an opinion on something. In fact, I think the only statement I recall you making that was specific-ish was saying that you wasn’t sure, even doubtful, as to Zodiac being responsible for Lake B.

Come on Smithy, no need to be shy and not tell us what your actual belief’s and opinions are specifically.

If you give me your opinions in general on the case, who was responsible (If anyone in mind), why he/they did it, you know, just general opinions. If you do that Smity, you can have one of these….

Now Mr Smith, it has come to my attention that one is fairly quick to question the ideas and posts of others and their specific theories, comments and ideas and that’s no probs at all.

Smithy doesn’t need me to answer for him but just to say …. he isn’t. Smithy was the first person I ever recieved a PM from when I started on this case over on ZKF. He has been at this quite a while so to say that he is quick isn’t accurate. He’s read it all and seen it all so he doesn’t just blurt out a thought or make seemingly dismissive comments. He’s probably been through these same or similar discussions more often than you’ve had hot dinners so if he seems curt it’s not without good reason.

That’s why we encourage members to read as much as you can of the posts that have been made over many years and long before most of us got here.

… That bit never made a whole lot of sense to me either. If i’m a notorious and wanted serial killer who, should I make the slightest error in judgement, will result in a rendezvous with the Gas Chamber in San Quentin, I wouldn’t want to be all eager to let everyones, including the police who saw me themselves, that ‘I was the man they stopped to speak with on the street that night.’ All your doing is confirming that you are the offender that as spotted and/or possibly spoken with that night…

I said the same thing about the Kathleen Johns incident.

At BRS – Mike (jeez) described the attackers hair as "brown" (it says here) http://www.zodiackiller.com/FerrinMageau.html
At BRS – MIke (jeez) described the attackers hair as "short curly hair, light brown almost blond" (it says here) http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/Descriptions.htm

Actually, the first link is not to a quote from Mike Mageau. I guess we’d need to ask Tom where he read that.

Here we go, right from the police report – short, curly hair, light brown, almost blond.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/DFR10.html

Light brown, almost blond hair is still brown hair.

Here we go, right from the police report – short, curly hair, light brown, almost blond.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/DFR10.html

Light brown, almost blond hair is still brown hair.

I’m re-reading the reports on the murders and I’m on that very page as you post that Nacht.

Now Mr Smith, it has come to my attention that one is fairly quick to question the ideas and posts of others and their specific theories, comments and ideas and that’s no probs at all.

Smithy doesn’t need me to answer for him but just to say …. he isn’t. Smithy was the first person I ever recieved a PM from when I started on this case over on ZKF. He has been at this quite a while so to say that he is quick isn’t accurate. He’s read it all and seen it all so he doesn’t just blurt out a thought or make seemingly dismissive comments. He’s probably been through these same or similar discussions more often than you’ve had hot dinners so if he seems curt it’s not without good reason.

That’s why we encourage members to read as much as you can of the posts that have been made over many years and long before most of us got here.

Trav, you obviously missed the tongue in cheek undertone to my post to Smithy. Smithy always sarcastically reminds me of my weather vs whether dyslexia, and I could decide if I wanted that I am going to become offended by this but I don’t because I can take it when the joke or piss take is as my own expense, and i’ll return the compliment now and then. It’s not intended with any malice or negativity and to be honest, if I really did believe Smithy was deliberately not saying what his opinions are I’d just tell him that’s what I believe. I don’t really get either why you seem to suggest I am wrong for questioning Smithy’s knowledge on all things Zodiac as I never said anything to suggest his understanding of the case was anything, good bad or indifferent. didn’t. I know why I don’t know what a lot of Smithy’s views are without needing to be informed, its simply because I’ve not asked him, with the exception of a few specific details such as Lake B and questioning If Z was responsible. Don’t assume I am being literal & therefor insulting, Smithy knows that isn’t the intent.

I know. If I thought that I would have been shouting again lol. I was gently enforcing the ‘not-personal’ rule. For everyone’s benefit. I understood your intent WC but I don’t want other’s thinking it’s ok to circumvent certain expected standards just by wrapping it up in humour. Well done for not making it personal although I can’t attest to the reality that you didn’t actually take it that way. Not after expressing your warm feelings concerning children singing carols albeit wrapped in humou……ah, you get the picture lol.

… That bit never made a whole lot of sense to me either. If i’m a notorious and wanted serial killer who, should I make the slightest error in judgement, will result in a rendezvous with the Gas Chamber in San Quentin, I wouldn’t want to be all eager to let everyones, including the police who saw me themselves, that ‘I was the man they stopped to speak with on the street that night.’ All your doing is confirming that you are the offender that as spotted and/or possibly spoken with that night…

I said the same thing about the Kathleen Johns incident. "

Well the Presidio Heights encounter being revealed by Zodiac in Nov of 69 could be due to….

Zodiac was quiet in regards to the encounter issue, just silently waiting for the reports to hit the papers "Officers encounter suspect on Street". And he waited, waited a bit more, and then a big article with subject Zodiac finally appeared in the Chronicle but this time Zodiac had no power and control over what the words would say, nor did he write them. Someone else now spoke in this article that was all about him, The Zodiac. That someone was SFPD Chief Of Inspectors Martin Lee. Zodiac is the focus of the article, but cannot influence what is said and what citizens will read. The control has been taken away from Zodiac and his ‘features’ are now being written by the other team, and this player on the other team wastes no time telling San Francisco that in his opinion, "Zodiac is a liar, a clumsy criminal, and probably a latent homosexual." This must have hit a nerve with Z because he blasts back with his childish, immature opening of "I have become rather angry with the police for their telling lies about me so I shall no longer announce when I kill…" which is the childish way if declaring "I’m not playing anymore, your nasty!" One of these claims must have embarrassed Z or hit on something he didn’t like because he now seems to go out of his way to embarrass the SFPD by now revealing the ‘PS, Two cops pulled a goof’

Indirectly Zodiac’s own reaction to CChief Lee tells us that Lee had hit on something that Zodiac did not like to hear and seemed embarrassed enough to try and make the SFPD do the blushing by revealing what happened on Jackson.

Was Z’s own sexuality something he did not want to confront? Narcissistic personalities can always dish it out, but under no circumstances can the take it back at them. Here is how Psychologist Lynne Namka described the Narcissist and his personality:

"Needy narcissists love an audience and that’s your role. Some are charming, funny and the life of the party. Your function in their life is to listen to whatever they have to say for as long as they want to talk. Your job is to give them applause, admiration or reassurance. If you don’t, they might get anxious and fish for compliments.
Defensive narcissists can’t stand criticism and get their hackles up when corrected when they’ve done something wrong. They become angry to get you to stop calling them on their stuff. They cannot say "I’m sorry" or admit they are wrong. Their lack of true remorse shows that they did not understand or care how they have hurt you. Denial is the narcissist’s middle name-no, that’s wrong, it’s their first name but of course they deny it. The denial and lying functions so they will feel better in the moment. Ignoring or disagreeing with the criticism gets them out of a hot spot so they don’t have to take responsibility to change. They are very protective of their faults and weaknesses and try to hide them from others. To those who have their nardar turned on high, their defences are as plain as a glaring wart on their nose. Entitled narcissists demand special treatment. Other people’s rules don’t apply to them because deep down they think they are special. This distorted thinking can run from not buying a ticket to get into an event and then bragging about it to stealing the retirement funds of others. They believe they have the right to do whatever pleases them without personal cost."

I know. If I thought that I would have been shouting again lol. I was gently enforcing the ‘not-personal’ rule. For everyone’s benefit. I understood your intent WC but I don’t want other’s thinking it’s ok to circumvent certain expected standards just by wrapping it up in humour. Well done for not making it personal although I can’t attest to the reality that you didn’t actually take it that way. Not after expressing your warm feelings concerning children singing carols albeit wrapped in humou……ah, you get the picture lol.

Now Trav come on, that was funny and you know it

It was, I agree. Just standing on MY principles as it pertains to maintaining a forum.

I mean if we use all the eye witness testimony combined to draw up a description of Zodiac then we’d have something like the following:

Suspect description:

Age: Mid to Late Twenties, between 35 – 45.
Weight: Overweight, 210 – 250lbs with protruding stomach and described as Medium to heavy build, barrel chested, 170 – 210lbs.
Hair: Dark brown, curly with overhanging fringe and a blonde, reddish crew cut with widows peak.
Last seen: Having a chat with a few SFPD Officers 4 minutes after shooting victim in head.

He ought to be easy to pick out of a line up. So we got that going for us.

…

Back to the hair.
No, he didn’t wear a skin wig (that’s silly).
…

Since I brought up the notion of the wigs, I feel a need to insert a comment here.

The haircut alternative is, in my opinion, the simplest and most commonplace explanation, accounting very well for the essential facts. The alternatives are more farfetched, it seems certain.

That said, farfetched is not the same as silly. Silly suggests it was ridiculous to even entertain the notion in the first place. I would argue that the wig options, even though they are somewhat more farfetched, are perfectly feasible–though, I would say a crew cut wig would fit the facts better than a bald wig.

There are many possible variations on the Zodiac Killer and, unfortunately, we don’t know which variation best represents the true Z. But among those variations is a Z who fancies himself a man-of-a-thousand-disguises (among others) for whom elaborate disguises are very conceivable–and that includes a Z who might find wigs ideal tools in his disguise kit, so those are options that should be considered, even if only to be later evaluated as farfetched.

Consider this: there would be advantages to wearing a crew cut wig, assuming Z had pre-planned the murder: being seen at the scene of the crime becomes an advantage, since the disguise could potentially be discarded quickly and the police would be severely mislead by the witnesses.

My personal reasons for discounting the idea of the bald (or rather crew-cut) wig is twofold: if he were approached closely by police at PH, the wig disguise would have had to be perfect to avoid detection by the police, and, since I consider the KJ abduction a possible Z crime, he would have had to have passed very close inspection, since she had ample opportunity to see him.

That said, there are numerous counters to this reasoning. The first being that a good makeup artist could probably make the wig extremely hard to detect, especially by somebody not looking for it. The second being the power of misdirection: I have occasionally played with stage magic and am very conscious of how easy it is to fool people, even up close, and even when the truth should be obvious–and I am not even particularly good at magic. There are numerous other counters to my reasons for discounting the wigs theory, so I can hardly consider them silly.

In the end, I am inclined to give preference to the haircut theory because it is straightforward, requires no skill and seems to cover the explanations. But, having stated my preferences, I still allow for the alternatives.

Thanks,

G

I’ve read (and surely posted) plenty of sillier things. I do think we need to keep in mind that Z was actually much more visible at this crime than any other by far. He somehow got himself to Mason & Geary (by bus?), very possibly attended a play (HAIR is my bet…) or at least was standing on the corner to hail a cab on a busy Saturday night in downtown San Francisco before walking away from the Stine scene. Sure, he may have been anonymous up until the actual shooting of Stine but he was certainly visible to tons of people. A wig disguise (or any disguise) would need to be awfully convincing not to draw attention to himself, IMO.

I do think getting a haircut between 9/27 and 10/11 is the simplest, most likely explanation. To reiterate the basic premise of the thread, getting a haircut seems like no big deal but for me it begs the question of whether the Stine composite sketches are really representative of the way Z looked in everyday life. Would an uncostumed "Lake Berryessa sketch" look the same and would we all conceptualize Z in the same way if it represented hair hanging down over his forehead?

Apologies for answering your questions with a question Ent. Basically not answering your questions at all but reading your post just made me recall something I’ve pondered but may not have posted about. I’m sure someone else has but here it is anyway.

Yes, I agree, getting a hair cut seems the best option in the chronology of his reported appearance and less likely than a wig given the busy Sat night in SF as you outlined.

He may even have bleached his hair, even from black or dark brown. I have black hair and I can attest, due to youthful adventures, that bleaching black hair goes through some interesting phases. First it goes orange, then yellow, then nearly white. I wonder if that’s why Fouke made the comment about possible graying in the rear but it could have been the light. Implying that he thought there was a colour difference but he couldn’t be sure what the colour was. Makes sense that the back would be the discrepancy if you’re bleaching it yourself? Might also account for the reddish tinge, if indeed accurate.

Anyway, just speculating out loud.

The thing that confuses me is that he said "the rest of the time I look entirely different". IF that is true then how do you go back to that ‘rest of the time’ stage if you’ve cut your hair? I mean sure, you can just pass it off as a haircut , trying something new, but you now look like the Zodiac. How does that work?

Valid question for which I have no answer, trav. If you cut your hair as a disguise, you can’t just undo it after you’re done disguising yourself. I’m really not suggesting that Zodiac’s default was necessarily long hair. I just think Bryan’s and Cecilia’s (maybe) descriptions call into question Z’s everyday look. He may well have changed looks periodically in everyday life. Hair color could be a one-time only disguise. Who knows? The reason why the observation of something different through Z’s costume intrigues me is obviously that it was likely unintentional. He didn’t expect his victims to live much less give a description of what they saw without or through his costume.

I also don’t really know what to make of that statement in the Bus Bomb letter, a letter which is full of lies and subterfuge, IMHO. He’s essentially endorsing the composite sketch while making the case that it is useless because it’s not his regular appearance. Could be a lie to neutralize real evidence (like "those fingerprints really aren’t mine") or the truth which would only create confusion for investigators. I simply don’t trust anything he wrote at face value.