No I don’t trust him either but I guess I’m wondering, given the statement, lie or not, it couldn’t really extend to the hair could it? Even if he hadn’t made that statement. Having a haircut could be considered normal in everyday life but (and I’m contradicting myself here but then it was just speculation) but how could you explain suddenly having blonde hair if it’s normally, well, not blonde lol?
I don’t know, maybe SF in the late 60’s was different and no one would bat an eyelid depending on the everyday circles you moved in. I just think a blonde crew cut would be something that kinda hard to explain but a crew is just a haircut so maybe there’s a good chance that the blonde bit is the norm or nearly blonde.
As for LB. I always wonder that given the glance that they got of the hair, it’s still inside the hood, right? So where’s the light source coming from, and what is it passing through? Was it sunlight passing through the material of the hood and casting a brown hue? Was it passing through the sunglasses and having the same effect? Or did he have it darkened by some form of grease or dye because it makes sense to me that he would employ that on the off chance he was seen approaching the attack site by someone other than the victims or whilst in the area looking for victims. In that respect I can see no contradiction in his hair being altered. The hair being for witnesses and the hood being for the victims.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
I’m afraid we may be beating a dead horse because there are a million ways of changing one’s appearance and eyewitnesses can just be wrong for a multitude of reasons. To my knowledge, Hartnell doesn’t specify whether the hair was visible through or around the glasses, just that it was visible through the eyeholes of Z’s costume. He describes it as "brownish, you know, dark brown". Cecilia Shepard, according to Collins (take it for what it’s worth), says that she couldn’t identify the color of Z’s eyes because of his dark glasses but had no trouble describing his hair as brown. If you buy his input, the implication seems to be that the hair was probably outside of the glasses.
I asked her if she saw him clearly before he put the hood on?
She said "yes I did"
I said "What did he look like?"
And she said "well he had…
I said "What color was his hair?"
She said well "it was brown"
And what race was he?
"He was white"
And I said "what about his eyes, could you see, could you see the color of his eyes?"
And she said "No he had dark glasses on…underneath the hood"
But she said his hair wo…ehh…hung down across his forehead and was showing through the
eyeholes.
My controversial bet would be that the Lake Berryessa attacker, if it was the same guy in the Stine composite sketches, probably either had hair or a wig under his costume that actually appeared some shade of brown at the time of the attack, whether this was caused by genetics, hair dye, wig preference or optical illusion.
My controversial bet would be that the Lake Berryessa attacker, if it was the same guy in the Stine composite sketches, probably either had hair or a wig under his costume that actually appeared some shade of brown at the time of the attack, whether this was caused by genetics, hair dye, wig preference or optical illusion.
I have no problem with that.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
Trav – I’m getting so old blind that I can’t see my own posts. Amazing! 
Thanks for supporting the old guy.
WC – That’s your fault, for not replying. <insert your favourite smiley here>
My opinions are everywhere, sadly. They contradict yours some of the time (it’s hearsay! It is I tell you!) – sometimes we agree. I also think I’m getting "more curt" over time, yes, since yes, some of these circles I’ve been around before. Sorry!
If you need a pigeon-hole to put me in (I’ll put you down as a "Kane fan" shall I?) then choose "Hal Snook wrote the letters and there were multiple perps". That will do for me. Trouble is with that opinion, it tends to rule out any interest in many of the threads, if you hold to it. Most of them. So I don’t. 
Clear as mud? 
Whatever my personal opinion on "trying to solve this case" though, I certainly have to say that my common sense tells me (other peoples common sense may differ) that:
1) Blond ain’t brown. When you use the word blond you mean blond. That’s why there’s a word blond. When you say table you mean table. Likewise, chair.
2) No, he didn’t wear a skin wig. That’s a silly idea. If you said that G., sorry, that’s silly. A "crew-cut" wig is proportionally less silly. OK. Still silly.
3) No, he didn’t wear a hood with a wig UNDERNEATH it just in case. Silly! He wasn’t likely to be blacked-up under there either, or wearing colored contacts.
4) Collins was building up his role in his interview, almost as much as Ranger White ("Stab me first..") was, back in the day. He and Fouke both smelled the greaspaint when the Fincher circus rolled into town, I would suggest. Likewise Pellisetti, Mike "We were going to get married" Mageau and several others in the Director’s-cut interviews. The contemporary reports and statements are contradictory and baffling enough without bringing some of THAT stuff in…..
1 I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of
the time I look entirle different. I shall not tell you what my descise
consists of when I kill
…
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?
…
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?
The heart of our concern seems not so much to be about reconciling what we know about his looks with the confirmable facts, as much as it is about reconciling the confirmed facts with Z’s claims to be in disguise.
Our problem is one of tension between three principles that apply to building theories about the Zodiac Killer:
1) Occam’s Razor, or the virtue of explaining matters with the simplest theory,
2) Miller’s Law, a principle of communication that says we should explore interpretations that suggest a person is speaking the truth before jumping to the conclusion they are wrong or lying, and
3) a principle of strategic paradox that reminds us that a competent adversary will tend to pursue unexpected courses of action that cause the farfetched to become probable.
Most of us (I think) accept that we cannot be certain how accurate the most well known sketches and descriptions of Z are. But if Z’s claims about using a disguise are true, it raises the specter that the information we rely on the most for his description could be downright misleading: if that is true, he scored a victory. So the question we need to ask ourselves is how plausible are his claims to being in disguise?
Personally, one reason I am interested in Z’s claim that he was in disguise is that it would make sense of some of his behavior at PH and during the KJ abduction (if it was a Z-crime). If he was well disguised, it would make great sense to allow himself to be seen. The subsequent descriptions would be extremely misleading. It would also explain why Z let KJ get away so easily: she would help confirm this misleading description. It would require, however, that the disguise works very well up close
If we stick with our haircut hypothesis, which seems to be the best explanation from the Occam’s Razor perspective, is there a way, á la Miller’s Law, that we can still imagine Z using a (hair-centric, for lack of a better word) disguise?
In other words, if all Z did was get a haircut before PH, under what conditions could Z’s claim be true that, "I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing, the rest of the time I look entirle different"[i]?.
Z’s claim would be true if:
1) His hair appeared significantly longer most of the time,
2) He normally wore a hat or other covering
3) He was referring to some other form of disguise altogether, or
4) Some combination of the above.
Since we are talking about hair, I will focus on item 1) above. In that case, I see the following sub-options:
i) He was allowing that it would take a significant time for his hair to grow back
ii) He wears a longer haired wig in his normal day-to-day life.
In case i), we could allow that he might wear a hat or a wig while waiting for his hair to grow back. One problem with this possibility, however, is the KJ abduction (if we consider it a likely Zodiac attack), since his hair was still short. It wouldn’t seem that he was growing it back: given the time frame of several months, it would seem more likely he got another haircut. For option 1i to be correct, he would have to be operating on a very long timeline.
That leaves option 2) which supposes he would wear a wig during his normal day-to-day life. I think most people would discount that on the grounds that it seems too farfetched.
If so, they may be right. But it should be borne in mind that many men wear toupees, although, those are usually balding men. Still, there is no reason that a man with hair could not wear one.
(Just as an aside, I have a humorous memory of a local cop who wore a long hair wig in the late sixties or early 70’s as part of his ‘undercover’ disguise hanging around young people. I am not sure that anybody was fooled–besides himself, that is.)
[Personally, I would have doubts about the wig idea, except to note that it would be consistent with an idea I have been tossing around for awhile that Z might have been transgendered in some way. If he did live his life as female, at least part of the time, as might be the case if he were undergoing a sex change, he would almost certainly have worn a wig, especially before the transition was complete (and, I suspect, would have kept his real hair short as full-time wig wearers often do). In that case, he would likely also have been acquiring some skills in makeup and altering facial appearances that would qualify as disguise.]
In the end, I can allow the possibility that Z used hair length as part of his disguise, but when I follow out the paths that seem most reasonable to me, it doesn’t seem compellingly likely. By the same token, it is really not disproved. The wig possibility does happen to be consistent with my notion that Z might have been a transgendered person, but as that is still an outlier theory, I can’t add it to the ‘compelling’ side of the balance sheet at this time.
Finally, I think if we are to take the disguise claim seriously, it might be more useful to question what other forms–beyond differences in hair length–it might have taken.
Thanks,
G
The hair from BRS to LB is what concerns me. He would have HAD to be wearing a wig at LB. It’s just that, I too, find far-fetched. The only explanation would be that he WANTED to be seen by some that day…the three girls for example, and wanted them to describe his looks. If that is the case, and it was Zodiac, it must have been a wig.
Or a different person altogether.
This article came out on October 1, 1969. I wonder why Zodiac didn’t offer what was "held back" (by knife) until over a year later? He could have easily proven he was the person who did this at the time. And why no rebuttal to his looks with this case?
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
I don’t think it so far-fetched that his hair could’ve grown out between July 4 and September 27.
I don’t think it so far-fetched that his hair could’ve grown out between July 4 and September 27.
I tried to find a reference to how fast hair can grow. (I no longer remember.) according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_growth ) and several other sources I found, an average rate would be about 0.5 inches per month or 6 inches per year.
There was an article or two that suggested that Aisian hair grows faster than Caucasian or African hair, but from what I could tell wasn’t radically faster.
The fastest rate of growth I heard of was a claim by the famous Arylkin, of the Long Hair Community ( http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/sho … 717&page=4) who said her hair grows at a rate of 1 inch per month in the summer and 2 to 3 inches per month in the winter. As you can see from the link, however, Arylkin is a freak with long beautiful tresses covering her entire face, so we probably can’t consider her a model for the Zodiac Killer.
So, eliminating Arylkin from the equation, it sounds to me like Z, assuming him to be average in this respect, would have experienced in the general vicinity of 1.5 inches of hair growth between the Blue Rock Springs and Lake Berryessa murders.
[Also, for the record, I also looked for info on the effects of the hormones used in gender transition on hair growth. There were a few articles, but I didn’t spot anything that gave clear stats on whether the rate of growth was affected. Hmmm, it’s slightly off-topic, but I wonder if I would be right to suppose that hormone treatments might also affect body weight significantly? A thought to follow up on later, I suppose.]
Thanks,
G
I was just looking at the famous Unabomber composite, the one with the mirrored aviator glasses and hoodie. What struck me was that the artist has drawn hair coming down across Ted’s forehead and it looks curly. This is in contrast to most pictures of Ted’s hair which is normally sticking up and definitely pretty straight. I am not sure if TK wore a wig but the parallels with the Berryessa/Stine differences are obvious. Whether by the use of a wig or simple mistake, noticeable hair differences when it comes to descriptions and real life are common and inevitable.
Check out my website: www.darkideas.net
I was just looking at the famous Unabomber composite, the one with the mirrored aviator glasses and hoodie. What struck me was that the artist has drawn hair coming down across Ted’s forehead and it looks curly. This is in contrast to most pictures of Ted’s hair which is normally sticking up and definitely pretty straight. I am not sure if TK wore a wig the parallels with the Berryessa/Stine differences are obvious. Whether by the use of a wig or simple mistake, noticeable hair differences when it comes to descriptions and real life are common and inevitable.
Yes..it could have looked curly to Mike M. when in fact maybe it was just messy, but it’s the "almost blond" too have a concern with.
Zodiac has it all covered so everyone’s POI’s fit. Blond, brown, black, and "possibly graying". 
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
I was just looking at the famous Unabomber composite, the one with the mirrored aviator glasses and hoodie. What struck me was that the artist has drawn hair coming down across Ted’s forehead and it looks curly. This is in contrast to most pictures of Ted’s hair which is normally sticking up and definitely pretty straight. I am not sure if TK wore a wig the parallels with the Berryessa/Stine differences are obvious. Whether by the use of a wig or simple mistake, noticeable hair differences when it comes to descriptions and real life are common and inevitable.
Yes..it could have looked curly to Mike M. when in fact maybe it was just messy, but it’s the "almost blond" too have a concern with.
Zodiac has it all covered so everyone’s POI’s fit. Blond, brown, black, and "possibly graying".
Don’t forget the ‘red tint’ also T 
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
^^Ah, yes..cannot forget the red tint!
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
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
…
As I was ready another thread, something made me realize there was an variation that got overlooked: Z might have been bald to begin with and all reports of him with hair were wigs.
BTW, i realize it is a replay of the wig themes, but I don’t think we considered the possibility that he was bald in his daily (undisguised) life. Also, I intuitively consider this to be very farfetched, but at least feasible, so it belongs in this list, even if only to be discounted. (Plus, intuitions are helpful when they tell us to consider things we might not normally pay attention to; they are often misguided when they convince us we can ignore possibilities.)
My revised list would be:
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 crew-cut wig, or something similar at PH
5) Z wore a greasywig under the mask at LB
6) Z was bald normally and wore different wigs during his crimes.
BTW, If you happen to pick up on the fact that I have subtly, almost imperceptably, altered the bald wig option to a crew cut wig, please do not draw attention to the change as I am hoping it will escape everybody’s attention. Most of all Smithy’s.
The wig options remain at the bottom, signifying that I consider them all rather farfetched, though within the realm of possibility.
G
As I look over the list again, I am struck by sense that the first three alternatives are the most believable to me:
…
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
…
Of these, number 2 deserves special mention. In my opinion, it is actually the most certain of all, we just don’t know how well it applies to hair length reports.
Any witness, even the most credible and confident, can be wildly mistaken. Research is proving that again and again.
[Aside: I have a strong sense of how easy it is for an honest witness to be quite wrong as I once had an experience where I provided what was likely a very mistaken description of a man minutes after having a face-to-face confrontation where we spoke, then he pulled a knife and threatened me. I suspect I was wrong because my description was very different from another person who dealt with him for a longer period. Since then I have considered myself to be a terrible witness.]
Even so, I would not bet against a credible witness without strong evidence to the contrary. But, on probabilities, I would say that when there are multiple witnesses involved and some have very little opportunity to get a clear view of the perpetrator, it becomes increasingly likely that at least some of the witnesses are going to be mistaken.
In the end, I think the descriptions are not highly valuable as guides to what Z looked like. I am inclined to believe the PH spotting, and (arguably) the KJ confirmation, to be the most likely description as to how Z looked at the time, but that still begs the question whether he was disguised in some way. Even if we allow that the PH/KJ description were accurate, I don’t think it advances the case much, since every second guy and his sister looks like the sketch.
Regards,
G
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
…
More than one killer? But what about the letters…..?
