If one wants to believe "north bay" meant his Lake Berryessa attack…why do all we get is "I’m also the man who did in the people in the north bay". Period. That’s it.

Something I noticed and have always wondered about. In this newspaper column about the Stine murder it talks about a letter sent by Zodiac. Here’s how the part that is pertinent to this conversation reads…

After claiming to have murdered Stine, the letter writer went on to claim responsibility for the killings "of the people in the north Napa and Vallejo areas in Bay area".

The part I bolded and underlined is in quotation marks in the newspaper column, like it is directly from the letter. But we know the letter doesn’t say that. At least not the letter we know about. Most likely the reporter writing from memory jotted it down wrong, the story says it was a letter sent Oct 13 to the Chronicle, so unless he sent two letters or there was more to the one we have seen, it was a mistake by the reporter. I’ve just always found it odd. The letter and what it says is printed right above the column.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/PSNA2.html

If we are talking about his canonical crimes, he never actually basked in the glory of any. The LHR and BRS crimes, he only said he was the murderer and gave details about the ammo, clothing and their position. The August 4th 1969 letter only existed because Vallejo cop Jack Stiltz asked the writer for more details to prove he was the killer. The ‘Debut of Zodiac’ letter would not have existed but for Jack Stiltz. The October 13th 1969 Stine letter never bragged or basked in the glory of the murder, just admitted he was the killer. The ‘Bus Bomb’ letter never basked in the glory of the murder, it was mailed in direct response to Chief Martin Lee, who argued Zodiac wasn’t in the park. Zodiac’s ire was only directed towards the police, who he roundly mocked, but never gloated on the crime itself.
Zodiac had no reason to elaborate on the stabbings at Berryessa, because not only did Bryan Hartnell recall a comprehensive account of every little detail by the lake, giving Zodiac all the publicity he could ever have wished for, but because Zodiac had never basked in the glory of any crimes to date. He provided ‘facts’ about LHR and BRS and nothing more. He wouldn’t even have written the August 4th letter if not prompted. By the time September 27th 1969 came along, he had actually only written the July 31st 1969 letters by choice. He didn’t write for 7 months after LHR – then wrote three letters together on July 31st – then nothing until October 13th. Therefore, why is it so unusual he didn’t write immediately after Lake Berryessa.

I didn’t mean glory in the typical sense, but he obviously wanted attention and certainly enjoyed writing about what he did and offering proof and detail of his crimes. Whether to the police, or with his demands to the show the public. He sought recognition.

I don’t find it odd there was no immediate letter, I find it odd we get nothing in any letter except a vague remark that may be construed to mean something else. No snarky remarks about how he got away with it, etc.

Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

Could be. I don’t presume to know how or why guys like that do the things they do. He didn’t seem to think the BRS phone call was enough and continued on with letters…three of them, to different papers. His freakiest crime of all is sort of swept under-the-rug. I question it, that’s all…certainly no understanding the mind of someone like this.

Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

I don’t presume to know how or why guys like that do the things they do.

Neither do I, that’s why I said maybe. Just offering up possibilities.

Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

I don’t presume to know how or why guys like that do the things they do.

Neither do I, that’s why I said maybe. Just offering up possibilities.

Lots of those with this case.

Lots of those with this case.

We could all be right.

Lots of those with this case.

We could all be right.

We could all be wrong.

Lots of those with this case.

We could all be right.

We could all be wrong.

LOL, well, there’s that possibility too.

When was the "by knife" section on the car door first released to the public.

When was the "by knife" section on the car door first released to the public.

I haven’t been able to determine when "by knife" was made public but newspaper articles about Zodiac throughout 1970 that I have read do not share the detail. It’s quite possible Graysmith was the first to discuss this. One article from 1970 stated regarding the Halloween Card said that police had a definite way of determining that it was authentic but of course did not reveal what that was. On the MK Zodiac site http://mk-zodiac.com/Communication12-16-69Report.html they point out that the first book containing Zodiac information "The California Crime Book" by Robert Colby was published in September of 1971 and did not contain the withheld information. I have not found anything that indicates that the information had been revealed before the October 1970 Halloween card. It is a great question!

[I’m the man who did it]…almost in passing.

If the above does NOT refer to LB … and therefore Z did NOT mention LB in a letter then I have a question….

If LB was NOT Z … would he have at least pointed THAT out in a letter?? I have no answer … just thinking out loud. I wonder if Z would have called that LB fake Z attack out in a letter if it wasn’t, in fact, the real Z.

When was the "by knife" section on the car door first released to the public.

I haven’t been able to determine when "by knife" was made public but newspaper articles about Zodiac throughout 1970 that I have read do not share the detail. It’s quite possible Graysmith was the first to discuss this. One article from 1970 stated regarding the Halloween Card said that police had a definite way of determining that it was authentic but of course did not reveal what that was. On the MK Zodiac site http://mk-zodiac.com/Communication12-16-69Report.html they point out that the first book containing Zodiac information "The California Crime Book" by Robert Colby was published in September of 1971 and did not contain the withheld information. I have not found anything that indicates that the information had been revealed before the October 1970 Halloween card. It is a great question!

The reason I ask, is not to prove the author of the Halloween card is Zodiac or not. But primarily for Tahoe- that imagine the author of the Halloween card was a copycat, then if the "by knife" wasn’t made public by October 27th 1970, it would mean this copycat was likely the Berryessa attacker and had interjected himself into the Zodiac story one year later. The other possibility is that Zodiac was a policeman or investigator with inside knowledge, or a hoaxer with inside knowledge passing himself off as Zodiac.

[I’m the man who did it]…almost in passing.

If the above does NOT refer to LB … and therefore Z did NOT mention LB in a letter then I have a question….

If LB was NOT Z … would he have at least pointed THAT out in a letter?? I have no answer … just thinking out loud. I wonder if Z would have called that LB fake Z attack out in a letter if it wasn’t, in fact, the real Z.

I don’t think so. It would be to his benefit, actually. It brings more terror and more for law enforcement to look at which would actually take away from his crimes. If someone else is eventually caught, well, he never actually took credit for it. Which could be why that statement was so vague.