I find the sketch so dissimilar that I lean towards it just being a coincidence, but it is extremely bothersome that he seemed to have similar attire to the attacker.

If I had to guess I would say that it’s just a really bad sketch that doesn’t represent him well and that various things (sweat from the hood?) led witnesses to get the description wrong in key ways. No easy answer.

There were a lot more similarities than attire though.

I can pick many statements by the three girls, Bryan and the Dr. & his son and match them up…sometimes almost word for word.

I’m reasonably ambivalent about whether or not it was him. Or confused. Hard to tell.

I do think it is very interesting to consider that it was Zodiac. For one thing it give us another layer of behavior(s) to factor into his other crimes. In that respect I think there are parallels that could be attributed and in some ways might explain witness statements regarding other vehicles at LHR for example. ie it’s possible that he didn’t commit all his crimes in a blitz style – get in, get out. Maybe he did ‘stalk’ some albeit in a loose, adhoc, opportunistic fashion.

It might even explain why the change of hair color at PH or add credence to the possibility that it was changed. It’s weird. There’s something about it that makes sense, in a confusing way. Maybe that’s why? It’s confusing ergo it ‘feels’ comfortable in the context of this case. lol.

What I don’t understand though is given his ‘normal’ MO of concealment/diguise how does this ‘episode’ fit? An MO that he employed that day. If this was him what is this blatant departure all about? I mean effectively the suggestion here is that all he had to do was toddle off along the coast, don a hood, sunglasses and ‘tool’ belt and he’s good to go. It’s this conflict of what seems to have been a mainstay aspect if his MO that bothers me. If he’d even been wearing dissimilar clothes I could handle it a bit easier.

Can we reconcile this? Maybe. Maybe he was going to kill those girls. Maybe this wasn’t the only time he allows himself to be observed at length and not follow through with an attack. Maybe Kathleen Johns was right.

And then we have this…again, this individual the Dr. & his son saw was described in the same way.

– Dr. & his son

– The three girls

It would seem he did not want direct face to face contact. He "turned around/looked away".

The ‘Son’ in this report, is actually a Doctor(or Dentist now,I forget which)and lives somewhat close to me in NJ. I reached out to him, but never got a response

The problem with our friend, Mr Creepy, is precisely that he was creepy: He was perving on those girls. Which means that him being somewhat evasive is perfectly in line with what he was doing. Even the fact that he has never surfaced is in line with this – he might have had very good reasons for staying below radar even if he wasn’t a homicidal maniac.

Attire? Well, that pretty much comes down the leg sweaters, as trav would say. Beyond that, what do we have? Dark clothes? That’s not even tenuous – we’re talking about completely different garments. Mr Creepy wore a short sleeve number of some description – whereas the man who attacked BH and CD wore a jacket. That’s a discrepancy more than a similarity. We don’t know what he had on underneath his windbreaker, do we?

White t-shirt could be white clothesline around his waist? Yes, it could. But it could be just a t-shirt too. Does Hartnell ever indicate that the assailant had clothesline around his waist?

The doctor/son guy? He could be the assailant – sure. He could even be Mr Creepy. It doesn’t mean they’re all one and the same guy. It comes down to whether one finds it beyond coincidence that two – not three – different individuals, who both wore dark pants and who both acted in a generally suspect manner (but wildly different in terms of the actions they took), happened to be in the same general area within roughly the same time frame (but hours apart, actually, if we’re talking about Mr Creepy and Z/the assailant).

I’m in the “hooded maniac was Z” camp. That means that if I conclude that Mr Creepy was the hooded maniac I have to conclude that Mr Creepy was Z. And there are several implications following from this which I’m extremely uncomfortable with.

Z carelessly allowed himself to be observed by three witnesses. If Mr Creepy was Z we have a description of him which is better and more detailed than any other in the case. He carelessly allowed them an excellent view of his car too, almost down to the license plate number (they observed it was California plates). This is incredibly risky behavior on the part of Z. Did he plan on attacking them, and thus leave no witnesses? Why did it take him 45 minutes to reach the rather obvious conclusion that these girls weren’t ideal targets – at all? Did he simply not care that three people had his description down to the shape of his eyebrows? Was he THAT reckless?

If it was Z, then we know that he drove a light blue Chevrolet (most likely a 1967 or 1968 model, most likely a two-door model) at LB. I’ve asked this before, but here it goes again: Is it possible to compare the figures in the police reports (the tire tracks, the distance between the wheels/arches) to known specs (pertaining to late model Chevrolets as per 1969)?

Might also consider the fact that Z’s tires were mismatched. Mr Creepy’s car was new, in good shape (conservative, as per the witnesses). Discrepancy?

Z carelessly allowed himself to be observed by three witnesses. If Mr Creepy was Z we have a description of him which is better and more detailed than any other in the case. He carelessly allowed them an excellent view of his car too, almost down to the license plate number (they observed it was California plates).

The Zodiac Killer left no witnesses at Lake Herman Road, Michael Mageau only saw his face side on, near midnight , under the glare of a flashlight and fear of a gun. I’d be surprised if he saw anything concrete, he made sure Paul Stine recounted nothing, unaware of the chance sighting of the teenagers and at Lake Berryessa he wandered around aimlessly, fresh faced, for 45+ minutes, with clothesline or a white shirt hanging out, smoking cigarettes. I very much doubt it. The real Zodiac Killer yet again concealed his identity with a hood and tunic. It was lighter and he took no risks in being identified. The two incidents at Lake Berryessa have all the hallmarks of happenstance, nothing more. Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard were attacked in the twilight hours, when most people had packed up for the day, on the other hand the mystery man was wandering around looking shifty, ogling women and getting a sun tan. These actions would make the idea of stitching up your own hood and tunic with a sewing machine all afternoon look ludicrous, if all you were gonna do was wander around aimlessly without it. The fly in the ointment here is the three teenagers at the Presidio. Without this we would have nothing.

Person A- exits his car at dusk, scuttles behind a tree, attacks with costume, anybody spots him he has a gun.
Person B- wanders aimlessly around at height of the day, wobbles his rope around, or looks scruffy, gets a suntan, smokes all afternoon, gawps like a pervert, shifty.
A+B does not equal Z.

Norse wrote:
If it was Z, then we know that he drove a light blue Chevrolet (most likely a 1967 or 1968 model, most likely a two-door model) at LB. I’ve asked this before, but here it goes again: Is it possible to compare the figures in the police reports (the tire tracks, the distance between the wheels/arches) to known specs (pertaining to late model Chevrolets as per 1969)?

The girls reported the car they saw was a 66 or 67 ice blue, two door, Chevrolet sedan. If you take the data gathered by police of the tire prints of the vehicle parked behind Hartnell’s car, you come up with a track width of approximately 57". (Track width being the distance between centerlines of the front tires). [This dimension takes into account the two mismatched tire widths, one at 4.5" the other at 5.5" ]

The only possible 66 or 67 Chevy with this track width is the Chevy II (Nova). It has a track width of 56.8".
Next closest is the Chevelle at 58". The Impala, which is often mentioned, is much wider at 62.8"

Norse wrote:
If it was Z, then we know that he drove a light blue Chevrolet (most likely a 1967 or 1968 model, most likely a two-door model) at LB. I’ve asked this before, but here it goes again: Is it possible to compare the figures in the police reports (the tire tracks, the distance between the wheels/arches) to known specs (pertaining to late model Chevrolets as per 1969)?

The girls reported the car they saw was a 66 or 67 ice blue, two door, Chevrolet sedan. If you take the data gathered by police of the tire prints of the vehicle parked behind Hartnell’s car, you come up with a track width of approximately 57". (Track width being the distance between centerlines of the front tires). [This dimension takes into account the two mismatched tire widths, one at 4.5" the other at 5.5" ]

The only possible 66 or 67 Chevy with this track width is the Chevy II (Nova). It has a track width of 56.8".
Next closest is the Chevelle at 58". The Impala, which is often mentioned, is much wider at 62.8"

Excellent info – thanks!

Where is the proof that was their attackers car parked 20 feet behind Bryan’s?

There is zero proof. Not even footprints to the 2nd car. How unfortunate to dismiss other possibilities based off of tracks that may not even be relevant.

The ONLY purpose for those photos, measurements, etc. would be for future reference IF they found the guy–they could place him at the scene.

I have a feeling those tire tracks are what dissuade many from thinking that guy the girls saw could be Zodiac. It didn’t seem to change LE’s minds.

I’m afraid you lost me there. Are you saying it’s unreasonable to assume those tracks were made by the assailant’s vehicle?

Meaning what, exactly? That the assailant didn’t have a car? Or that he parked somewhere else, in spite of this being quite clearly somewhat impracticable given that he intended to “sign” his work on BH’s car? Or that he managed to park close to BH’s car without leaving any tracks?

I’m afraid you lost me there. Are you saying it’s unreasonable to assume those tracks were made by the assailant’s vehicle?

Meaning what, exactly? That the assailant didn’t have a car? Or that he parked somewhere else, in spite of this being quite clearly somewhat impracticable given that he intended to “sign” his work on BH’s car? Or that he managed to park close to BH’s car without leaving any tracks?

No, I am saying it would be wrong to assume they are and therefore, eliminate anyone because of it. LE would never do that.

Doing what they did was the right thing to do IN CASE it ended up being the guy’s tire tracks (had they found him)….they could prove he was there, but to dismiss any other suspects based off the ASSUMPTION those were the guys tire tracks would simply be careless.

I think he parked somewhere else. There are no footprints from the trail to the tire tracks or from Bryan’s car to the tire tracks. Wouldn’t parking his car next to his victims’ be risky too?

Tahoe, your exactly on point here. No proof what so ever that the tracks were the killers car. Those tracks could have been left by anyone. My point was that most people seem to mention a Chevy Impala as being seen around different scenes relating to Z. (LB and someone seen talking to Darlene in a restaurant parking lot).

I think the measurements, if correct, rule out an Impala as making the tracks. I agree, who the hell would park behind their victims car?

I doubt that the man the girls saw was Z or the killer.
That man knew the girls had a good look at him on two occasions. Mighty risky to be killing folks when you’ve been seen at the location.

I doubt that the man the girls saw was Z or the killer.
That man knew the girls had a good look at him on two occasions…

Did he know?

Did he know they paid attention to his car? He was still in it when they left for the beach. Did he know they noticed him watching from the trees above? When he came down to them, he would look away…did he know they saw his features? Is it risky if he didn’t normally look the way he did at LB that day?

Sometimes people think they are being quite clever and sneaky, when if fact they are not.

We all know Zodiac was never described with dark brown, "combed" hair, so would it matter? Could be the exact reason he wanted to be seen. **THAT guy couldn’t have been him…he looked different from Zodiac**. Nin mentioned something along these lines too.

Just thoughts…

Didn’t the girls state that he backed up to their bumper and just sat there with his head down like he was reading or looking for something? I sure would notice someone backing up to my car.
Didn’t the girls also say that when they were sunbathing and looked at the guy, he turned his head?
Not saying anybody saw the Zodiac killer but simply that it appears that a man followed 3 girls from St. Helena to the LB area.

Just to add some responses to Norse – my replies in blue:

The problem with our friend, Mr Creepy, is precisely that he was creepy: He was perving on those girls. Which means that him being somewhat evasive is perfectly in line with what he was doing. Even the fact that he has never surfaced is in line with this – he might have had very good reasons for staying below radar even if he wasn’t a homicidal maniac.

If Zodiac wasn’t creepy, I don’t know what is! lol

One girl mentions they got there at about 3:30. They saw him a half hour later (4:00) and he hung around above for about 45 minutes (4:45). Take into account time he may have sat in his car, time spent (possibly) looking for other victims, and now consider how long it took to walk to Bryan and Cecelia and the time he spent with them and the time it took to walk back. And do we take at face value it was 6:30 on the nose as was written on the car door? Zodiac surely was perving on Bryan and Cecelia–in whatever creepy way he was doing it. Wouldn’t he have watched them too from above–scoping them out?

Attire? Well, that pretty much comes down the leg sweaters, as trav would say. Beyond that, what do we have? Dark clothes? That’s not even tenuous – we’re talking about completely different garments. Mr Creepy wore a short sleeve number of some description – whereas the man who attacked BH and CD wore a jacket. That’s a discrepancy more than a similarity. We don’t know what he had on underneath his windbreaker, do we?

White t-shirt could be white clothesline around his waist? Yes, it could. But it could be just a t-shirt too. Does Hartnell ever indicate that the assailant had clothesline around his waist?

No, Hartnell states "rear" and one of the girls state "back"

"white belt around his back", but it possibly was a t-shirt hanging out. (I believe this was the clothesline)

via Bryan:

We certainly don’t know what was on underneath his jacket. He could have been bare under there for all we know, but taking into consideration everything else, I personally believe the clothes were very similar. Either way, it would seem both guys layered up, which doesn’t make them the same guy, but it is curious and a day when everyone else is enjoying a nice, sunny day at the lake. Wearing dark pleated trousers as both describe, and sweaters and jackets with t-shirts and/or white belts is odd.

The doctor/son guy? He could be the assailant – sure. He could even be Mr Creepy. It doesn’t mean they’re all one and the same guy. It comes down to whether one finds it beyond coincidence that two – not three – different individuals, who both wore dark pants and who both acted in a generally suspect manner (but wildly different in terms of the actions they took), happened to be in the same general area within roughly the same time frame (but hours apart, actually, if we’re talking about Mr Creepy and Z/the assailant).

I don’t think the actions taken were all that different aside of the attack…as obviously he didn’t attack them all. We have a man dressed the same, looked the same and casing the scene. With the girls, he walked down closer, in the same manner as Bryan and Cecelia. We have a man who was walking the area on the trails between the road and the lake..

I’m in the “hooded maniac was Z” camp. That means that if I conclude that Mr Creepy was the hooded maniac I have to conclude that Mr Creepy was Z. And there are several implications following from this which I’m extremely uncomfortable with.

Most know my stance, but to me whether or not the guy was Zodiac doesn’t affect my opinion. If the guy was or wasn’t Zodiac, to me the guy the girls saw, the doc and his son saw and who attacked Bryan and Cecelia are the same man.

Z carelessly allowed himself to be observed by three witnesses. If Mr Creepy was Z we have a description of him which is better and more detailed than any other in the case. He carelessly allowed them an excellent view of his car too, almost down to the license plate number (they observed it was California plates). This is incredibly risky behavior on the part of Z. Did he plan on attacking them, and thus leave no witnesses? Why did it take him 45 minutes to reach the rather obvious conclusion that these girls weren’t ideal targets – at all? Did he simply not care that three people had his description down to the shape of his eyebrows? Was he THAT reckless?

Could be he wasn’t concerned. No matter what he WAS seen that day unless he drove around with his hood on. People think he was brazen enough to park 20′ behind Bryan’s car while he attacked them. What if someone else decided to pull in? I doubt he thought the girls wrote down his license plate number for no reason. He might not have cared that they got his general description…he didn’t look like that in SF. He would turn away, not wave or say "hi"…so he didn’t want to have direct contact…for whatever reason.

If it was Z, then we know that he drove a light blue Chevrolet (most likely a 1967 or 1968 model, most likely a two-door model) at LB. I’ve asked this before, but here it goes again: Is it possible to compare the figures in the police reports (the tire tracks, the distance between the wheels/arches) to known specs (pertaining to late model Chevrolets as per 1969)?

Might also consider the fact that Z’s tires were mismatched. Mr Creepy’s car was new, in good shape (conservative, as per the witnesses). Discrepancy?

As I stated in my reply prior: I don’t believe any law enforcement officer would eliminate a suspect on the basis of that car’s tracks. It would be to prove the suspect at the location IF that were his vehicle.

Alright, clothesline in back pocket. How similar is that to a “belt” or possibly a t-shirt sticking out at the back? You see something white sticking out of someone’s back pocket – do you mistake that for a belt? Or a t-shirt? I don’t know about that.

Doc/son guy. He’s part of the equation here, of course, but he does not make it any more likely that Mr Creepy was the assailant. Consider the different circumstances: The doc/son guy is observed by accident, from his point of view. Mr Creepy voluntarily puts himself on display. The locations are very different too. Mr Creepy appears out in the open, following the girls to a natural recreation spot (right below a parking area). The doc/son guy appears in the woods, so to speak, at a spot where he might conceivably have thought nobody would see him. His behavior is far more in line with that of the assailant – much less in line with Mr Creepy’s.

Behavior. This is where it – actually – becomes not only relevant but pretty much crucial whether one thinks the assailant was Z or not. My own reluctance to accept Mr Creepy as the assailant has very much to do with the fact that I think the latter was Z. We know something about Z’s behavior at other crime scenes, we expect his behavior at LB to jibe – more or less – with this. And for me it simply does not.

If one thinks the assailant wasn’t Z, the above obviously becomes entirely irrelevant.

The car? I don’t put an enormous amount of stock in those tracks and I’m not saying they prove anything. But I think it’s likely that Z parked close to BH’s car, because the idea of signing that door was something he came up with prior to attacking them (that’s my take on it). Besides, we have those tracks – they can be compared to possible models Mr Creepy may have driven. It’s not a pointless comparison even if it doesn’t actually prove anything.

Lastly, my “Mr Creepy was creepy” point is very simple: He was engaging in a bit of voyeurism, perving on girls sunbathing. Whoever he was, he wasn’t a perfectly innocent guy minding his own business – and as such his evasiveness and what the girls perceived as, well, creepy about him, make sense: It’s what you’d expect from a guy doing precisely what he did. It isn’t indicative of anything beyond him being a bit of a voyeur/creep, though. Not in itself. The fact that these girls observed the creep hours before a soon-to-be infamous murder paints him in a certain light – but in itself, the incident is commonplace.