I don’t think we can infer all that much from the fact that he made the call from that particular location, to be honest. It was very likely on the way, though – I certainly agree with that. But precisely where he was headed – impossible to say. Could have been five minutes out of town, could have been Vallejo, could have been San Francisco for that matter. For me, LB is a clear outlier in more than one way: As a popular and well known recreation area, it would have been known to people all over the general (and pretty wide at that) area. Very much unlike LHR and BRS in that regard – a natural place to go for him, you could say, given his particular "interests", almost regardless of where he resided – as long as the latter was within said general area.

That said, the possible gap in the possible time line (possible being the key term), lends itself to a different kind of speculation: He could have stopped somewhere prior to making the call. A pit stop on the way from his parked location (wherever that actually was – but we can surmise that it couldn’t have been miles away from the crime scene) to the phone booth.

Now, I would stress that in my opinon the time line is the only real reason why one would want to consider this possibility: In general I don’t see him heading somewhere to take a shower and change clothes as being necessary at all given the circumstances. He could have easily stashed all his (bloody) gear in the trunk and just driven off. His clothes on the day would have reflected the grisly task, IMO (and they do, as per Bryan’s testimony: Unshapely sort of jacket, old pants, etc. Clothes that were meant to get messy, if you will – and which he would have been able to dispose of easily (either by keeping spare clothes in his car – or by wearing something suitable underneath his "work clothes".

Wearing clothes underneath the killing clothes—yes, and this jibes with the descriptions of a heavier, bulkier guy at LB compared to PH.

He was described as fairly bulky elsewhere too, it has to be said.

MM’s description is the most interesting one in that regard: He wasn’t wearing anything baggy or unshapely at BRS, and he was still described as bulky – or beefy, to be exact.

MM’s had different descriptions, didn’t he? Which might be expected by somebody that got shot many times, and underwent severe trauma at the crime scene. I thought at one time he said "big face".

Yes, that’s correct, MM did say that the attacker had a large face.

He also said this:

Subject…was real heavy set, beefy build. States subject was not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to 200, maybe even larger.

As I’ve said many times, MM later became a terrible witness in many ways, and for many (tragic) reasons. But he wasn’t an inherently untrustworthy witness in 1969. He was a normal witness, who in a normal fashion gave his testimony, stating what he remembered and what he did not remember. *

There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that he dreamed up features that weren’t there. The obvious conclusion is that the man who attacked him was beefy, just as Michael said.

* Normal under the circumstances, of course.

Pretty interesting pic

The one issue, is that the sketch is BW. The hair color is described as brown. So the jet black is off.

Looks dark brown to me! lol

MM was very thin at the time so his conception of "beefy" might be influenced somewhat by what is beefy relative to his own body. In any case, 195 to 200 is not really a thick or muscular person by today’s standards, but back in 1969 the obesity epidemic had not yet taken hold in the US. Anyway, I take MM’s descriptions, whatever the time they were given, with a grain of salt. Also, I don’t see why the Z couldn’t have been wearing padding under his t shirt.

Also, I don’t see why the Z couldn’t have been wearing padding under his t shirt.

What would be the point?

If he was worried about being identified on the basis of his body shape (a pretty far fetched idea to begin with, I’d say), he could have put a jacket on. Or two jackets. Or whatever. Wearing padding under a t-shirt strikes me as a less obvious solution.

He doesn’t bother with a ski mask, or even a pair of fake glasses – but he wears padding under a t-shirt in order to fool everyone into thinking he’s "not blubbery fat, but real beefy"? Seems like a huge stretch to me, but by all means, anything’s possible.

On further reflection, I’ll go one step further and say that you can’t believe MM when he said "t shirt", either. And he was the only witness there. MM is the same guy who stated for the camera, "it was a small car, but it could have been a Cadillac—I’m not really sure."

In reviewing the thread WAS THE ZODIAC REALLY A LARGE MAN I see there was one description, perhaps a little iffy or unverified, of the Z being average in ht. and wt. at PH. Supposedly Eric Zelms told his wife this before his untimely demise.

So, let me get this straight: You start out by doubting that Michael’s attacker was beefy (because Michael himself was thin). You then propose that the attacker could have worn padding under his t-shirt. And now you claim that we can’t believe Michael when he says the attacker wore a t-shirt.

I know why you’re so keen on Michael being wrong, of course, you’ve made no secret of your beliefs. But you can’t make claims like these without backing them up. Why can’t we believe that the attacker wore a t-shirt?

Supposedly Eric Zelms told his wife this before his untimely demise.

According to who?

Someone who desperately wanted Zodiac to be roughly as tall and thin as Bruce Davis? I wouldn’t put much stock in what Zelms supposedly told his wife, as reported by someone else, decades after the fact.