He might have worn a t shirt. Or maybe not. He might have been beefy. Or perhaps not. You’re correct in assuming I try to make the "beefiness" thing fit in with Ted Kaczinski, who I think was probably the Zodiac. Kaczinsky as the Unabomber did use disguise beyond what would be considered normal. So, yes, he could have had padding under the t-shirt. But, also, you can’t accept MM as the gospel truth.

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.

This is correct. One of the descriptions published in the papers shortly after the Stine murder deviates somewhat from Fouke’s description in his memo, and from the description in Pelissetti’s report. Said description (it’s from the Examiner, I think) has the perpetrator down as being younger and leaner (about lb 175, iirc) than the others. There are other minor discrepancies, as well – gray pants, for instance. Thomas Horan, the hoax theory proponent, makes a huge song and dance about this.

There are several possible explanations for these discrepancies:

* The source of the journalist was wrong/inaccurate.
* The journalist was sloppy.
* The witnesses’ description of the subject was – actually – different from the one recorded in the police report (which would be remarkable, to say the least, but there you go).

But, also, you can’t accept MM as the gospel truth.

It’s not a question of taking his statement as gospel truth. No witness statement should be taken as such, as witnesses are prone to making mistakes. What you propose as a possibility, however, is that Michael Mageau dreamed up a non-existent detail, namely the t-shirt. This is not the sort of mistake a witness is likely to make. If he had said the attacker wore a green t-shirt, I’d be more than willing to consider it likely enough that the t-shirt was, in fact, red – it was dark, after all. Mistaking another garment (one that would fit your purpose here) for a t-shirt, however, is far less plausible.

We have four separate statements from witnesses who observed Z. Does Michael’s description (let’s focus solely on body shape/estimated weight here) deviate wildly from the other three? No, it does not. The general consensus among the witnesses is that Z was a fairly heavy-set guy. Whether he was beefy, stocky, overweight, husky – that’s up for debate. But nothing indicates that he was lean or skinny based on what the people who observed him had to say.

You can always come up with ways to cast doubt on said consensus: He wore a disguise which made him look heavier, the witness was in shock, whatever you can think of. What you should ask yourself, however, is whether you’re treating the available evidence in an objective manner – or whether you are attempting to make that evidence fit a preconceived notion. You certainly cannot claim that the idea of a skinny Zodiac emerges naturally from the actual descriptions given.

Well, Kaczinsky was not exactly skinny. He did have a "large face." And he did use disguise and other methods of subterfuge while committing the Unabomber crimes. There is an overwhelming similarity in the ways the Z and the Unabomber dealt with the press. I’m sorry to go off topic to explain myself but you correctly called me out on my belief of who did it so I am explaining why and how it could have been Kaczinsky, despite the descriptions of "beefy." And I really don’t see any reason to believe MM’s description of a guy with a t shirt when his other descriptions are all over the place. MM is not a credible witness—-but yes, just in case he was credible in this one case, I have other explanations for why he might have perceived the averagely-built Kaczinsky as "beefy." Is that against the law?

MM is not a credible witness—-but yes, just in case he was credible in this one case, I have other explanations for why he might have perceived the averagely-built Kaczinsky as "beefy." Is that against the law?

No, it is not against the law.

To me it is a dubious method, however. But I’m sure many would disagree: You’re certainly not the first to have used it – most people who are convinced Zodiac was NN, are doing the very same thing, only with a different NN in mind.

You keep calling MM a non-credible witness, yet have no trouble embracing the one thing he offers which serves your own purpose: Mike was wrong about the t-shirt (an odd thing to be wrong about, as it’s usually very easy to determine whether someone is wearing a t-shirt or not) – but he was right about the attacker’s large face. No mistake there.

But I won’t debate this further with you in this thread, which has been derailed enough. I wish you luck in your pursuit.

Maybe MM was right about the t shirt, but if so there could have been padding under the t shirt. Why would the Z use disguise? Oh, I don’t know—-maybe so he wouldn’t get caught. He was indeed successful in avoiding capture.

He wasn’t wearing a mask, he wasn’t wearing (fake) glasses, nothing indicates he wore a wig. But he did wear padding under his t-shirt.

Conclusion: He was more worried about having his body shape identified than about having his mug recognized. Does that really make sense to you?

Let me propose something which makes almost as much sense (and which you can add to your list of possible explanations): The attacker actually did wear a mask – a stocking, most likely – but Mike, being the hopeless witness that he is, failed to notice this.

Well, if you’re wearing a mask you’re obviously up to no good. That’s why the Z waited till the last minute to don the hood at LB. Padding under the t shirt would be unexpected. Lots of criminals have a mask. Presumably for many years LE hunted for a husky or stocky but not blubbery body type, and what did they come up with? Complete failure. But yeah, maybe he did have a mask. Let’s not forget that MM said: "It was a small car, but it could have been a Cadillac. I’m not really sure." Really anything he said is suspect.

Yeah, okay. I consider these points extremely weak myself, but this really isn’t the place to keep arguing back and forth over details pertaining to Mike’s testimony.

If you want to make a "could he have worn padding under his t-shirt?" thread in the appropriate section, the discussion may be continued there. Or in a general "disguised or not?" thread. Here and now, this thread should get back on topic, though.

OK, the topic is the three girls sunbathing who were gazed upon by a guy who seemed to want to approach them but then chickened out. Not really an unusual scenario in and of itself. But I think it’s possible this guy was the Z and also had padding to make him look muscular as a disguise. And also faked smoking cigarettes, also as a disguise.

The Guy watching the Girls may have been Z, planning on attacking all the girls, but unsure of how he could handle them all. Then again, he could have been a perv watching some girls sunbathing. That’s where this guy has always been frustrating. It’s also frustrating that he never came forward

Slightly off-topic, but why does it make the guy a "perv" if he is looking at women sunbathing? A perv would be a guy who approaches and offers them some money for their dirty underwear, maybe. But you’re saying it’s perverted to even LOOK at women?

Slightly off-topic, but why does it make the guy a "perv" if he is looking at women sunbathing? A perv would be a guy who approaches and offers them some money for their dirty underwear, maybe. But you’re saying it’s perverted to even LOOK at women?

Perv might not have been the right word

"Perv might not have been the right word." No but voyeur might be.
If somebody is goggling your backside for half an hour plus, then it’s time to be concerned, especially if something white is dangling from his waistline, and it’s not rope or a piece of shirt.

Yeah, I think he probably was the Z, but the girls did not suspect that at the time. In fact they were ogling right back at him, and described him as well-built and good-looking, or words to that effect.