The Berryessa subject spotted by the three young women described a man watching them from the edge of the trees. After about 30 minutes the subject came down by the beach and passed within 20 feet. From the accounts of the three women, the subject spent a considerable amount of time in the area. To this day we are still unsure whether this individual was the Zodiac Killer (or murder of Bryan and Cecelia) or not. My question is why not?
The three young women were surely questioned at length and must have told police their exact location and where the suspicious man had walked. All police had to do was compare the boot prints from the crime scene to the area the girls saw the man walking. This would have determined if the murderer and suspicious man were one and the same. If the attacker of Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard was able to easily leave multiple boot prints all the way from the car to crime scene, and back- are we to assume that the suspicious man, described as weighing 200 to 225 lbs, just floated above the ground for upwards of 30 minutes without leaving a single boot print. If police had checked the area of the girls sighting and couldn’t find matching boot prints, then surely today we would know he was unlikely the Zodiac Killer or murderer of Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard. But we apparently are none the wiser 50 years later.
Good point!
LOL, when I read the title I thought this was some new information that the three girls saw a body floating in the lake.
An excellent point Richard, I would hope the police had the sense to do this.
One thing that often gets overlooked about Lake Berryessa is there was another car (besides the one thought to possibly be Zodiac) in the parking lot where the three girls were. There was a young couple in it, their names are in the report. I’m sure the police talked to them but there is no mention of it in the police report that I can find. I’d like to know what they saw.
The title definitely peaked my interest!
I think by the time the girls came in for an interview it was probably too late. Not that there couldn’t have been shoe imprints, but I think after a week or so (?) It would probably be more difficult–still worth the effort, imo.
I have posted the same concern in regard to the Dentist and his son seeing the man dressed in dark clothing walking along the hillside. There were prints down by the alternate road/trail. Did LE go to the halfway point the man and his son say they saw the guy walking? I don’t believe so. Now those are shoe prints that would have likely gone undisturbed.
Police were contacted by Dean of Pacific Union College at 4.20 pm on September 28th, less than 24 hours after the crime, relaying the three girls story. The police, with the possibility these sightings may have been of the killer should have immediately returned the girls to the crime scene. They could have got them back to their location less than 24 hours after they took the photographs of the boot prints at the crime scene. They didn’t interview the girls until 2.45 pm on September 29th. This lack of urgency in bringing the girls in, or likely taking the girls back to the location of their sighting to search for corroborating boot impressions, was without doubt a missed opportunity, and has to be regarded a mistake by investigators.
Yes…I was looking at date of the report. Word sure got out fast…before the day of social media. Not surprising, I suppose.
They were probably drowning in all kinds of tips and calls that on hindsight were of not much or any relevance, but which they still needed to check out… delaying the inspection of the tips that did end up being important. Such a shame.
The doc and his son communicated with officers early the following morning. That was a missed opportunity as well. The police reports say no one could have traversed that…but someone did.
It would have been nice to be 100% sure the guy the girls saw was the right guy. It would answer some questions at least, but even assuming so, hasn’t helped solve the case. Interesting he never came forward though.