Copied from a thread started by vasa croe. (Trying to keep topics organized into pertinent threads)

I don’t think I have ever seen the reasoning behind the timeline of events on this particular question, but I would guess there is a definitive reason for it….why is it thought that Z wrote on the car door after attacking Cecelia and Bryan? I would think it more likely he would write it prior to allowing him more time to leave the scene instead of stopping to write something. Is there a reason behind this particular timeline that is not public for some reason? Or is it just an assumption that it was written after the attack?

My apologies…I should have thought there was a thread on the door already. Thanks!

So….anyone know why the timeline given suggests the writing occurred after the attack?

I’m not aware of anything which would positively indicate that he did the writing after the attack.

However, I would say it’s natural to assume he only signed his "work" after it was actually done:

* Why would he do it the other way around? The writing isn’t elaborate, it wouldn’t have taken him long at all to do it.

* Given the location/terrain he may not have – finally – decided to attack BH and CS before he got fairly close to them, having descended from the road, having scoped out the area, having had a good look at his victims, etc. If he for one reason or another decided to, or was forced to, abandon the attack, the writing would be a complete waste.

That said, I wouldn’t mind looking at some reasons why it might be the other way around.

One possible factor in this is his car. Where was he actually parked? If the infamous tracks aren’t his (as many have speculated), he could have been parked anywhere within a reasonable distance from BH’s car. Now, say that he was parked a fair distance from BH’s car: In order for him to do the writing post-assault, he must have headed back to BH’s car solely in order to do the writing – and then proceed to his own car. Which seems elaborate somehow.

Put it like this: The post-assault writing works flawlessly if he was parked right next to BH. Not so flawless if he was parked some distance off.

Even simpler, because he wrote the time down. Wasn’t it 7:15 or something? Without looking it up, I think that it’s simply reasoned that time makes more sense for after the attack than before.

Edit: I happen to have Yellowbook stuck under the uneven chair leg. Handy. Graysmith says the door said 6:30, they got there at 5:00, and the call came in to Napa Co. at 7:13. There you go.

Plus, the fact that he noted the time (whether it’s the time of signing the door, or the time of the actual attack, doesn’t really matter in this context) does indicate (to me, at least) post-assault writing. It seems very odd, at best, to write down the exact time of an attack which hasn’t taken place yet – consider again the nature of the scene, the terrain, the high probability that he had been trolling the area for some time, looking for suitable targets, etc.

My reasoning for wondering this is because of the amount of time taken to write it, yet not even checking to see whether the victims were actually dead seems odd. That and the writing out of the current one with the abbreviation of the date and a very specific time. I also think the 6:30 time is odd, as if Z wanted to round it to exactly 6:30. I have often wondered if that is actually supposed to be the time reference. It seems Z was more concerned with the taunting of police than actually killing anyone. I would think that a killer would make sure the victims were dead at least….especially before claiming them.

And the above poster said the call came in at 7:13? I thought it was 7:40. Is 7:13 correct?

Could be it was a little bit of both. Had he started with "by knife" and then ended up shooting them…well….

Maybe he wrote the majority of it then came back up and wrote the time and the weapon used.

But as mentioned–if he wasn’t able to pull it off, that would be a really big goof. I think it probably came after. He thought they were dead. No hurries.

And the above poster said the call came in at 7:13? I thought it was 7:40. Is 7:13 correct?

Two different calls: Z himself called the police at 7:40, but they were informed about the attack (after Fong had contacted the park people) at 7:13.

The time would be a good piece of evidence for a letter writer to supply. Much better than the rather generic "by knife", and I’m surprised that is what they held back instead.

The time would be a good piece of evidence for a letter writer to supply. Much better than the rather generic "by knife", and I’m surprised that is what they held back instead.

Yes, that’s a good point. "By knife" is a bit of a puzzle in many ways. Odd thing to write, arguably – odd thing to hold back for the cops too, arguably, when the much more particular and individual "6:30" was made public straight away.

Anyway, on the topic of the time: If the latter indicates the time of writing, Z seems to have taken his sweet time driving from LB to the Napa phone booth (there is an interval of something like 20 or 25 missing, going by how long it should have taken him to cover the distance in question).

If – which is the other possibility – the time indicates the time of the actual attack, we can shave a good part off that interval (it would have taken him some time – I don’t have the estimate before me – to get back up to the road from the crime scene).

And then there’s a third possibility which could account for the missing interval: He was parked somewhere else, further down the road, meaning that he had to move from BH’s car to his own on foot after having completed the writing.

The time would be a good piece of evidence for a letter writer to supply. Much better than the rather generic "by knife", and I’m surprised that is what they held back instead.

Yes, that’s a good point. "By knife" is a bit of a puzzle in many ways. Odd thing to write, arguably – odd thing to hold back for the cops too, arguably, when the much more particular and individual "6:30" was made public straight away.

Anyway, on the topic of the time: If the latter indicates the time of writing, Z seems to have taken his sweet time driving from LB to the Napa phone booth (there is an interval of something like 20 or 25 missing, going by how long it should have taken him to cover the distance in question).

If – which is the other possibility – the time indicates the time of the actual attack, we can shave a good part off that interval (it would have taken him some time – I don’t have the estimate before me – to get back up to the road from the crime scene).

And then there’s a third possibility which could account for the missing interval: He was parked somewhere else, further down the road, meaning that he had to move from BH’s car to his own on foot after having completed the writing.

RE: Missing Time
Maybe Z stashed his knife & gun, and changed his clothes, then went out to make the call.

Yep, morf – that could be as well.

And a variation on that theme: He made an actual pit stop somewhere (in theory he could even have swapped cars, if we want to take it in that direction).

It has been proposed as something Mr X could have done (given that he owned property in the area) but it goes for anyone. Mr X had a ranch – but the plot works just as well if Z simply had a place of some kind, a one-room shack, some kind of hunting cabin, anything.

It’s a bit fanciful all things said and done, but not impossible. It’s interesting, at any rate, that we have these missing intervals (potentially at least) both for LB and BRS.

Curious…

Would the writing on the car door be enough to convict Zodiac had he been caught for one of the other Zodiac murders?

How admissible is handwriting in court? I know for things like forgery, etc., it is quite common…but to prove murder? And let’s say the man’s shoe print size didn’t match up to the prints found. What then?

Not unless he confessed hence LE has his finger prints?

Does anyone know why LE never looked in the public records for Z’s handwriting?
Like department of public safety, or probation records.
I mean after all.
That’s how Kidnapper John LaMarca 1956 was caught.
Sound logical?
The FBI thought so.
Be sure to look for those double LL’s.