Norse:

There are two FBI latent case files, one covering BRS, Stine, and the letters, and the other covering Berryessa. On October 23, the FBI print lab typed a report stating that they had compared all the prints from both latent cases to each other and found zero matches. In July 1970, Hamlet sent a report to the FBI print lab stating he had noticed a match between the left ring finger tip on the drivers door of Stine’s cab and the corresponding left ring finger print on the little list letter of that month. The common area between the two prints was not large enough for a legally conclusive match. But no other prints on that letter matched any other prints from any other crime scene or phone booth.

When Avery "discovered" the desktop poem photos, he took them and copies of the Bates Had To Die letters, etc, to Sacramento. He SAID he showed them to Morrill, and he SAID Morrill declared that they matched Zodiacs writing. Riverside police said they got "a phone call" confirming this, but not a written report. In 1981, Riverside police issued a press release stating that there was no link between Bates and Zodiac, and that claims of a link were pure media hype. So they must not have ever received a WRITTEN report from Morrill. Just "a phone call."

There is a report in the available files that photos of the car door were submitted to Morrill, but no copy or mention of Morrill’s analysis. For some reason.

Don’t buy a copycat killer, he would also just have to be a copycat killer with writing so similar to Zodiac, that he fooled writing expert, Sherwood Morrill. The odds of 2 serial killers in the small 30 square mile stretch, with very similar writing are slim to none

He didn’t just write like Zodiac, he LOOKED like Zodiac, too.

What are the odds?

You know what he looked like?

Hair doesn’t match and apparently voice and since there are no facial characteristics to go by, I don’t think we CAN say he "looked" like Zodiac.

If you go by the general looks at the time of the killings–between them and LB, they were simply NOT the same….coloring and cutting hair later withstanding.

***

What this thread is about, since we so many in regards to his looks, is the car door. I simply don’t think the writing on the car door offers enough to 100% unequivocally say LB was committed by the same man who committed the other crimes attributed to Zodiac.

I also know LE would consider other men as well. They have to. They cannot simply dismiss leads because the guy couldn’t have been Zodiac.

What this thread is about, since we [have] so many in regards to his looks, is the car door. I simply don’t think the writing on the car door offers enough to 100% unequivocally say LB was committed by the same man who committed the other crimes attributed to Zodiac.

Tahoe – thanks for that.

My opinion – I think the same person who wrote the first "two" letters wrote on the car door at Lake Berryessa. That’s it.
I’m definitely not going to say who murdered whom!
Does that mean you and I agree?

Anyone else? If you were summoned to jury duty and asked to judge some wheezy old geezer for the Shepard murder, no other Zodiac murders, just the Shepard murder, and the only evidence the prosecutor had was some handwriting samples, forget the Zodiac letters, just some diaries or letters or something, nothing but handwriting, which seems to be all we have in the Shepard case, could you send said wheezy geezer to the gas chamber based on that? That was, IIRC, the question on this thread, right? Is the handwriting on the car door enough to be considered evidence?

Suppose said geezer’s fingerprints matched the prints on Stine’s cab and the little list letter. But they don’t match the prints on the phone booth, obviously. Is that enough to ACQUIT said geezer for the Shepard murder? Let’s say he still had his old pair of Wing Walkers knocking about in a closet. Let’s say he decorated his bathroom with Zodiac crosshair symbols. Let’s say he had an impressive collection of homemade knives. Let’s say he made Halloween costumes, including Zodiac Killer costumes, as a hobby. Let’s say he had a receipt for a hot dog with mustard and a root beer from the AW stand at Lake Berryessa dated September 27, 1969 at 3:30 pm. Let’s say he typed a fantasy novel about stabbing Bryan and Cecelia, but it only contained facts published in the newspapers, or details that police have no way of confirming. Let’s say he had an old roll of hollow core plastic clothesline in the garage. Let’s say he was 5’10 and 205 pounds in 1969, with brown wavy hair. No DNA match, because it’s been 45 years, etc. But his finger and palm prints match the ones on Stine’s cab and the little list letter, no question.

Then what? Suppose you’re a judge and it’s your job at a preliminary hearing to decide whether or not to proceed to trial. Would you?

Anyone else? If you were summoned to jury duty and asked to judge some wheezy old geezer for the Shepard murder, no other Zodiac murders, just the Shepard murder, and the only evidence the prosecutor had was some handwriting samples, forget the Zodiac letters, just some diaries or letters or something, nothing but handwriting, which seems to be all we have in the Shepard case, could you send said wheezy geezer to the gas chamber based on that? That was, IIRC, the question on this thread, right? Is the handwriting on the car door enough to be considered evidence?

Suppose said geezer’s fingerprints matched the prints on Stine’s cab and the little list letter. But they don’t match the prints on the phone booth, obviously. Is that enough to ACQUIT said geezer for the Shepard murder? Let’s say he still had his old pair of Wing Walkers knocking about in a closet. Let’s say he decorated his bathroom with Zodiac crosshair symbols. Let’s say he had an impressive collection of homemade knives. Let’s say he made Halloween costumes, including Zodiac Killer costumes, as a hobby. Let’s say he had a receipt for a hot dog with mustard and a root beer from the AW stand at Lake Berryessa dated September 27, 1969 at 3:30 pm. Let’s say he typed a fantasy novel about stabbing Bryan and Cecelia, but it only contained facts published in the newspapers, or details that police have no way of confirming. Let’s say he had an old roll of hollow core plastic clothesline in the garage. Let’s say he was 5’10 and 205 pounds in 1969, with brown wavy hair. No DNA match, because it’s been 45 years, etc. But his finger and palm prints match the ones on Stine’s cab and the little list letter, no question.

Then what? Suppose you’re a judge and it’s your job at a preliminary hearing to decide whether or not to proceed to trial. Would you?

Well…this is a bit academic. If such an old geezer came up, he would be considered as having played a part in the whole series, surely. If his prints didn’t match the phone booth, one might conclude that the phone booth print was incidental, not related to the case. That’s just one possibility. One could also conclude that he had an accomplice. One could conclude this or that – but one could not simply overlook the fact that his prints did match the Stine scene. So, the old geezer would hardly be sent back home either way.

No old geezer would be convicted based on the door writing alone, though – that is obvious. Unless he had Lionel Hutz to represent him.

Norse:

No, the prints on the Napa phone booth DO NOT match the prints on the cab. Or any other Zodiac related print. Not according to the FBI print lab report of October 23. That’s the point of my question: what does the handwriting on the car door actually PROVE? We know that the first letter, including the symbol, had been publicized weeks before the Berryessa attack. We know that the attacker did NOTHING to link himself to the Code Killer that wasn’t publicized in the papers. So, how do WE link him to the Code Killer? Handwriting experts?

The handwriting on the car door supposedly matches the letters. A print on one letter matches a print on the Stine cab, but NONE of the prints on ANY Zodiac letter OR crime match the prints on the Napa phone booth OR the car door.

Forget being on the jury. Pretend we’re the prosecutor. How do we explain this to the jury? How do we explain it to anyone? How can his handwriting be the same, but his fingerprints be different? How is this possible?

Well, as I said – no, the writing on the door doesn’t prove anything. It links the perpetrator to the rest of the series from an investigative point of view, but it proves nothing – even if it’s considered legitimate by a handwriting expert. The latter wouldn’t mean much in a court of law it it were put forth as the sole piece of evidence. Clearly not.

1. As I said before this print business pretty much does my head in and I can never seem to recall which is which. Wasn’t the phone booth print a palm print? The other prints you mention – were they palm prints too?

2. The phone booth print – palm or not – could be irrelevant. It could have been left there by someone unrelated to the case. I’m not saying I believe this (I don’t know what to believe when it comes to any of the physical evidence), but it’s a possibility, isn’t it?

Norse:

I’ll go over it again.

1. The prints from the phone booth in Napa are finger and palm prints.

2. The prints on the window frame on the Drivers door of the cab are finger and palm prints.

3. The prints on the little list letter are finger and palm prints.

To the extent that the left ring finger tip print on the cab door overlapped the left ring finger print on the little list letter, Hamlet spotted a match. But the area in common was too small to be considered a fall down, legally conclusive match. But it’s there.

The FBI compared every print from every crime scene and letter to each other and concluded that none of them matched (the little list letter did not arrive until many months later.)

So, the person who opened the drivers door of Stine’s cab AND handled the little list letter (pretty thoroughly, judging by the plethora of prints) was NOT the person who made the Napa phone call.

How do we explain this? How do we explain that his handwritng is the "same," but his fingerprints are different?

Zodiac himself explained all this in his very next letter. He said he coated his fingerprints with airplane glue. So, he was saying he didn’t make the Napa phone call, didn’t open any of the cab doors, and didn’t touch his own letters.

How do we explain it?

1. Someone else called Napa police. Nothing complicated about that.
2. Someone else opened the drivers door of Stine’s cab. Nothing complicated about that, either. He ALSO handled the little list letter. That’s even less complicated. That’s a very, very short list of people. And since he didn’t make the Napa phone call, it’s even less complicated.

Not much of a mystery, really. In fact, since all of the witness descriptions are also different from each other, I’d say our simplest of all possible explanations is in fact corroborated by all these witnesses.

In the Yellow Book, Graysmith complains that law enforcement wouldn’t take his Zodiac theory seriously. No wonder.

Bill: Could you provide me with a link to the report in which Hamlet compares the cab print to the "little list" print?

I see where you are going with this – and as I said in the other thread, it’s an interesting theory.

Regarding the phone booth print, though – my point here remains the same: The person who made the cab print and the "little list" print could still be responsible for LB. The phone booth print may be unrelated to the case. Someone could have attacked BH and CS, written on the car door, called it in without leaving any prints – and then proceeded to kill Stine. It’s not likely (given that the phone was still off the hook and whatnot) – but it’s certainly not impossible.

My general understanding of the prints is very simple: the cops aren’t completely sure that any one of the…what is it…38 prints belongs to the Zodiac killer. If they had been SURE that the cab print belonged to Z, they wouldn’t have kept ALA as a suspect for so long, surely? His prints checked out, didn’t they?

Anyway, would appreciate a link to the Hamlet/"little list" info – that one’s new to me, I think, though there is so much info floating around that I can’t remember half the stuff I’ve read over the years.

Norse:

That’s my point. There is no particular reason to think that the person who called Napa police was the same person who attacked Bryan and Cecelia. IF he had said, " This is the Zodiac speaking," then THAT might have proven something. But he didn’t. According to officer Slaight, the caller never hung up, and he definitely called from a payphone. A reporter got to that payphone before police, but his fingerprints are not on the phone.

Most obvious conclusion: Zodiac did not make that phone call.

Did he attack Bryan and Cecelia? Maybe. But again, he failed to actually prove he was anyone other than a newspaper reading copycat. So, maybe not.

Proving that one person murdered all those kids AND wrote the Zodiac letters has turned out to be impossible. COULD such a thing be POSSIBLE? Mmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyybe. But as these police reports have recently become available, it has become clear that it is, in fact, the least likely explanation. As the files and the newspaper clippings show, the most likely explanation is that a reporter from the Chronicle wrote the Zodiac letters (almost EXCLUSIVELY to the Chronicle) based on police reports and evidence size reporter had "access" to.

The only evidence of any kind that the person who wrote those letters was involved in any murder at all is those pieces of Paul Stine’s shirt. If a reporter got hold of Stine’s waybill, then he could get hold of a piece of that shirt.

I think the he only question left to ask is, Where did Power get his information about Stine’s waybill? He’s still alive. Someone ask him.

Alright – let’s…play that game then, within the context of the thread: what you propose is that the writer (of the letters) is not identical to the person who committed the murders, correct?

Was the letter writer/reporter responsible for writing on the car door? That seems an important question. If he was – did he do this independently of the maniac who attacked BH and CS? He was hanging around Napa, got wind of the incident at LB, went up there as fast as he could and wrote that message on the door?

Or did the killer do the writing? And the reporter had nothing to do with anything pertaining to LB? The similarity between the killer’s writing and that of the reporter (who fabricated the letters) is purely coincidental?

It seems to me that this writing-on-the-door business is the most troublesome aspect of it all. Well, the bloody shirt seems like a bit of a stretch too – but, yes, if things were a bit sloppy and reporters were able to move around freely at crime scenes and police stations (and that may very well be the case, I’m not saying it isn’t) I suppose it’s possible.

Why would he/they do it, though? What’s the motive? I won’t be calling Power to find out – I assume you have an idea yourself, Bill?

Norse:

Realistically, we know of only two people who COULD have written on the car door: the attacker, and Deputy Ray Land. Ray Land wasn’t wearing a hood with a Zodiac symbol on it, so that leaves the attacker.

Did the Berryessa attacker write the Zodiac letters? How would we know? If the letter writer, same paper, same pen, same handwriting, had mailed a letter about Berryessa mentioning something CORRECT that was not published in the papers, like the party supplies, or where he parked his car, or what color underwear Cecelia was wearing, THAT would strongly suggest he was there. Or if he had included a bloody souvenir. He had a knife in his hand and all the time in the world. He could have written a note BEFORE he got there, and left if behind. But he didn’t.

IF one of the victims, or officer Slaight, had heard him use the name Zodiac, then that would strongly suggest a connection, because that was the one thing newspapers had not yet published. But he didn’t. The symbol, and the handwriting, had all been published in the Times-Herald. And of course, the dates of the other murders had been published.

What about the phone call? There were plenty of people, including reporters, who had radios capable of hearing police broadcasts. The phone call only repeated information broadcast by the dispatchers, and nothing else. For example, Land and White were first dispatched to the Rancho Monticello resort, which is "two miles north of park headquarters." The crime scene was only 1/2 mile north. When White and Land arrived at the scene, Bryan told them the attacker asked for his car keys. Since the 1956 VW can be easily hot wired without the keys, Land and White radioed the dispatcher to issue an APB for Bryan’s white 1956 VW Karmann Ghia. And of course, this was indeed a double stabbing. IF the fingerprints on the phone booth matched ANY other related print, that would prove some kind of link. IF the caller had relayed ANY "correct" information, like, "This is the Zodiac speaking," or "I’m going back to Deer Lodge. See ya!" Then that would prove SOMETHING. A consistent MO would have proven SOMETHING.

Evidence of a connection: ZERO. Evidence of a copycat: Quite a bit. Copycat attacks happen all the time. Dead giveaway, in most cases? Different MO.

I’m not saying my math teacher was the Zodiac. What I’m saying is, it turns out that, according to the actual evidence, there is a definite likelihood that the Berryessa attacker was a copycat, and nothing more. Did some people at the time jump to a premature conclusion? Apparently. But the actual evidence doesn’t back them up.

That’s all.

That’s my point. There is no particular reason to think that the person who called Napa police was the same person who attacked Bryan and Cecelia. IF he had said, " This is the Zodiac speaking," then THAT might have proven something. But he didn’t. According to officer Slaight, the caller never hung up, and he definitely called from a payphone. A reporter got to that payphone before police, but his fingerprints are not on the phone.

Most obvious conclusion: Zodiac did not make that phone call.

It’s actually pretty obvious that the caller knew details of the attack before anybody would have known who wasn’t at the scene themselves.

Realistically, we know of only two people who COULD have written on the car door: the attacker, and Deputy Ray Land…..

…and Dennis Land, Lonergan, Narlow, Snook, White, Collins. (And Montgomery? And Butler?) And yes, the attacker. And any other fan of the Code Killer who might have heard the radio messages and pulled over to have some fun with a copy of the newspaper in one hand and a felt marker in the other…
But t’wasn’t, twas the bloke who wrote the letters what did it. ‘Tis the colon that, uh, underlines it.

What’s Power’s telephone number?

Thing is – if it WAS the attacker who wrote on the door and then drove to Napa and phoned it in…well, that complicates the hoax theory endlessly, or? I suppose it’s possible that LB – the whole damn sequence of events – had nothing to do with…anything. Just a guy in a bizarre outfit who for reasons unknown either paid twisted homage to the killer he had read about in the papers OR tried to pin the attack on said killer.

The reporter (or Snook or…) was responsible for the letters, but had nothing whatsoever to do with LB. In which case LB plays roughly the same part it does in the more conventional Z theories: it stands out, as the exception to more than one rule.