His statement that it was stitched on could simply be a guess. .

Where did Hartnell say it was stitched on?

We could effectively take every eyewitness statement and apply the same argument of the guessing game. What we know of Hartnell is that he was a very astute and intelligent individual who recalled the evening’s events with great clarity under extremely difficult circumstances. If we can’t take his observations as likely accurate, we cannot take any of the other eyewitnesses as accurate. In this scenario, we can literally rewrite the Zodiac story with an endless array of alternative hypotheses. Is it possible that Hartnell was wrong – yes. But this applies to the three teenagers, Armond Pelissetti, Donald Fouke, James Owen, Stella Medeiros, William Crow, Helen Axe, Nancy Slover and just about every other eyewitness and earwitness in the Zodiac case. Bryan Hartnell interacted with the Zodiac for the longest period of any of the eyewitnesses in the case. If we cannot use this as a basis that he was likely correct, then we cannot use any of the other eyewitness recollections as reliable. This leaves us deconstructing the case rather than advancing it. Assessing the observational awareness of Hartnell, in accompaniment to the time he interacted with the Zodiac Killer, should lean us towards what he said as likely accurate. If his observations were inacaccurate, then a case can be made to reject or disbelieve every other eyewitness that crossed paths with the killer. In this scenario, we are left with very little.

There are degrees of certainty relative to what a witness describes. Hartnell could be wrong about the symbol being stitched, considering he didn’t say he was certain, while being right that the zodiac didn’t have a sword because the uncertainty level about his knife would have to be way off the chart.

His statement that it was stitched on could simply be a guess. .

Where did Hartnell say it was stitched on?

The police report stated that the assailant wore a black hooded mask made of a cloth material, covering his entire head and shoulders, reaching down to the waist. On the front of the four cornered mask at the chest area was a white circle (3 x 3 inches in diameter) and a symmetrical cross. Bryan stated it was ingeniously devised in 1969. He would further elaborate on the design of the crosshairs in the 2007 Zodiac documentary, stating "It looked like it was made with a machine or with some degree of care – it wasn’t just scrawled on with white paint. It was proportional".
https://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview4.html

There are degrees of certainty, but his statements suggest it was machine stitched. That is the likeliest option, so why opt for the unlikeliest, when he was there and we weren’t.

His statement that it was stitched on could simply be a guess. .

Where did Hartnell say it was stitched on?

The police report stated that the assailant wore a black hooded mask made of a cloth material, covering his entire head and shoulders, reaching down to the waist. On the front of the four cornered mask at the chest area was a white circle (3 x 3 inches in diameter) and a symmetrical cross. Bryan stated it was ingeniously devised in 1969. He would further elaborate on the design of the crosshairs in the 2007 Zodiac documentary, stating "It looked like it was made with a machine or with some degree of care – it wasn’t just scrawled on with white paint. It was proportional".
https://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview4.html

There are degrees of certainty, but his statements suggest it was machine stitched. That is the likeliest option, so why opt for the unlikeliest, when he was there and we weren’t.

Yes, I know what he said, and he never said it was stitched on. I wish Hartnell had seen if it was actually stitched on, because that would indicate a high degree of skill with a needle. That could be important in identifying a suspect.

It’s just as possible however that it was cut out from those iron on patches. That would require a steady hand but not the skill in sewing it would take for the alternative.

His statement that it was stitched on could simply be a guess. .

Where did Hartnell say it was stitched on?

The police report stated that the assailant wore a black hooded mask made of a cloth material, covering his entire head and shoulders, reaching down to the waist. On the front of the four cornered mask at the chest area was a white circle (3 x 3 inches in diameter) and a symmetrical cross. Bryan stated it was ingeniously devised in 1969. He would further elaborate on the design of the crosshairs in the 2007 Zodiac documentary, stating "It looked like it was made with a machine or with some degree of care – it wasn’t just scrawled on with white paint. It was proportional".
https://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview4.html

There are degrees of certainty, but his statements suggest it was machine stitched. That is the likeliest option, so why opt for the unlikeliest, when he was there and we weren’t.

We don’t have to opt for one thing or another, we can just ascribe levels of certainty. His main point was that it was proportional and that this is what made him think it wasn’t scrawled on the hood, that it looked machine-made. Stitched, glued, that’s unclear, but making the symbol look proportional is not much of a feat compared to stitching it as such, especially when you consider the description of the hood which is quite boxy, which is what one would be more likely to do if they have little knowledge of how to make a proper hood since it’s the simplest approach. Heck, Bryan’s description of the hood could indicate the Zodiac literally just glued cloth on a box, at least for the upper part, in which case there’s no sewing kills needed at all. Specifically opting for "the symbol was stitched" could literally lead far from an actual suspect with zero sewing skills.

So there is no opting, only degrees of certainty. I’d say we went from “least likely” to most likely: no sewing skills, just black cloth cut and glued on a box and a white cloth cutout of his symbol glued on the hood.

We don’t have to opt for one thing or another, we can just ascribe levels of certainty.

Well, that’s what Richard is saying, we can be relatively certain of how it was attached, be it sewing or iron on patch.

My point was one would require a higher degree of skill than the other and it would be nice to be certain which it was.

As I stated earlier in this thread I have basically no sewing skill, however I do have some knowledge. My mother was a professional seamstress most of her life and still sews to this day. I have helped her and watched enough to know a bit about it, and I do know you can’t just cut something like that Zodiac symbol out of a piece of any cloth and have it look good. Most cloths will fray around the edges and look tatty. To make a professional looking Zodiac symbol out of say plain cotton cloth or many other cloths would require hemming the edges, which would indicate a high degree of sewing skill.

There are materials such as felt that don’t fray, but it would require some skill even then to cut it out and get it sewn on. My suggestion that it might have been cut out of iron on patching would not require much skill.

If it was sewn on by needlepoint, that would indicate a very high degree of skill.

We don’t have to opt for one thing or another, we can just ascribe levels of certainty.

Well, that’s what Richard is saying, we can be relatively certain of how it was attached, be it sewing or iron on patch.

My point was one would require a higher degree of skill than the other and it would be nice to be certain which it was.

As I stated earlier in this thread I have basically no sewing skill, however I do have some knowledge. My mother was a professional seamstress most of her life and still sews to this day. I have helped her and watched enough to know a bit about it, and I do know you can’t just cut something like that Zodiac symbol out of a piece of any cloth and have it look good. Most cloths will fray around the edges and look tatty. To make a professional looking Zodiac symbol out of say plain cotton cloth or many other cloths would require hemming the edges, which would indicate a high degree of sewing skill.

There are materials such as felt that don’t fray, but it would require some skill even then to cut it out and get it sewn on. My suggestion that it might have been cut out of iron on patching would not require much skill.

If it was sewn on by needlepoint, that would indicate a very high degree of skill.

You fold a piece of cloth in four and cut it to get the four parts of the circle. You cut three straight strips. You glue it all on a black cloth. Very easy to do, and it will look “parallel” and clean. It requires grade school level skills. It’s a hood not a pair of pants, it won’t fall apart. The simpler explanation is the more likely one no?

You fold a piece of cloth in four and cut it to get the four parts of the circle. You cut three straight strips. You glue it all on a black cloth. Very easy to do, and it will look “parallel” and clean. It requires grade school level skills. It’s a hood not a pair of pants, it won’t fall apart. The simpler explanation is the more likely one no?

As I explained, it all depends on the type of cloth. Hartnell said it was done with a "good degree of care" and looked "made with a machine" so that would indicate more than something a grade school kid with scissors and glue could pull off.

Greetings. First time poster sometime reader here; Reading descriptions of the costume and seeing it portrayed, It reminds me of some type of a welding protective gear. the clip on shades in particular. A google search came up with these pictures of homemade protecting outfits for welders:

—

—

From what I understood of Bryan and Cecelia’s description, they were able to see the hair somehow, and their color, through "the eyelets". Either the glasses where not sunglasses, or the holes for the eyes were big enough to see the hair around the glasses.

The notion of "clip-on glasses" from what I understand would be regular glasses with sun-blocking glasses that you clip on. If they meant something else, I have no idea.

What was put in my car in Napa was in "two" parts, the hood which was a painted paper sack with large cutouts for the eyes ( Not slits!) I don’t remember if the nose and mouth were cut out or not? The bib which was about one and a half yards long,36 inches wide black "inexpensive cotton". When opened flat on a table, the part that went over his head was a circle cut and a slit about 8 or 10 inches down the backside, to go over his head. there would be no need to have more pieces.

The flaps were part of the paper sack. they were cut on all four sides about 3 inches up and bent to rest on his shoulders, probably sitting under the bib? It would have been easier if it sat on top of the bib for his head to be able to turn without restriction. The clip-on sunglasses held it tightly to his face so when he turned his head the hood turned as well. I believe the man who wore it is the man who followed me in Vallejo/ Napa in 1968. I got a very good close up look at his face before he contorted it. He is the same man I took a picture of on Aug. 10th, 1990. He has the same scars that Kathleen Johns said her abductor had. She gave the best description of who more than likely Zodiac was/ is than anyone else! He would be about 80 years old now.

No offence, but if anyone from the police took you seriously, they would have got a warrant, right? There would be no games with your ex husband, if he didnt want to give you the costium.
Argument of police that your description doesnt match what Hartnell said is stupid. That means they dont believe you at all.

Does anyone remember (because I don’t), if Mr. Hartnell had described the hood being noisy? You know, if it was made from paper wouldn’t you hear crinkling as such as the killer moved?

Does anyone remember (because I don’t), if Mr. Hartnell had described the hood being noisy? You know, if it was made from paper wouldn’t you hear crinkling as such as the killer moved?

No, but if his outfit was made of paper then the police can add rustling to his list of crimes…

There was some talk I believe on here, or somewhere else, about the hood could have been made from “paper”, which I doubt as it makes no sense, so just wondering why somebody would think so!