Well, I agree that we can agree on the first part. As for the second, it seems we have contradicting statements: Hartnell kind of says one thing, Collins claims Shepard said another.

Since none of us were there, it all comes down to which witness each of us thinks is more credible, and why.

And don’t forget, taking Collins out of the equation, Cecelia reported to a witness at the scene, it’s in the report

Then you have to choose what you believe: the poorly documented claims of a deceased woman, or the claims of a still-living man who at the time of the crimes took considerable pains to visually document his attacker.

Then you have to choose what you believe: the poorly documented claims of a deceased woman, or the claims of a still-living man who at the time of the crimes took considerable pains to visually document his attacker.

Okay, so the reports are "poorly documented"? Let’s chuck em all

That’s a strawman. You know I didn’t say "chuck ’em all". I said Shepard’s supposed claim of seeing eyeglasses is poorly documented. Perhaps I should have added "comparatively", although I thought that would be implicitly understood.

Really, what do you have? Someone said Shepard saw eyeglasses, but there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of details. Did she say "eyeglasses", or did she just say "glasses"? Do we have an audio/video recording? No. Do we have transcripts? No. We have a he said she said type of thing. Official hearsay.

And then you have Collins making up stories three decades later and laughing about it when asked why he didn’t document in situ his claims.

Is Shepard capable of clarifying? Verifying her alleged claims? Elaborating? Nope.

If you want to believe what someone said Shepard said and, contrarily, disbelieve the guy who took a very good look and the killer, the guy who, in his own thoroughly documented words, said he was "pretty sure" the killer wasn’t wearing glasses, the guy who was closest to and most engaged with the Zodiac, that’s your personal choice, of course.

Kind of a dead subject at this point, to be candid.

I think of the game "telephone" and how a story can get screwed up just from one person telling the next what the first person told them. That is what I gather from the communications with Cecelia. It’s how they perceived her comments and how they relayed them for the next person to perceive them.

We know the P.D. reports were full of errors, but the reports aren’t necessarily facts. We certainly wouldn’t want to toss them.

Yes, it’s not like there was a transcriber on scene or anything.

We don’t don’t if she actually said what she supposedly said, and we don’t don’t when or under what circumstances. We don’t don’t if she made her claims after hearing Hartnell give his story. In what condition was her mind? How were her claims documented? When? By whom? How many people did they pass through before landing on paper? Et cetera.

And then you have demonstrable nonsense creeping into the narrative, such as Hartnell offering himself first. Where did that originate? By whom? And so on.

Another ‘poorly written’ report from the time of the crime mentioning that it appeared that Zodiac’s clip on glasses were connected to glasses underneath the hood

The problem is that Bryan states explicitly that the clip-ons were attached to the hood, not to a pair of regular glasses.

His direct, first person testimony contradicts that of CS – which is related through a third person.

Isn’t it possible that CS was simply mistaken? She saw a pair of clip-ons and assumed they were attached to regular glasses (which clip-ons normally are)?

This isn’t a case of doubting the only evidence available – it’s a question of determining which source is the best one. The sources contradict each other.

This report also states that there was, in addition to the large "O" openings for the eyes, that it had a "J" mouth. I don’t think that I’ve ever heard that before from anyone.

Isn’t it possible that CS was simply mistaken?

Sure,it’s just as possible as Bryan being mistaken

Don’t forget, Cecelia had a closer encounter with Z as she took the rope from him, maybe she saw a different view or angle of Z that allowed her to see glasses.

Yes – but Bryan states explicitly that the clip-ons were attached to the fabric. He noticed this.

Also on the eyelets on the mask was a pair of clip-on sunglasses, the glasses clipped to the eyelets.

And he had clip-on sunglasses…it was hard to tell. You know, the sunglasses you clip on when you’re wearing glasses, eyeglasses. He had those clipped on. I’m pretty sure…I don’t think he had glasses, though. I think he just had these clipped on to his suit…you know, that little mask.

If he was mistaken, he was mistaken about something very specific.

If CS was mistaken, her mistake is much more understandable and general, one might say (assuming the clip-ons were attached to glasses).

Can we all just agree that Bryan and Mageau were both lying/hallucinating about what they saw and Cecelia was the best eyewitness out of all three?

Can we all just agree that Bryan and Mageau were both lying/hallucinating about what they saw and Cecelia was the best eyewitness out of all three?

Not sure what this post means, not saying at all Bryan is lying, and Mageau…well, not sure he may have been hallucinating.

They were both hallucinating, then, because you can’t have Mageau and Hartnell claim the Zodiac wasn’t wearing eyeglasses and still have Cecelia saying otherwise.

Somebody is wrong here. They can’t all be right.