The eyewitness who got the closest view of Zodiac, front on, was Donald Fouke. Michael Mageau got a fleeting side view and has for many reasons become a less than reliable witness, his description has never stayed consistent. Bryan Hartnell could only judge Zodiac’s age by his voice, not a reliable pointer. The three teenagers were 50-60 feet away, with limited lighting and their only full frontal view of Zodiac’s face likely only lasted 2-3 seconds as the Zodiac walked towards the driver side door of the taxicab.
Donald Fouke, by his account, slowed down as he passed Zodiac, "5, 10, 15 seconds tops." Donald Fouke from the vehicle driver side seat to the sidewalk was approximately 12 feet in distance, and being a trained police officer, schooled in being observant, effectively corrected the three teenagers description to a man older and heavier. In fact he stated in his memorandum that Zodiac was 35-45 years of age. He in theory should be the most reliable witness of all, along with Eric Zelms, who for the life of me, appeared a silent witness in this case, even though he was even closer to Zodiac than Donald Fouke. So if we believe that Donald Fouke viewed Zodiac front on for longer than any other eyewitness, then it should therefore follow his description is the most accurate. Taking the mathematical median of Donald Fouke’s estimation puts the Zodiac Killer at 40 years of age.

Do we know for sure that Fouke saw the ‘Zodiac’? What if he was a normal guy walking down there actually correctly stating that a man with a gun had run away? The sketch doesn’t look very much like a round face to me..just thoughts. Because how can Mike’s and Fouke’s description differ that much? Z did not wear glasses at BRS. Not known at LHR. ‘Clip-on’ sunglasses at Lake Berryessa (heavy-rimmed glasses there?). Well, but on the other hand Kathleen Johns had recognized him from the sketch..and she estimated him to be 30 years, that would be 1940..
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … play_media

QT

The reason the man Fouke saw on Jackson was with near certainty the Zodiac Killer, was because he virtually concurred with the teenagers sketch, other than slightly older and heavier, therefore the man exiting the taxicab was the same man on Jackson .

I’ve always suspected Zodiac was a lot younger than the San Francisco composite would have us believe. I’d put him at 27 in 1968, tops.

That would put Zodiac at either 27 or 28 in July 1969. Zodiac stated in the ‘Debut of Zodiac’ letter "The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat when I began fireing. When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time, thus spoiling my aim.". Michael Mageau was 19 years of age, thereby only 8 years younger. The use of the word ‘boy’ seems unusual with such little age difference, much more indicative of somebody aged at least 35-45, in other words a generation apart.

Good point UK Spy..so we’ve got the following description:

– Z being older than CJB
– still ‘young’ for Mike (Mike did not see him well…no sketch, only a ’round face’ description..)
– Fouke estimating him to be 35-45
– KJ estimating Z to be 30 years old (KJ had chosen the amended sketch out of two Z sketches..the age of 30 is present in two different police reports)
– the ‘mystery man’ at Lake Berryessa being described as 28-40 ( http://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-kil … -berryessa)

Also found some other description from Mike (please don’t ask me where that was from..):

‘After five shots were fired, the man walked slowly back to his car. Mageau screamed in pain, at which point the man returned and fired two more shots into each victim. It was at this point that Mageau got a look at him. The man was white, 5’8" to 5’9", late 20s to early 30s, stocky build, round face and brown hair.’

And in another article, Z was described by Mike as 25-30 years old.
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop … =43&t=1209

As Mike’s, KJ’s and the ‘mystery man’ description do not exclude an age of less than 30, the minimum age of Z could very well be 25-28 years during these crimes. That would make him 22-25 in 1966 (CJB). His year of birth would – again – be around 1941 to 1944.

Taking the average age that Fouke had reported, 40, in combination with the maximum age of the ‘mystery man’ (40) would lead to 1930 as an early year of his birth.

Using an average in a way that we combine a ‘closest group’ of lowest values of the higher estimations with the highest values of the lower estimations would lead to such an illustration:

Please be aware that if we remove Fouke’s comments as an outlier, Z’s age would even be slightly younger. If Fouke was completely right, an age of 35+ would be correct.

Assuming an ‘evaluated’ age of 30-33 would place his year of birth around 1937 to 1940. He would have been 26 to 29 when killing CJB. Therefore Z being a highschool ‘senior’ in 1955 to 1958. Some questions still remain..where did Z know CJB from? Having received ‘brush-offs’ over the years..? How did he get access to the RCC library seatm, if not being a student? How could he draw his Z symbol into a 1964 RH yearbook, if not being a senior in 1964?

I personally think that KJ had the best idea regarding Z’s age..she was about a similar age, had a close look at him for moreless 1-2 hours and was able to talk to him for a while. Mike, with 19yrs, had a bad view on Z due to the flashlight as well as the darkness of the night. Similar with Fouke..he saw him only for seconds, also not clear enough to even differ a reflecting light of Z’s hair from greying hair. And at night as well. The girls, finally, at LB had a better chance to see him at daylight.

QT

I’ve always suspected Zodiac was a lot younger than the San Francisco composite would have us believe. I’d put him at 27 in 1968, tops.

That would put Zodiac at either 27 or 28 in July 1969. Zodiac stated in the ‘Debut of Zodiac’ letter "The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat when I began fireing. When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time, thus spoiling my aim.". Michael Mageau was 19 years of age, thereby only 8 years younger. The use of the word ‘boy’ seems unusual with such little age difference, much more indicative of somebody aged at least 35-45, in other words a generation apart.

IMO it’s a bit of a leap to infer that Zodiac’s use of the diminutive "boy" in his debut letter makes him that much older than his initial victims. He specifically targeted "boys" and "girls" in his first lover’s lane attacks, since "men" and "women" don’t have to resort to public necking, as they generally have private residences of their own and since he was exceptionally disorganized and never, to our knowledge, successfully abducted his victims or committed his crimes at a controlled, private scene, Z was likely an immature offender.

Further, Zodiac’s personality profile has much more in common with a lone-nut political assassin than a garden variety sexual predator and these offenders are almost uniformly under 30. In fact, his closest peer, as it were, is David Berkowitz, about whom Robert Ressler made that assessment. Berkowitz was a mere 24 when he was arrested, same age as Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan. In my opinion, the SFPD composite listing Stine’s killer at 35-45 years of age is one of, if not the biggest red herring in the entire Zodiac case. Consequently we’ve spent nearly 50 years looking for a middle-aged man when, by the most generous estimate, the Zodiac’s murderous career began a mere five years before Lake Herman Road. That’s not a very long time and since one does simply adopt violent pattern homicide as part of some mid-life crisis, I maintain that he had to have been younger than Fouke said he was.

"In my opinion, the SFPD composite listing Stine’s killer at 35-45 years of age is one of, if not the biggest red herring in the entire Zodiac case. Consequently we’ve spent nearly 50 years looking for a middle-aged man when, by the most generous estimate, the Zodiac’s murderous career began a mere five years before Lake Herman Road. That’s not a very long time and since one does simply adopt violent pattern homicide as part of some mid-life crisis, I maintain that he had to have been younger than Fouke said he was."

The problem is, if we dismiss the longest sighting of all the eyewitnesses from a front on perspective and the closest distance combined, we have absolutely nothing. We end up with Michael Mageau’s extremely questionable description from a profile view of the killer, with a round face, that is a side on round face, with a high powered flashlight beamed in his face, while he is rustling in his pocket for ID simultaneously and then leaping around in the back of the Corvair. He originally stated he didn’t know the color of the car, then it was brown, similar in shape to Darlene’s. Understandably, he really hadn’t got a clue, he was too busy dodging bullets. Neither Hartnell or Shepard saw the killer’s face and estimating somebodies age on voice analysis is virtually impossible, of course you can tell the voice of a person of 12 apart from an 80 year old, but 30 to 45, no chance.
The three teenagers saw an impeded view of the killer inside the taxicab, but here he is looking down, tearing off a piece of shirt and wiping down the taxicab, the only real view they get of him is when he exits the taxicab for a few brief seconds, as he approaches the driver side door, to wipe it down. My point being, if we dismiss the Donald Fouke sighting, a trained police officer, who virtually confirmed the composite sketch of the teenagers, because whether he had any influence in the amended sketch or not, they are near identical, then we have to dismiss all the other eyewitness testimony that hold less credence, in fact we’re back with Mageau. Then we have nothing, only the correspondence he sent to guess his age. Correspondence that inferred ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ from 1924, The Mikado from 1885, maybe Charlie Chan from as early as the 1920’s and included radians, a word that is on the tip of every 27 year old’s tongue. He referenced many things from a bygone era, not your average diet of a 20 something, but of course this is not conclusive either. However if we chuck out baby Fouke, we have to chuck out the bathwater of all the other eyewitnesses also, so we end up with zero.

The problem is, if we dismiss the longest sighting of all the eyewitnesses from a front on perspective and the closest distance combined, we have absolutely nothing. We end up with Michael Mageau’s extremely questionable description from a profile view of the killer, with a round face, that is a side on round face, with a high powered flashlight beamed in his face, while he is rustling in his pocket for ID simultaneously and then leaping around in the back of the Corvair. He originally stated he didn’t know the color of the car, then it was brown, similar in shape to Darlene’s. Understandably, he really hadn’t got a clue, he was too busy dodging bullets. Neither Hartnell or Shepard saw the killer’s face and estimating somebodies age on voice analysis is virtually impossible, of course you can tell the voice of a person of 12 apart from an 80 year old, but 30 to 45, no chance.
The three teenagers saw an impeded view of the killer inside the taxicab, but here he is looking down, tearing off a piece of shirt and wiping down the taxicab, the only real view they get of him is when he exits the taxicab for a few brief seconds, as he approaches the driver side door, to wipe it down. My point being, if we dismiss the Donald Fouke sighting, a trained police officer, who virtually confirmed the composite sketch of the teenagers, because whether he had any influence in the amended sketch or not, they are near identical, then we have to dismiss all the other eyewitness testimony that hold less credence, in fact we’re back with Mageau. Then we have nothing, only the correspondence he sent to guess his age. Correspondence that inferred ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ from 1924, The Mikado from 1885, maybe Charlie Chan from as early as the 1920’s and included radians, a word that is on the tip of every 27 year old’s tongue. He referenced many things from a bygone era, not your average diet of a 20 something, but of course this is not conclusive either. However if we chuck out baby Fouke, we have to chuck out the bathwater of all the other eyewitnesses also, so we end up with zero.

IMHO the best eyewitnesses in the case were the women at Berryessa he was stalking prior to knifing Bryan and Cecilia. When you consider that not only did they see the guy in broad daylight but that their sense of vigilance was heightened due to his unsettling behavior (women tend to deal with creeps a lot more often than men do), to put their accounts alongside Don Fouke’s brief nighttime sighting of a guy who didn’t even arouse any suspicion at the time (the level of detail he gave is, to me at least, highly suspect) and say his is the best sighting we have doesn’t wash.

I would also argue that the literature Zodiac cited would also point toward a younger man. For example, radians are typically covered in high school geometry and it’s not like Z showed any sort of expertise regarding the concept. Also, The Most Dangerous Game has been assigned in freshman English classes for decades now and many school’s theatre departments regularly staged Gilbert and Sullivan musicals. (Mine did.) Perhaps Charlie Chan is an outlier but when you consider that a syndicated television version of the franchise ran in the late 50s, it doesn’t necessarily require that the Zodiac have been around for the original 1920s/1930s film releases to have developed an interest.

I can totally accept the second part of your argument that Zodiac doesn’t necessarily have to be an older man to have knowledge on these subjects, as I attested. As for the three women sunbathers viewing a pervert, or creepy guy, is just that, we don’t even know if that was Zodiac at all. So we may have a good description for this man, but it may be just a description of an ‘ogling creep’.
Armond Pelissetti said in the 2007 documentary "Fouke was also very clear as to what the person was wearing, well it just so happens that area is extremely well lit." So I suppose night-time or not, he had a clear line of sight, as you said, right down to Zodiac’s Calvin Klein underwear and his shoelaces. I do find the detail Fouke went into alarming mind, but that probably proves he just stopped Zodiac, a claim he has always denied. But finally if we dismiss Fouke and the three teenagers, then we may as well dismiss them all.

Well, if you believe in either D/E or Bates or both as early Z crimes, then you are looking at a guy in his 20s. Sandy in D/E was described by his co-horts as a runaway. The Zodiac at the time of Bates went into a college library, sat down and wrote a poem on a desk, so chances are he fit in to some extent. I think you’re looking at mid-20s, late 20s at the latest.

The Zodiac at the time of Bates went into a college library, sat down and wrote a poem on a desk, so chances are he fit in to some extent. I think you’re looking at mid-20s, late 20s at the latest.

Well, even if we presuppose that Z produced that poem, we have no idea how he did it. He could have done it while the desk was in storage, in which case he didn’t have to fit in as a student.

To further complicate matters, there is no necessary connection between the desktop poem and either Zodiac or Bates.

Morrill claims that Zodiac produced the poem (but this doesn’t mean he killed Bates). And Morrill’s claim as such is problematic (it’s not an uncontested claim, for starters).

There’s an undeniable connection between a) the Confession and b) the "she had to die" notes – and Bates. But there is no undeniable connection between Zodiac and the above.

And so forth.

Well, he paid respect to finding out his riverside activities..also the handwriting of the poem is a very good match.

QT

Well, he paid respect to finding out his riverside activities..also the handwriting of the poem is a very good match.

QT

A very good match according to Sherwood Morrill, who apparently had no problem verifying a highly unusual exemplar he may have examined only in the form of a photograph – just as he apparently had no problem verifying extremely limited exemplars (envelopes with hardly any writing to examine), and just as he had – decidedly – no problem verifying a photographic exemplar that was later determined to be a forgery.

Zodiac acknowledged the "activities" once they were made public by Avery. Not before. Not once, in any shape or form, before.

But we both know where this leads. It’s a dead debate, really – and even as a corpse of a debate it belongs elsewhere.

The only part of my original comment which has any potential interest here was the first one: If Zodiac wrote the desktop poem, he could have done so while the desk was in storage. In which case the potential act (of writing the poem, on the desktop) doesn’t say much about his age.

What about the paper used for the confession letter..do we know something about that? BTW, there had been a ‘letterman club’ at RH, where students were able to use a typing machine..

QT

Well, he paid respect to finding out his riverside activities..also the handwriting of the poem is a very good match.

QT

A very good match according to Sherwood Morrill, who apparently had no problem verifying a highly unusual exemplar he may have examined only in the form of a photograph – just as he apparently had no problem verifying extremely limited exemplars (envelopes with hardly any writing to examine), and just as he had – decidedly – no problem verifying a photographic exemplar that was later determined to be a forgery.

Zodiac acknowledged the "activities" once they were made public by Avery. Not before. Not once, in any shape or form, before.

But we both know where this leads. It’s a dead debate, really – and even as a corpse of a debate it belongs elsewhere.

The only part of my original comment which has any potential interest here was the first one: If Zodiac wrote the desktop poem, he could have done so while the desk was in storage. In which case the potential act (of writing the poem, on the desktop) doesn’t say much about his age.

I think we can rule out a certain age for Z and/or the Author of the Bates stuff. I think it’s highly unlikely that he was under age 18 at the time of Cheri’s murder,I can’t see many reasons why a sub 18 year old person would be in the RCC library ever,so I think the author was likely a student,teacher, or RCC Staff member. This really does not help much, but I think we can safely rule out somebody younger than Cheri

What about the paper used for the confession letter..do we know something about that? BTW, there had been a ‘letterman club’ at RH, where students were able to use a typing machine..

QT

It was supposedly teletype paper. I’m not sure there are any actual sources for this beside Graysmith, though. But I vaguely recall that someone – somewhere – confirmed this.

If it was teletype paper, that is a very nice clue. Who has access to teletype paper? Where is it used? Newspapers. Radio stations. Another – possible – army connection? I imagine it could have been used by army communications staff of one kind or another.