In a small office the night operator was almost certainly listening in on the line to hear what the call was because operators are very nosey. I worked with many ex operators who told me how they listen in on calls. The frame techs will listen to phone calls going to houses of ill repute, for entertainment while they wire orders at the frame. The operators are very bored and listen to many calls for something to kill time. But a police call they would definitely want to easedrop.

That is how the operator was involved with the call ringback. She was just nosey. And I know it was a she because the phone company only hired women as operators. That is how things were back years ago.

My idea was that perhaps the operator was placing an instate toll call because the Zodiac travelled away from the area of the murder. There was some period of time in which he could have driven off to a safer place. Now we know that was not the case. All idiosyncrasies must be investigated and delved into again to scrape for clues. There must be a loose thread somewhere in the case that can give up new evidence. That is the goal here.

The standard procedure for PT&T operators prior to the 911 system when they received emergency calls was to ask for the nature of the emergency and the number they were calling from.

Standard procedure for Vallejo police dispatchers, not for PT&T operators.

I can’t speak for standard procedure for Vallejo dispatch, but it definitely was for PT&T operators. I have been in contact with several former PT&T employees from that era. Everyone from service personnel to cord board operators. Here is what one person wrote to me by email:

"If someone called the operator to report an emergency, we asked for the nature of the emergency and their telephone number (in case of disconnect) and stayed on the line until we successfully connected them to the police, fire department etc"

For context, this was a person who had begun work for PT&T as an operator in 1967 and retired after 33 years on the job.

ETA:

They also had this to say about "ringback"…

"When someone dialed "0" for operator, those call came in as lights on the board. Each prefix designated a specific part of town and pay phones had dedicated circuits that were colored red. This way, you knew that you needed to request funds from these calls. As long as the cord was attached to the circuit, you "held" the connection to the phone. Which means you could ring it back. Also, the phone had no access to a dial tone to dial any other number as long as you did not disconnect the cord. This was true for any number who dialed the operator. That was one way how calls were traced."

So that is that. There are no clues to be found. The operator stayed on the line per Pacific Telephone and Telegraph practices in case they were needed during emergency calls. So everything was as it should have been.

So that is that. There are no clues to be found. The operator stayed on the line per Pacific Telephone and Telegraph practices in case they were needed during emergency calls. So everything was as it should have been.

They did not stay on the line once the dispatcher took over. That would have been against the law and a fire-able offense.

It’s important to put into context some details here. For one, the call was routed to a telephone exchange center in Ukiah, CA. This was a small building located on the intersection of South School Street and West Church Street. There would have been 4 to 8 operators working the switchboard with one chief operator literally walking back and forth behind them, monitoring everything going on. This chief operator was Betty Main who is mentioned in the police report.

The fact that the call was routed so far away from Vallejo was unusual, but a possible explanation is that it was the early morning after the 4th of July and call volume might have necessitated that.

The fact that the call was routed so far away from Vallejo was unusual, but a possible explanation is that it was the early morning after the 4th of July and call volume might have necessitated that.

Nancy Slover was off duty but had stayed to help because they were so busy that night, so it’s reasonable to assume the phone operators were busy as well.

Nancy has never, to my knowledge, said anything about speaking to the operator before she spoke to Zodiac, however it seems someone from Vallejo PD spoke with the operator at some point, most likely immediately after the call since it was traced.

I’ll have to see if I can find where I saw the information about the operator, but memory says she became suspicious of him before she ever connected him to Vallejo PD. Why we will most likely never know. I wonder if he was being creepy with her, as Nancy said she believed he was being with her. Taunting her, having fun with her. He might have done something similar with the operator.

I’ll have to see if I can find where I saw the information about the operator, but memory says she became suspicious of him before she ever connected him to Vallejo PD. Why we will most likely never know. I wonder if he was being creepy with her, as Nancy said she believed he was being with her. Taunting her, having fun with her. He might have done something similar with the operator.

The first I heard of this was on Tom V’s podcast "Murder Basement".

The operator from the Napa call is in the police report as stating that the caller (Zodiac) repeatedly refused to supply the number he was calling from.

I’ll have to see if I can find where I saw the information about the operator, but memory says she became suspicious of him before she ever connected him to Vallejo PD. Why we will most likely never know. I wonder if he was being creepy with her, as Nancy said she believed he was being with her. Taunting her, having fun with her. He might have done something similar with the operator.

The first I heard of this was on Tom V’s podcast "Murder Basement".

The operator from the Napa call is in the police report as stating that the caller (Zodiac) repeatedly refused to supply the number he was calling from.

But that’s Napa, not the Vallejo call.

Assuming the same happened with the Vallejo call, it seems it would require more than that to arouse her suspicion. I suppose it would depend on how he was acting. If he was just adamant that he refused to give them the number because he didn’t want to that could certainly be seen as suspicious.

However, it seems he could have just said he was calling from a payphone and didn’t know the number. Those things didn’t always have the number available. The old dial payphones used to have the number under a clear cover in the center of the dial, and people would often jack with them and remove them. Sometimes it was just blank. I would think it wasn’t uncommon that someone calling from a payphone didn’t have the number.

It just seems if he was telling her he needed to report an emergency she wouldn’t have been so demanding to have the number before connecting him. Not sure it really matters overall to the case but I’d love to know the reason why she became suspicious.

The operator from the Napa call is in the police report as stating that the caller (Zodiac) repeatedly refused to supply the number he was calling from.

Yes, but my premise is that for the Vallejo call, the operator asked for the number from which Zodiac was calling and he told her. He didn’t do this the second time around.

Not sure it really matters overall to the case but I’d love to know the reason why she became suspicious.

My point is that this didn’t happen. Her suspicion wasn’t aroused. It didn’t need to be. It was possible to trace the call that quickly if she knew the number. She would just use a reverse directory.

I can’t speak for standard procedure for Vallejo dispatch, but it definitely was for PT&T operators.

The problem is, you are assuming Zodiac said something other than asking to be patched through to the police. Who says he mentioned an emergency, shooting, or anything else? Maybe he did, but it’s an assumption. Just like Zodiac giving the phone number to the booth he was using. Why would he do such a thing?

I can’t speak for standard procedure for Vallejo dispatch, but it definitely was for PT&T operators.

The problem is, you are assuming Zodiac said something other than asking to be patched through to the police. Who says he mentioned an emergency, shooting, or anything else? Maybe he did, but it’s an assumption. Just like Zodiac giving the phone number to the booth he was using. Why would he do such a thing?

Assumptions. Educated guesses. That’s all we have at this point, right?

The point is that is was possible to trace the call in the time allotted in the police report (12:40 to 12:47) . It wasn’t necessary for Zodiac to have an extended interaction with the operator.

Why would he do such a thing?

I don’t know. Why would he wear an elaborate costume and stab people in broad daylight? Why would he shoot a guy in the middle of a city and escape on foot? Why would he decide to communicate with the police and newspapers at all? Maybe he wasn’t bright. Maybe he just didn’t give a crap?

The point is that is was possible to trace the call in the time allotted in the police report (12:40 to 12:47) . It wasn’t necessary for Zodiac to have an extended interaction with her.

The tracing process must have begun prior to Zodiac speaking to Nancy; she was only on the line with Zodiac for an extremely short amount of time.

Had Zodiac initially given his phone number to the PT&T operator, there would have been no need to trace the call; they’d already have the number. And the report makes it clear the call had been traced by PT&T: "The above call was traced to a coin operated telephone…"

The problem is, you are assuming Zodiac said something other than asking to be patched through to the police. Who says he mentioned an emergency, shooting, or anything else? Maybe he did, but it’s an assumption. Just like Zodiac giving the phone number to the booth he was using. Why would he do such a thing?

But isn’t the story that the operator became suspicious of him before she ever patched him through? There had to be something that made her suspicious?

Yes, but my premise is that for the Vallejo call, the operator asked for the number from which Zodiac was calling and he told her.

Yes, and that’s certainly possible.

My point is that this didn’t happen. Her suspicion wasn’t aroused. It didn’t need to be.

That goes against my understanding of what transpired, but I could be wrong. Tom, is there a police or DOJ report about this anywhere? I seem to recall there is. Not much in it though, just a short, one page thing.

It was possible to trace the call that quickly if she knew the number. She would just use a reverse directory.

Yes, that seems to be the quickest way. I’m not sure we know for fact that the operator rang the number back after Zodiac hung up. He claimed it rang, but I’m not sure we have anything confirming the operator did it.