I’m going to continue talking to the PT&T folks and trying to track down Mrs. Johnson.
I’ve also been trying to locate her. No luck.
So in fact they identified the telephone line within 7 minutes using telephone company records.
But if what Zodiac said was true and the phone started ringing as soon as he hung up then it looks like the trace was already in progress and had been done? Not sure how it works.
I’m going to continue talking to the PT&T folks and trying to track down Mrs. Johnson.
I’ve also been trying to locate her. No luck.
Yup. Lots of Mrs. Johnson’s in America.
Who knew? Lol
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
Tom V. is correct about this. He knows all about the phone call.
I’ve done a bit of digging and there was a telephone exchange (PT&T switchboard) located in Vallejo at the time at 730 Carolina Street. It’s quite possible that the operator who answered Zodiac’s call worked there. Coincidentally, that location is less than a 5 minute drive from the Joe’s Union pay phone.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
Based on discussions over at Tom’s site, specifically in the MacGruber thread, it seems timely to re-start this particular discussion.
A few thoughts/questions after reading through the topic.
1. A “trace” and a “ring-back” are not the same thing.
2. There was no official “police trace” per se (either ‘illegally’ or properly through LE.) There was simply no time.
3. The “trace” was simply the operator connecting/reconnecting to the pay phone.
4. Even if an actual trace had begun at the point of the initial call, and prior to connecting it to Nancy, there still doesn’t seem to be enough time to have made a successful trace anyway.
5. The “ring-back” occurred almost immediately – regardless of how or why.
6. It seems highly unlikely that the operator called back for the purpose of collecting money that was due.
Question:
Is it not possible that Mrs. Johnson stayed on the line simply because there was someone on the line reporting a double murder?
Could it not have been a combination of curiosity (or “nosiness” as ‘CharlesR’ alluded to) and/or procedure?
I.E. Her staying on the line needn’t have been because the Zodiac said anything suspicious to her prior to Nancy taking the call.
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." Albert Einstein
Is it not possible that Mrs. Johnson stayed on the line simply because there was someone on the line reporting a double murder?
I don’t know if this was previously mentioned here, but I’d read before that operators could listen in on calls (which they did if say, bored at work) and the practice was widespread and as such she might’ve been protected by her line manager from the consequences of doing so. You could see how the operator might, if alerted feel a moral obligation to do so.
I think I mentioned this in this this thread already, but I think it bears repeating.
It was SOP for PT&T operators to ask for the number from which the caller was calling and what their emergency. I think that is what happened after the Blue Rock Spring attack and Zodiac, stupidly, gave it. Knowing the number from which the Zodiac was calling would make a trace nearly instantaneous.
This is underscored by the report from Slaight after the Napa attack. The operator asked for the number and Zodiac repeatedly refused until the operator relented and let the call through. The Zodiac had learned from the previous time he had called police including leaving the phone off the hook.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
I think I mentioned this in this this thread already, but I think it bears repeating.
It was SOP for PT&T operators to ask for the number from which the caller was calling and what their emergency. I think that is what happened after the Blue Rock Spring attack and Zodiac, stupidly, gave it. Knowing the number from which the Zodiac was calling would make a trace nearly instantaneous.
This is underscored by the report from Slaight after the Napa attack. The operator asked for the number and Zodiac repeatedly refused until the operator relented and let the call through. The Zodiac had learned from the previous time he had called police including leaving the phone off the hook.
Thanks for reiterating. I did read that, thank you. What I’m curious to know then, is whether there was any other way an operator could trace a call instantaneously if the caller had not in fact given the pay phone number?
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." Albert Einstein
@mrsean It’s important to distinguish “ringback” and “trace”, because if they knew the payphone number and its location immediately, then why did Mrs JOHNSON (PT&T Operator) take nearly 7 minutes to contact police. Did they ringback the payphone immediately, but couldn’t subsequently identify its location for 6 to 7 minutes.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
At that time there was no way to instantly trade a call – especially if the caller had hung up. My sources, who are former PT&T operators from that time period say it would have taken 39 to 40 minutes.
Richard, I think the more likely scenario is that after the caller hung up, Slover immediately contacted the operator or informed a cop who did. They asked where they call originated. Betty Main would have checked and had the operator call back with the information. I think 7 minutes is a reasonable time for that scenario.
For what it’s worth, operators had indexes with the location of all the pay phones assigned to their numbers. It was simply a matter of cross-referencing.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
At that time there was no way to instantly trade a call – especially if the caller had hung up. My sources, who are former PT&T operators from that time period say it would have taken 39 to 40 minutes.
Richard, I think the more likely scenario is that after the caller hung up, Slover immediately contacted the operator or informed a cop who did. They asked where they call originated. Betty Main would have checked and had the operator call back with the information. I think 7 minutes is a reasonable time for that scenario.
For what it’s worth, operators had indexes with the location of all the pay phones assigned to their numbers. It was simply a matter of cross-referencing.
Apologies to you and Richard for the lack of etiquette not responding sooner to a conversation I started!
Chaucer, your scenario above involves a 7 minute timeline vs the 39-40 mins for a trace, mentioned in your previous post.
If the 39-40 mins relates to a “trace”, what do you define the 7 minute process as? If it’s not a trace, what is it? If it’s possible “Betty Main would have checked and had the operator call back with the information” [in 7 mins], why the need for a trace?
Apologies for any confusion on my part.
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." Albert Einstein
I believe what @Chaucer is suggesting. Zodiac might have been dumb enough to provide the phone number he was calling from, which would explain why he clearly did not do so and left the phone off the hook in Napa following the Lake Berryessa attack. The operator here seemed capable of ringing back immediately; why she did, we may never know. Either way, this suggestion is very plausible.
The seven-minute discrepancy between the ring-back and the “trace” may have been nothing more than the time it took for someone from the Vallejo PD to contact the operator asking to locate the pay phone, and the operator searching their directories for the phone number provided and then informing the Vallejo PD of the pay phone’s address. Since the operator was in Ukiah, and potentially unfamiliar with Vallejo (I don’t know if that would actually matter if you had a directory, but for the sake of argument), this could explain why it only took seven minutes to “trace” the call.
Thus, it wasn’t a proper trace, which would have required significantly more time as well as authorization to perform. “Trace” as used in the police report may have just meant “determining the location based on information provided by the suspect”. It wouldn’t be the first time something wasn’t clear in one of these reports.
Of course, as far as I’m aware, all of this assumes that Zodiac was telling the truth in the letter, and that the story of the “shabbly dressed man” who may or may not have contacted police wasn’t a concoction of the killer’s imagination designed to waste time with unprovable theories like this one. That also wouldn’t be the first time he did that. Is there any proof from Betty Main that the phone was indeed called back, or are we just taking a psychopath at his word?
I believe what @Chaucer is suggesting. Zodiac might have been dumb enough to provide the phone number he was calling from, which would explain why he clearly did not do so and left the phone off the hook in Napa following the Lake Berryessa attack. The operator here seemed capable of ringing back immediately; why she did, we may never know. Either way, this suggestion is very plausible.
The seven-minute discrepancy between the ring-back and the “trace” may have been nothing more than the time it took for someone from the Vallejo PD to contact the operator asking to locate the pay phone, and the operator searching their directories for the phone number provided and then informing the Vallejo PD of the pay phone’s address. Since the operator was in Ukiah, and potentially unfamiliar with Vallejo (I don’t know if that would actually matter if you had a directory, but for the sake of argument), this could explain why it only took seven minutes to “trace” the call.
Thus, it wasn’t a proper trace, which would have required significantly more time as well as authorization to perform. “Trace” as used in the police report may have just meant “determining the location based on information provided by the suspect”. It wouldn’t be the first time something wasn’t clear in one of these reports.
Of course, as far as I’m aware, all of this assumes that Zodiac was telling the truth in the letter, and that the story of the “shabbly dressed man” who may or may not have contacted police wasn’t a concoction of the killer’s imagination designed to waste time with unprovable theories like this one. That also wouldn’t be the first time he did that. Is there any proof from Betty Main that the phone was indeed called back, or are we just taking a psychopath at his word?
Thank you ILTSGD. You’ve explained it really well, thank you.
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." Albert Einstein
Thank you ILTSGD. You’ve explained it really well, thank you.
Thanks for the kind words. However, I want to reiterate that this is strictly my personal opinion, which has been formed on the basis of the information posted in this thread and the Zodiac communications/police reports regarding this incident which may have been posted elsewhere. I’m not claiming that my hypothesis is correct, and won’t be upset if proof is somehow found that I am wrong. But a number of good points were raised in this thread, and I thought they all merited consideration even if some of them seemed contradictory.
One thing that I am not clear on is whether or not Betty Main (or Mains?) ever confirmed that the operator did indeed ring the phone back. Based on the overly detailed description of the shabbly dressed Negro man about 40-45 years of age (or whatever it was) whose attention was drawn to the caller and his brown car, it seems like a fake clew planted by the killer. Now the phone may indeed have rang back and startled the killer, perhaps someone even noticed the ringing phone, but unless it’s been proven that the operator did indeed call the phone back*, we’re taking what Zodiac said at face value, which personally I feel is a dangerous game.
*I do not wish to imply that proof does not exist, I am just not aware of any. I may have simply missed it if it was discussed.
