…a definitive Z victim? First of all I don’t understand why she isn’t listed as such..ok, she had survived but Z confessed to such an attack as well did he burn her car, making this attack sort of identifyable (any other burning car incidents with woman+baby abducted?). Then Kathleen had identified Z on the police station, hysterically, too.

Another question not asked yet: Z confessed to burning her car at the place where he had found Kathleen.

http://zodiackiller.com/JohnsLetter.html
(100% super Z writing, including referring to buttons etc.)

Why did he drive back to burn her car (!) at the place where he had found her? I mean this is ridiculous, isn’t it? At that incident, btw., Z is described as being thirty years old (making him 24 at CJB), with rather dark hair and glasses, wearing a dark ski jacket. Then, in four letters Z uses the ‘buttons’ issue..why?

http://zodiackiller.com/JohnsReport.html

QT

We’ve discussed this a lot in other posts In the KJ threads.

While yes, Zodiac said he did it, he offered nothing of proof outside of what was written word for word in the newspaper. While KJ said the guy looked like the man in the wanted poster, why would Zodiac "cop up" and say "yah, yah…that was me alright…she saw me up close and personal, got a good look at my car, the way I spoke, the scars on my face, my voice…and she got away!…Yep..that was me alright…be on the lookout for someone who looks JUST like she described!"

"why would Zodiac "cop up" and say "yah, yah…that was me alright…she saw me up close and personal, got a good look at my car, the way I spoke, the scars on my face, my voice…and she got away!…Yep..that was me alright…be on the lookout for someone who looks JUST like she described!" "

As much as I agree that Zodiac never gave any details of the incident that only Kathy’s abductor would know, he was seen by Two SFPD Patrol Officers on the street on October 11, and just escaped capture by the skin of his teeth. When this sighting took place, nobody was even remotely suspicious that it was anything other than a routine Robbery gone wrong that ended in murder. The murder, and subsequent sighting, took place on Oct 11. On the 13th a letter arrives at The Chronicle, complete with enclosed evidence, alerting the Bay Area residence that the Cab Driver wasn’t just killed by an average criminal, but that actually ‘Zodiac’ was the responsible. And the letter arrived on the 13th, but it was obviously written the day after he killed Stine and encountered police because he states he is the killer of the taxi driver "Over by Washington & Maple street last night"

He didn’t seem concerned he’d been seen then and, if he is to be believed, even spoke to the officers after they called him over. In that instance he could have, should he have wished, decided because he knew he’d been seen by Police, just never sent the letter and alerted anyone that ‘Zodiac’ was the offender. Nobody would be any the wiser to this day if he hadn’t confessed. And regarding Kathy J, Zodiac didn’t ‘fess up’ or ‘confess’ after being suspected, implicated or interrogated, he said it of his own free will claiming "I now have a little list, starting with the women and her baby I gave a rather interesting ride…."

Plus, he seems to claim his car was spotted by "The man who told police my car was brown was a negro about 40 – 45 rather shabbly dressed" This has never been verified as far as I know but none the less, if this is correct, he again doesn’t seem overly concerned about giving such details away.

Add the 71 L.A.TImes letter to that as well. Taking or at least suggesting responsibility. I know it’s tempting to suggest he was just ‘claiming’ but there is precedence where he didn’t, to set the record straight. "I hope you do not think that I was the one who wiped out that blue meannie with a bomb…."

I’m not suggesting that he was always truthful but there might be something in this ,that, at the very least, suggests that he might have been when it comes to his kill claims. Tricky though because it’s not like he was an ‘honest’ citizen.

Add the 71 L.A.TImes letter to that as well. Taking or at least suggesting responsibility. I know it’s tempting to suggest he was just ‘claiming’ but there is precedence where he didn’t, to set the record straight. "I hope you do not think that I was the one who wiped out that blue meannie with a bomb…."

I’m not suggesting that he was always truthful but there might be something in this ,that, at the very least, suggests that he might have been when it comes to his kill claims. Tricky though because it’s not like he was an ‘honest’ citizen.

Good points. The reason I am still on the fence with the CJB and his ‘Riverside Activity’ claim is because Zodiac was nominated publically in a Chronicle article written by Paul Avery. It’s only in reaction to Paul’s allegations does Zodiac give them the nod of approval that yes, that was me and then goes on to offer….. Nothing. I mean when I think of the way he reacted when the LE community said they were not sure if this writer really was the person responsible for Lake Herman Rd and Blue Rock Springs and would need more evidence to be convinced, he sent them detail after detail after detail that only the killer could know. He offers absolutely nothing in way of proof that he also murdered Cheri Jo. Now either he offers no inside knowledge of the crime this time because he can’t be bothered to convince LE again as he had previously, or it’s because he doesn’t know the details of her murder because he wasn’t the one responsible.
Similar with Johns. While he offers himself up as being responsible without first being implicated by anyone else and offers a few details this time, it’s nothing that wasn’t publically stated in the paper.

Yeah. Nothing’s ever simple in this. The being mentioned in the papers is a bit of a stumbling block. TBH though I’m starting to wonder why. Not just in the KJ instance but overall. That ‘excuse’ is starting to feel more and more like our modern day hoax theories to me.

As QT brings up in starting this thread, what were his possible motives in implicating himself with the crimes he did (implicate himself with)? Do we assume it’s more ‘clever’ misdirection? Sure it could be but we can’t take this guy’s ego out of the equation. Part of me can’t help but think that it would be beneath him to claim crimes that weren’t his. Not openly or in detail at least.

Regarding his ego, let’s not forget he likes to brag. These ‘admissions’ could be an extension of that, his way of saying, I’m handing myself to you on a plate and you still can’t catch me. In the 71 letter he seems to imply that "best get off their fat asses", it’s like he can’t even believe how many clues he’s given out.

I don’t half wonder if he didn’t want to be caught. Not as some grand gesture of humanity but rather as a new chapter for him to f**k with LE. Get caught then watch them fail to prove it was him. It’s interesting that he goes quiet for 3 years after the 71 letter. That and the KJ letter and the others may very well have been enough for him. Of course he liked the attention and then pops up again, briefly in 74.

Throughout all of his writing there’s something almost ‘incidental’ about the crimes. It’s as if, they weren’t that important to him. The communication side of things was, that aspect of control/anonymity/fear.

Look at bundy and even more recently Naso. Defending themselves. I think Z would have been another if he had been caught. I think he would have loved that stage. I also think he loved the ‘thrill’ of the chase. He kept pushing through his letters and, as for any thrill seeker, you have to push and that’s why I think he claimed/admitted the things he did. He wanted more fun, he wanted LE pouring over old crimes in southern california so he could relive them through letters.

When the need gripped him, he craved that aspect but to keep that flowing he had to give LE hints. I don’t think that was entirely successful though hence his 3 yr silence. I think he hoped that the CJB admission might snowball into others. Likewise with the KJ letter, as outlined by QT, why admit to something that carries so many possible descriptive factors? My feeling, it’s because he liked that excitement, that flirting with danger.

" Part of me can’t help but think that it would be beneath him to claim crimes that weren’t his."

I agree totally with that assumption.

"what were his possible motives in implicating himself with the crimes he did?"

I suppose we’ll never really know unless he is still alive and decides to tell us, and how likely is that to happen? 0.01% probability maybe. What betting odds would Ladbrokes offer on him announcing ‘PEEK-A-BOOOOO, I AM HERE AND GOING TO CONFESS ALL?’ 25.000 – 1 outside chance? But seriously, that is a valid question you ask because for me, it cannot be overlooked that if he were simply confessing to crimes that he did not commit then he is taking a big risk because….

If I decided tomorrow that I need to satisfy my ego and will do it by confessing to a murder that is on the front page of my local paper that I have, in reality, nothing to do with at all then I could write and tell the press "I see you have stumbled across my murderous activities" etc etc, but what happens then in 4 days time if and when the real culprate is arrested and charged with that crime? I’m now looking like a complete attention seeker who will admit to anything, not at all credible and then when I do fess up to a crime that may be genuinely carried out by me, nobody will believe me. For someone that would be driven by ego and who’s desire is to envoke fear throughout the Bay area, making false confessions is high risk to someone like him with a lot more to lose ( his being taken seriously) than to gain by it if your found out.

Eh…KJ was free advertising for him. Got him in the news and he didn’t have to do a thing, but copy a newspaper report.

Where’s the stuff only he and LE would know? Wasn’t there.

Riverside…"activity". He’s not claiming murder.

"…KJ was free advertising for him. Got him in the news and he didn’t have to do a thing, but copy a newspaper report"

Tahoe if that is the case, and he’s simply browsing through the Chronicle to see which crime he wants to claim credit for, I find it a bit odd that he picks the one that ends with his driving the wrong way down a highway entrance ramp causing him to slam on the breaks that then allows the women and her baby to dive to freedom. That makes him look really great. He can’t even control a victim when he’s got her in his car because he is too stupid to realise he’s driving down a one way on ramp. Surely T if he wanted to claim responsibility for crimes that were not of his doing he’d pick ones that made the offender seem good at what he does?

"…KJ was free advertising for him. Got him in the news and he didn’t have to do a thing, but copy a newspaper report"

Tahoe if that is the case, and he’s simply browsing through the Chronicle to see which crime he wants to claim credit for, I find it a bit odd that he picks the one that ends with his driving the wrong way down a highway entrance ramp causing him to slam on the breaks that then allows the women and her baby to dive to freedom. That makes him look really great. He can’t even control a victim when he’s got her in his car because he is too stupid to realise he’s driving down a one way on ramp. Surely T if he wanted to claim responsibility for crimes that were not of his doing he’d pick ones that made the offender seem good at what he does?

Why acknowledge it at all then? He picked that "crime" because KJ called him out!

It was worth it for him, imo. It’s better for him to look a little clumsy and have her point the finger at a man who wasn’t even him.

The Examiner article only mentions that she jumped out of the car at a stop sign.

The ONLY thing we have is KJ saying he looked like the poster. How many men have been acknowledged on websites, and family members saying, "it looks just like my Dad, Uncle Joe, neighbor", etc? ..and Zodiac’s saying word for word what was written in the paper.

He needed to offer more for me to say, without a doubt, it was him.

Ohh, hold on you may have just told me something I didn’t know….

After the ‘abduction’ happened, I know that Kathy claimed in the station and aftermath that she believed Zodiac was her abductor, but when her little piece appeared in the paper, did it do so with the article stating that they though Zodiac may be her abductor?

The way Zodiac first makes mention of John’s it doesn’t sound like he’s doing so because he’s been accused as it was when he replied congratulating them for finding his riverside activities. The way he announces the John saga is worded in a way that leads you to believe that he is not bringing this up in reaction to an accusation laid against him, but that he’s doing it via his own choice, and seeming to give a few extra details along with his confession so that people may understand just what ‘interesting ride’ he is speaking of. He wouldn’t need to do this if he was replying to an allegation.

Ohh, hold on you may have just told me something I didn’t know….

After the ‘abduction’ happened, I know that Kathy claimed in the station and aftermath that she believed Zodiac was her abductor, but when her little piece appeared in the paper, did it do so with the article stating that they though Zodiac may be her abductor?

The way Zodiac first makes mention of John’s it doesn’t sound like he’s doing so because he’s been accused as it was when he replied congratulating them for finding his riverside activities. The way he announces the John saga is worded in a way that leads you to believe that he is not bringing this up in reaction to an accusation laid against him, but that he’s doing it via his own choice, and seeming to give a few extra details along with his confession so that people may understand just what ‘interesting ride’ he is speaking of. He wouldn’t need to do this if he was replying to an allegation.

2/21/13

*
Zodiac didn’t offer ONE thing to prove he was the man who took KJ for her weird/intresting ride. In fact, he practically copied it from the Examiner.

I’d say…"nice try Zodiac, but no cigar".

SF Examiner – March 23, 1970

–

– –

– –

Woeman and her baby letter: http://zodiackiller.com/JohnsLetter.html

Well, I didn’t know that T and gladly concede that I was not aware of that fact and concede that your argument is far stronger than I realised. Thanks for bringing that to my attention

Tahoe I must warn you I am considering coming up with a wonderful, elaborate and ridiculous excuse to explain that all away because I may not be able to admit I am ever wrong. It may be better to delude myself into a false belief than to accept when I am wrong and change my mind. *Grins* (Sorry couldn’t help it)

In all seriousness, and like I have said, and I hope this shows, if I am wrong about something and shown evidence to prove it, I am more than happy to accept it and back down. Except to Smithy! I’d have to emigrate after doing such a thing!

You all bring up a lot of good points. Too many to settle on one so I’ll simply say again that I think, pardon if I offend, that the KJ incident was for attention – either from her husband, family, or for some Z. notoriety. I also think The Z. accepted blame for crimes he didn’t commit, i.e. his increasing score, Riverside, and "I shot a man sitting in a parked car with a .38.", for free publicity and to get LE looking in several directions for him…and then he "disappears" claiming to "have grown rather angry with the police for their telling lies about" him.

It does seem rather convenient doesn’t it. It’s like me going out and getting robbed and gunpoint and beaten up by the assailant, only to stagger into the Police Recpetion and before I say anything else point and shout "THAT’S HIM ON THE POSTER THERE, HE DID IT, THE ONE WHO THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS LOOKING FOR AND IS THE MOST NOTORIOUS, YES THAT ONE THERE. Kathy was insistent! "

"NOT THE ONE WIT THE LONG SCRAGGLY HAIR AND WHO’S WANTED FOR THE AVERAGE CRIME OF GRANT THEFT, NO NOT HIM, IT’S THE POSTER AND COMPOSITE NEXT TO IT. THE ONE THAT SAYS "MOST WANTED, DANGEROUS, AND ‘ZODIAC KILLER’ IN HUGE BOLD LETTERS. THATS THE ONE WHO TRIED ABDUCTED ME BEFORE FORGETTING HOW TO DRIVE AND HEADING STRIGHT INTO A ONE WAY LANE OF OMCOMING TRAFFIC!

Maybe the abductor had a wanted Zodiac paper clued to his face. We are dealing with a Criminal mastermind here lets remember!