If he would have said ONE thing that wasn’t in the SF Examiner, etc., I’d be a believer.

If Ms. John’s attacker said anything that wasn’t in the SF Examiner or in the police reports available to the public, how would we know about it?

I find Johns credible but that’s just me.

By offering info in his letters like he did prior. Info that was not published in newspapers. (word for word: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=133 )

"To prove this, I shall state some facts which only I and the police know…"

I find KJ credible, and think she believed the man was Zodiac.

BBM 1. There’s no way of knowing something that’s not knowable. Something could have been with-held. I don’t think there’s enough information available publicly to say one way or the other. Newspapers aren’t all that accurate imo and Zodiac isn’t all that credible imo. Then there’s the possibility of the police feeding certain information to the paper for a reason. Who knows? I sure don’t.

BBM 2. I do too.

It’s my understanding the cops doubted Ms. Johns story or at least doubted her alleged abductor was Zodiac. If they based that opinion solely on the alleged letter that was possibly based on the news article, I find that disingenuous.

I don’t have enough information to totally discredit Ms. Johns or to say Zodiac did or didn’t abduct her.

BBM 1. There’s no way of knowing something that’s not knowable. Something could have been with-held. I don’t think there’s enough information available publicly to say one way or the other. Newspapers aren’t all that accurate imo and Zodiac isn’t all that credible imo. Then there’s the possibility of the police feeding certain information to the paper for a reason. Who knows? I sure don’t.
BBM 2. I do too.

It’s my understanding the cops doubted Ms. Johns story or at least doubted her alleged abductor was Zodiac. If they based that opinion solely on the alleged letter that was possibly based on the news article, I find that disingenuous.

I don’t have enough information to totally discredit Ms. Johns or to say Zodiac did or didn’t abduct her.

Yes. Something could have been withheld by the police. But, we have the copy of Zodiac’s letter. Zodiac’s letter is a match for the Examiner. Where is his proof that he always wanted to give? It’s just not there.

This site and message boards like it are proof there are people who think many, many men look like Zodiac….and apparently behaved like him too…and in their minds were him, without a any doubts. Unless KJ sewed his hood, how would she know he was the Zodiac killer?

The police reports came out long before Zodiac wrote his letter. So KJ either never mentioned her life being threatened or the cops didn’t believe her at the time they took their reports so failed to put that in them.

All I am saying is there is absolutely no proof what-so-ever Zodiac did this. Zilch.

I agree there is no proof.

It is my understanding Ms. Johns identified her abductor when she saw his poster or mug shot (or whatever it was she saw) and not that she said her abductor was the Zodiac.

I’m not sure what you are trying to convince me of but I don’t have enough information to make a decision. I’ve already forgotten what the original question was.

I agree there is no proof.

It is my understanding Ms. Johns identified her abductor when she saw his poster or mug shot (or whatever it was she saw) and not that she said her abductor was the Zodiac.

I’m not sure what you are trying to convince me of but I don’t have enough information to make a decision. I’ve already forgotten what the original question was.

I’m really not trying to convince you. Just calling it like I personally see it. Many go back and forth, so I doubt a decision will never be made by some. I too at first thought KJ was a "victim" of Zodiac. Years and more info changed my mind. Certainly that is not the case for others.

She did say the man she rode with was the man on the poster/mug shot who was identified Zodiac. Hence the article the next day in the SF Examiner.

Hi,

Thought it might be helpful to summarize the arguments about this case at a very high level. Not sure if I caught all the major lines of thought. Feel free to suggest improvements, etc., or to submit your own summary.

Plus-Minus-Intuitions: Kathleen Johns was abducted by the Zodiac Killer

Plus:
1) Kathleen identified the Zodiac wanted poster as matching her attacker.
2) Zodiac Killer refers to driving woman and baby for couple hours
3) Carol Stine reported being accosted in similar way on same hwy on same day
4) Mysterious dots on Dripping Pen card may have been deliberate presaging of a highway 132 attack

Minus:
1) Kathleen’s reports involve some seeming inconsistencies and dubious points
2) The Zodiac Killer’s reference in KJ letter of 24 July 1970, did not present any info that could not have been gleaned from newspapers, thus nothing to substantiate his claim.
3) Zodiac makes false claims: various possible false claims cited: e.g.: CJB murder, Officer Radetich, bus bomb scare.

Intuitions:
1) It seems Z would lose face if he admitted to a failed attack, so it seems even less likely he would have made a false claim about a failed attack.
2) It seems against character or MO that Z would have committed such a crime
3) Z might have claimed a false attack to throw cops off his track, leading them to follow a mistaken description of Z. (Of course, KJ’s description would have led to status quo since she simply pointed to a picture based on a description they already been taking as their standard.)

The category I called "Intuitions" is mostly about people’s suppositions (or intuitions) as to how Z should think. Plus and minus entries are mixed together in this category.

G

I probably should add that each of the main points listed above could have their plus and minus points added as counterarguments.

Excellent synopsis, Gluck.

Hi,

Thought it might be helpful to summarize the arguments about this case at a very high level. Not sure if I caught all the major lines of thought. Feel free to suggest improvements, etc., or to submit your own summary.

Plus-Minus-Intuitions: Kathleen Johns was abducted by the Zodiac Killer

Plus:
1) Kathleen identified the Zodiac wanted poster as matching her attacker.
2) Zodiac Killer refers to driving woman and baby for couple hours
3) Carol Stine reported being accosted in similar way on same hwy on same day
4) Mysterious dots on Dripping Pen card may have been deliberate presaging of a highway 132 attack

Minus:
1) Kathleen’s reports involve some seeming inconsistencies and dubious points
2) The Zodiac Killer’s reference in KJ letter of 24 July 1970, did not present any info that could not have been gleaned from newspapers, thus nothing to substantiate his claim.
3) Zodiac makes false claims: various possible false claims cited: e.g.: CJB murder, Officer Radetich, bus bomb scare.

Intuitions:
1) It seems Z would lose face if he admitted to a failed attack, so it seems even less likely he would have made a false claim about a failed attack.
2) It seems against character or MO that Z would have committed such a crime
3) Z might have claimed a false attack to throw cops off his track, leading them to follow a mistaken description of Z. (Of course, KJ’s description would have led to status quo since she simply pointed to a picture based on a description they already been taking as their standard.)

The category I called "Intuitions" is mostly about people’s suppositions (or intuitions) as to how Z should think. Plus and minus entries are mixed together in this category.

G

Just to clarify a point or two that may have been misinterpreted:

Firstly, my intent in presenting the above was primarily to summarize the arguments as I understand them, not to say that I personally favor all the arguments presented above.

Secondly, on the specific topic of whether Z tended to be generally truthful, or whether he makes numerous false claims, I tend to give some degree of priority to theories that work in accordance with Miller’s law, which states: "To understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mille r’s_law).

Note, that I have co-opted Miller’s law to some degree. He intended it as a rule to facilitate communication. I am using it as an analytical tool. To my way of thinking, Miller’s law shares something with Occam’s razor. It seems to me that we should make an in-depth exploration of Z’s words on the assumption that they are in some significant way true, and try to exhaust those possbilities before we should jump to the supposition that his words must be untrue. Like Occam’s Razor, Miller’s law is a guide to exploring information in an orderly way, it should not be used to presuppose that Z must have been telling the truth.

[Aside: People often misapply Occam’s Razor by equating it with the notion that the simplest answer is usually the truth. That’s not what Occam is saying. The fact is, the truth is often complex, or even completely garbled. It is providing guidance on how to organize one’s search for the truth, primarily by giving priority to simple theories over complex theories, and marshalling your resources with that in mind. Miller’s Law can be used in a similar fashion.]

Regards,

G

Great points G.
Could KJ’s inconsistencies in location (such as where Z drove, where she was picked up/left etc) be put down to the huge stress of what she apparently went through coupled with it being dark? I don’t know if it’s been ascertained how familiar she was with that area’s highways and if it’s anything like the UK’s (Especially at night) the view out the window looks very similar for miles on end. I’m also struggling to find a polite was of saying she obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the box which could also explain holes in her recollection (terribly insulting but it could be a factor).
I also don’t worry about the MO much, contrary to popular belief I don’t think Z would have been scared off after Stine, I think that would have given him the rush of his life and built his confidence to strike out in any way he could imagine after the success of different styles at LB and then Presidio Heights.

Plus:

3) Carol Stine reported being accosted in similar way on same hwy on same day

I think you might need to add to the "minus" list:

1) The person who motioned Carol to pull over was in a different vehicle than KJ described.
2) She did not call police after reading in the newspaper (the next day) that Zodiac allegedly took KJ for her ride.
3) In the beginning when she was trying to determine the day/date it happened, she was using Larry Singleton as a comparison, and also using the car she drove to try and figure out the date.

All of this, imo, doesn’t scream of someone who now, seems so positive it happened on THAT particular evening. This wasn’t "reported" to LE. And, even if it was the same guy, it doesn’t make him Zodiac.

***

Plus:

3) Carol Stine reported being accosted in similar way on same hwy on same day

I think you might need to add to the "minus" list:

1) The person who motioned Carol to pull over was in a different vehicle than KJ described.
2) She did not call police after reading in the newspaper (the next day) that Zodiac allegedly took KJ for her ride.
3) In the beginning when she was trying to determine the day/date it happened, she was using Larry Singleton as a comparison, and also using the car she drove to try and figure out the date.

All of this, imo, doesn’t scream of someone who now, seems so positive it happened on THAT particular evening. This wasn’t "reported" to LE. And, even if it was the same guy, it doesn’t make him Zodiac.

***

Hi Tahoe,

Fair enough for points 1 and 2.

As for point 3, I recall that Judith, from the TV site (Turlock Journal thread), clarified that the mixup about the Larry Singleton event was a result of how she herself had written her notes. IIRC, she indicated that when she interviewed Carol, she did not expect to be providing her notes to others. She had written that point in an unclear way, but she said Carol had in fact not been confused about about Singleton. The mistake was Judith’s, if it was anybody’s, (by her eords, not an accusation) and she simply had the integrity to publish the notes as she wrote them, rather than modify them.

That said, there is a basis for wondering about Carol’s timeline, as I noted earlier: Carol gave conflicting info (in the Oct 11 chat on TV’s site) when she indicated that she moved to Mountain View two years after Paul’s death. That point may be verifiable with time and a bit of luck.

G

Here is an updated version of the high level summary of the arguments that I am aware of about the KJ abduction.

Plus-Minus-Intuitions: Kathleen Johns was abducted by the Zodiac Killer:

Plus:
1) Kathleen identified the Zodiac wanted poster as matching her attacker.
2) Zodiac Killer refers to driving woman and baby for couple hours
3) Carol Stine reported being accosted in similar way on same hwy on same day
4) Carol has publically affirmed that the events she reported happened on the same date as the KJ attack.
5) Mysterious dots on Dripping Pen card may have been deliberate presaging of a highway 132 attack

Minus:
1) Kathleen’s reports involve some seeming inconsistencies and dubious points
2) The Zodiac Killer’s reference in KJ letter of 24 July 1970, did not present any info that could not have been gleaned from newspapers, thus nothing to substantiate his claim.
3) Zodiac (puportedly) makes false claims: various possible false claims cited: e.g.: CJB murder, Officer Radetich, bus bomb scare.
4) There was an apparent discrepancy between the vehicles that Carol and KJ described.
5) Carol apparently did not call police after (purportedly) reading in the newspaper the next day that Zodiac allegedly took KJ for her ride.
6) There were (possible) indications that Carol may have been confused on the dates of the events she reported.

Intuitions:
1) It seems Z would lose face if he admitted to a failed attack, so it seems even less likely he would have made a false claim about a failed attack.
2) It seems against character or MO that Z would have committed such a crime
3) Z might have claimed a false attack to throw cops off his track, leading them to follow a mistaken description of Z. (Of course, KJ’s description would have led to status quo since she simply pointed to a picture based on a description they already been taking as their standard.)

The category I called "Intuitions" is mostly about people’s suppositions (or intuitions) as to how Z should think. Plus and minus entries are mixed together in this category.

G

I tend to agree with the analysis on the following site. I don’t think it was Z based on his weight:

Johns clearly described the weight of her “kidnapper” as 160 pounds. She stuck to this even years later. If anything was set in stone about ZODIAC it was that he was a heavy-set man. He had not lost 70 pounds since October. Because of the impression of his shoe print at Lake Berryessa, the police there speculated he was at least 210 pounds in weight. However, from the looks of the wanted poster one would think The ZODIAC a fairly skinny man, but in truth he was not.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/kathleen_johns.html

Well one thing is not open to argument that we can say we do know for sure is this: The one thing we can say we know with certainty is that we simply cannot know with any certainty whether Zodiac was or wasn’t Kathy’s abductor.

Myself, I still am undecided in my opinion whether Z was responsible or not. Being a proponent of Lawrence Kane as Zodiac it would be in my interest to state that I believe Zodiac was her abductor because Kathy apparently picked Kane out as the man who gave her the rather interesting ride. But hand picking what I want to believe because it may support or help further an agenda I have will do nothing but lead to seeing what you want to see, and believing what you want to believe as long as it fits with a far bigger and general agenda.

So I just don’t know. Some things make me think possibly could be Z, other things make me think very unlikely to have been Z. I think both sides of this argument has merit to it, both for and against the notion of Zodiac being behind the incident.

Being a proponent of Lawrence Kane as Zodiac it would be in my interest to state that I believe Zodiac was her abductor because Kathy apparently picked Kane out as the man who gave her the rather interesting ride.

She picked Kane out of a lineup of six photos, all of which were photos of Kane.