smithy » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:51 pm

I agree. I think we can turn our back on previous confusion and say "it was found exactly where she abandoned it". No? Yes!

Personally, I think that’s most likely. But then again, I’m not at all comfortable that this was a Z crime to begin with.

Ditto. In fact, I read were she retracted her ID and (un)officially claimed a Mr. Lawrence Kane was to blame.
I tried finding that conversation as I hate to post claims without proof but I dislike crossposts even more, but I’ll make an exception:

"Additionally, possible Zodiac victim Kathleen Johns identified Kane as her abductor." http://www.zodiackiller.com/SuspectKane.html

Did "Z" do it? Abduct Kathleen Johns?
Different question. My answer – no.
Happy to clear that up.

Oh but he did Smithy. She arrived at the Police Station and sat down shaking. A Detective sat opposite her and told her "Kathy, your safe now, calm down, he can’t get you here." This reassured her and she relaxed. The Detective started the process of taking her statement by asking ‘Do you have any idea who abducted you and where he may have fled?" Kathy raised her eyes toward the detective and, her eyes widening, screamed "THERE HE IS!!!" Pointing over the Detectives shoulder. The Detective leapt up, drew his weapon and somersaulted twice in the air while clearing the reception desk taking cover. Crouching behind the reception desk, he aimed his gun frantically around the reception. At this point after hearing a scream and seeing a fellow officer ducked behind the desk with weapon drawn, 16 uniformed police officers burst into the reception, also with guns drawn, shouting FREEZE, FREEZE to anything that moved. The Detective screams "WHERE KATHY, WHERE?" to which she points and replies "THERE DETECTIVE, UP THERE ON THE WALL!" The Detective and officers present step down and put their weapons away. "Which composite up there resembles the man who abducted you, Kathy?" enquired the Detective. "No, it doesn’t look like him, that IS him, Detective! The one that has the word ‘Zodiac Killer’ written under it."

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Oh but he did Smithy. She arrived at the Police Station and sat down shaking. A Detective sat opposite her and told her "Kathy, your safe now, calm down, he can’t get you here." This reassured her and she relaxed. The Detective started the process of taking her statement by asking ‘Do you have any idea who abducted you and where he may have fled?" Kathy raised her eyes toward the detective and, her eyes widening, screamed "THERE HE IS!!!" Pointing over the Detectives shoulder. The Detective leapt up, drew his weapon and somersaulted twice in the air while clearing the reception desk taking cover. Crouching behind the reception desk, he aimed his gun frantically around the reception. At this point after hearing a scream and seeing a fellow officer ducked behind the desk with weapon drawn, 16 uniformed police officers burst into the reception, also with guns drawn, shouting FREEZE, FREEZE to anything that moved. The Detective screams "WHERE KATHY, WHERE?" to which she points and replies "THERE DETECTIVE, UP THERE ON THE WALL!" The Detective and officers present step down and put their weapons away. "Which composite up there resembles the man who abducted you, Kathy?" enquired the Detective. "No, it doesn’t look like him, that IS him, Detective! The one that has the word ‘Zodiac Killer’ written under it."

And the rest, as they say, is history.

KJ saying the guy looked like Zodiac is in no way proof it was Zodiac.

Who are you quoting?

–On a side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Haynesworth (these type of cases are in abundance..thank goodness for DNA)

I suppose it could happen that she saw a picture of a man who looked very much like her abductor, who just happened to be the Zodiac’s composite. It gets a small mention in one or two papers, Zodiac reads about it and makes claim to that abduction. Somehow later, the Zodiac finds where she is living and sends her a Halloween card, then makes phone calls to her, letting her know he is watching her and knows that her new baby is another girl. (She recognises his voice as her abductor.)
I certainly do believe that her encounter was with the Zodiac.
Carol Stine on the other hand says she is on that same road that night and has an encounter very much like Kathleen had. But her story is a taller man in a different car. I think Carol was mistaken on the date , were there were two men on the same road close to the same time, doing the same things? Or like what has happened to many other people, she mistakes the make of the car and what the person who was driving it looked like.( I haven’t seen a police report on Carol’s encounter that night.) As you know, she said that Joe Stine never lived in Vallejo, yet there is proof that he did. Could her memory have faded over time ?

He wrote about it though. Him, the actual guy, the actual Zodiac, the really real killer. He took the time to respond to that particular story. In writing. He put a little part of himself on that page for the whole world to see. Now, would you really do that for some random and possible connection to who you are simply based on a newspaper article? I wouldn’t, it would have to be personal enough to get my attention. Can’t get much more personal than actually being the person that abducted KJ. Just my HO.

He wrote about it though. Him, the actual guy, the actual Zodiac, the really real killer. He took the time to respond to that particular story. In writing. He put a little part of himself on that page for the whole world to see. Now, would you really do that for some random and possible connection to who you are simply based on a newspaper article? I wouldn’t, it would have to be personal enough to get my attention. Can’t get much more personal than actually being the person that abducted KJ. Just my HO.

Hell yes he would! "Yep…that was me alright! Be sure and tell them exactly what I looked like, sounded like…my car and everything." lol

I’ll say it again…too bad he didn’t off any other pertinent info that wasn’t already in the paper word for word. And a 4 MONTH wait? Very convenient.

In my view, there are a few particularly salient facts:
1) Kathleen Johns reported having been flagged down while driving on Highway 132 on Sunday, March 22, 1970, by a man who claimed her tire was coming loose. She reported being abducted, then escaping. When reported the matter to the police, she saw a poster that she strongly believed looked like her abductor: it was a poster of the Zodiac.
2) The author of the Zodiac Killer letter sent on 24 July 1970 wrote, "So I now have a little list, starting with the woeman + her baby that I gave a rather intersting ride for a couple howers one evening a few months back that ended in my burning her car where I found them".
3) Carol Stine has claimed on more than one occasion that she, too, was accosted by a male driver who attempted to get her to pull over on the pretext that her car was having tire problems. She did not fall for the ploy and sped away to safety. She claims that this occurred on Sunday, March 22, 1970. She indicated that she remembers the timing of the event for two reasons: i) because she was returning home from her mother’s place–they had been celebrating her mother’s birthday, which was on March 19th, and ii) because read about the Kathleen John abduction shortly afterward and made the connection.

Here we have claims made by 3 independent individuals that tell of very closely related events. There are discrepancies of detail, but the essential points strongly agree on the point that at least one male driver was accosting women on Highway 132 on the evening of Sunday, 22 March 1970. And not only do the stories agree in this way, but, when taken together, they lead us to at least one conclusion that is completely plausible with the Zodiac Killer saga: that the Zodiac Killer was targeting Carol Stine, and pursued Kathleen Johns only after failing to ensnare Carol in his trap. The possibility that he was targeting Carol Stine is very plausible in light of her brother Joe’s challenge to the Zodiac Killer a few months earlier.

Can we say with certainty that the reports of these 3 individuals were true–at least in their broad strokes? No, absolutely not. There are numerous points of discrepancy–many discussed here already–that give us good reason to feel that their claims, like all claims, need to be carefully validated and may even be false. But, by the same token, these counter-suggestions are only suggestions: they may lead some people to disbelieve the reports of these 3 people, but they are intuitions–reasonable ones, in many cases–but not facts.

My point is this: it is a classic mistake to give in entirely to our personal biases, but we do at times need to work forward on an idea without having to prove every point at every moment: we can do this if we agree to employ complementary working hypotheses. Proof does not exist either way at this time, but we have at least 2 worthwhile sets of working hypotheses to explore: the universe in which these (Zodiac as abductor) claims are likely true and the universe in which they are likely false.

I am particularly interested in the line of inquiry that is predicated on the likelihood that the Carol Stine story is true. I see that as a line of inquiry that holds great possibilities. That does not mean I want to lose sight of the alternate possibility that she made a mistake, it simply means that I would like to focus my attention on some of the implications of her claims, without the distraction, and drag, of trying to go in two opposite directions at once. So, it helps to think that the skeptics have my back, so to speak, as they focus on trying to build the case that says the combined story isn’t true, while I focus on the implications of my opposite pointing hypothesis.

Some might think that this is what we already do, but it it isn’t, really. Currently what we do is to try to persuade everybody to abandon their conclusions and convert to our preferred beliefs, or, failing that, to demand that they prove every point that they try to raise. By contrast, using complementary hypotheses involves temporarily abandoning the need to prove certain points–usually the ones that really can’t be proven anyhow–so that we can spend our time exploring where our hypothesis leads–or doesn’t lead, as the case may be. But the most important thing is that using complementary hypotheses works more like a partnership: I see the person who is following the opposing hypothesis as a partner who is focused on the part of the task that I don’t want to spend my time on, while I focus on the task that they might need to be open minded about, but don’t really want to spend their time on. It is in my interest to see them do a good job, while not having to feel at odds with them.

Hmmm, this comment started out with one discussion in mind, but it was largely overridden by a thought process that I have been thinking about presenting for a fairly long time. It is my rather unusual take on collective theory building, so I understand if this just seems odd to you. That said, if this seems to make sense or resonates with you in any way, please let me know.

Best regards,

G

Two points to consider: if you believe Zodiac abducted Johns and her daughter, remember her description of the interior of the car. It was littered, so to speak, with children’s clothing, and gave the appearance, in my mind, of being a "family car". If this sounds incongruous, remember John Wayne Gacy was a family man. Also, re Z’s self-proclaimed "Riverside activities". About a month after Bates’ murder, a young woman was offered ride by a young man–blond, if I remember aright–who took her to a remote location in Pigeon Pass, and started stripping her of clothing. She got away, and later recounted that her abductor had made pointed references to Cheri Bates’ murder.

I suppose it could happen that she saw a picture of a man who looked very much like her abductor, who just happened to be the Zodiac’s composite. It gets a small mention in one or two papers, Zodiac reads about it and makes claim to that abduction. Somehow later, the Zodiac finds where she is living and sends her a Halloween card, then makes phone calls to her, letting her know he is watching her and knows that her new baby is another girl. (She recognises his voice as her abductor.)
I certainly do believe that her encounter was with the Zodiac.
Carol Stine on the other hand says she is on that same road that night and has an encounter very much like Kathleen had. But her story is a taller man in a different car. I think Carol was mistaken on the date , were there were two men on the same road close to the same time, doing the same things? Or like what has happened to many other people, she mistakes the make of the car and what the person who was driving it looked like.( I haven’t seen a police report on Carol’s encounter that night.) As you know, she said that Joe Stine never lived in Vallejo, yet there is proof that he did. Could her memory have faded over time ?

In all seriousness Carol’s claim, if true, that she was on the same highway and reports an incident almost identical to Kathy’s, is the one thing that makes me think this very likely is the work of Zodiac. Considering Joe’s (Paul’s brother) challenge to Zodiac to come after him and make him the next victim, I think that is just something Z would do. He’d probably react to Joe telling Zodiac where he works, what route he takes to get to work and that he’s unarmed etc by believing this was something SFPD had put Joe up to doing in order that they set a trap hoping that Zodiac would go after Joe and catch him in the act. Zodiac may have been offended at what Joe called him (coward etc) and decided that because he’s challenged him publically after he’d killed Joe’s Brother, he’ll now go after Joe’s other sibling and kill her also.

I’m sure I read a report or article before where Carol speaks about the encounter with the driver who was flashing his lights, honking his horn and mouthing something at Carol while pointing at her tyre and in it Carol says she immediately though this could be ‘Him’ (Zodiac) and as he pulled up along side her and the made eye contact, she stuck her tongue out at him and put her foot to the floor and sped away. Very odd thing to do if she instantly questioned if it could be Zodiac. Then again I suppose people react differently when and if they are extremely nervous, some may even do silly things that seem out of place. Maybe she just wanted to try to appear that she was not intimidated by him?

…
I’m sure I read a report or article before where Carol speaks about the encounter with the driver who was flashing his lights, honking his horn and mouthing something at Carol while pointing at her tyre and in it Carol says she immediately though this could be ‘Him’ (Zodiac) and as he pulled up along side her and the made eye contact, she stuck her tongue out at him and put her foot to the floor and sped away. Very odd thing to do if she instantly questioned if it could be Zodiac. Then again I suppose people react differently when and if they are extremely nervous, some may even do silly things that seem out of place. Maybe she just wanted to try to appear that she was not intimidated by him?

Hi Welch Chappie,

LOL, I am in agreement with your hypothesis. In fact I have made very similar comments on Tom Voigt’s site in the Turlock Journal thread ( http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/reply/1 … ply-134583).

What makes me laugh is the comment about Carol sticking out her tongue at the man in the car. I suspect that was my mischief. Here is what I wrote:

His long awaited opportunity arrives on March 22nd, when Carol, after having spent time visiting and celebrating her mother’s birthday, finally sets out for home. When she pulls out of the driveway, he surreptitiously follows.

So far, all is going swimmingly.

When she reaches Highway 132, he follows for a bit, then speeds up, begins flashing his lights and honking his horn and signalling for her to pull over, indicating there is something is wrong with her car.

In a moment, he will have her.

Of course, that is where his plan crumbles. As if in a scene from the Roadrunner cartoon, she doesn’t fall for his trap. (Maybe it was the "Acme Rentals" sign on his car that made her wary.) Instead she looks out her window at him, sticks her tongue out, yells "Beep, beep!", then promptly floors the accelerator, leaving him to eat her dust.

I suppose you youngsters across the pond may not know who the Road Runner is. Anyway, sorry for the misinformation, but I doubt Carol actually stuck her tongue out.

That said, I very much agree that Carol Stine’s claims–which she recently reiterared in a chat on TV’s site on Oct 11th of this year–do give great credence to the whole KJ abduction, and they shine the matter in a whole new light. This is a chapter in Zodiac history that researchers need to revisit very carefully and with new eyes, because it holds many new answers, imho.

Thanks for your comments, they are well placed

G

KJ sat next to Z..KJ’s description of Z is in my mind without a doubt the most accurate..

KJ sat next to Z..KJ’s description of Z is in my mind without a doubt the most accurate..

If…

And if she didn’t actually sit next to Zodiac…

Fwi, in running all the suspects through my mind, the only one I recall who had children was Morf’s suspect, James Owen (Owens?).

Has it crossed anyone else’s mind that all the major suspects were single and childless except Mr. Owen?

It needn’t necessarily have been their own child whom they were taking care of. Could’ve been a young nephew or niece.