and she probably would have even called police that night!

That’s my biggest problem with this part of story, regardless of when it happened why the hell didn’t she report it to the police? Morf seems to have uncovered a few similar incidents in news around this time, it is likely most women drivers were aware to be on guard and also report anything of this nature that they might otherwise not have. Maybe she did, but I would have thought she would have relayed this to Judith so that the date could be verified if that was the case.

I had been on the fence about this whole incident for some time until I came across some archived conversations on Voigt’s old message board. Judith Chapman, author of ‘Tit Willow’ and, from what I gather, someone who is generally considered trustworthy and a positive force in the community, claims she interviewed Carol Stine (sister of Paul) a few years back. A startling revelation from this interview was that Carol Stine claimed on the same night as the KJ incident, she was driving to her mother’s birthday party along highway 132 when a man tried to get her to pull over in a rather aggressive manner. Sensibly she ignored and outran him. The consensus on that forum was that, given that Joe Stine had issued a challenge to Zodiac a few months previously, there is good reason to believe Zodiac would try to target members of the Stine family and when better to predict family movement than on a family birthday?

I cannot find any mention of Carol Stine reporting this to the police which I do find a bit odd. I can’t say whether I’d want to know everything I could about Zodiac in her situation or want to forget about it completely, so there is the possibility that she avoided stories such as KJ’s and ultimately didn’t realise there was a potential link to her brother’s killer. But if Carol Stine’s story is true it not only lends credence to KJ’s story but increases the likelihood that the man was Z – his future failure to convincingly claim the crime could be because it didn’t go to plan with his intended victim and he was rattled, not picking up the types of details he would otherwise use in his descriptions (and would also explain the need to set fire to the car, he may have been unsure about what he’d touched).

? Alternatively are there any reasons that we shouldn’t necessarily value the claims by Judith Chapman or Carol Stine? I’ve done some surface digging (googling) and not really found any reason to doubt either of them.

"Does this change anyone else’s perception of the event"

For me, it gives credibility to Kathy John’s claims. Now I know there are some people on this site that don’t agree with that, and that’s fine. But, here’s what we know. Carol encountered a vehicle on highway 132, driven by a lone male occupant , who seemed to try and get Carol to pull over by flashing his lights behind her vehicle, honking his horn, then pulling along side Carol and pointing at her wheel while mouthing something in her direction. Carol does not stop, but speeds up and away from the man and his car. On the same day (as best we can determine), Kathy Johns in driving highway 132 when a vehicle behind her starts flashing it’s lights, honking it’s horn, and pulls alongside Kathy with the driver motioning to Kathy’s tyre and mouthing words in her direction.
The odds of there being two encounters, on the same stretch of road, on the same day, with the same MO, by two different men, independent of the other, is highly unlikely.

Without Carol Stine’s claims, then the only reason we have to believe it may have been Zodiac that abducted Kathy is her ID of him via the composite, but with Carol Stine stating that she had had a similar encounter on that same highway the same day, then this, for me, vastly increases the potential for the lone male who Kathy encountered, to be Zodiac because Carol’s Brother, Joe, had issued a direct challenge to Zodiac so Zodiac going after Carol Stine wouldn’t be out of the question. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.

 

Not the same Judith.

Not enough concrete proof to verify it happened the same day. Not the same car either.

Not the same Judith.

Not enough concrete proof to verify it happened the same day. Not the same car either.

Tahoe, let’s say then, hypothetically, that we do know for a fact that Carol’s encounter occurred the same day as Kathy’s abduction, just for the purpose of this one post.
So, now it’s been determined that both womens encounters happened on the same day (Hypothetically, remember lol) would you still be of the opinion that it’s more likely that two different men were responsible who just happened to be on the sae road, on the same day, using the same technique as each other attempting to abduct women? The vehicle descriptions differing may be put down to the unreliability of eye witnesses testimony.

I mean for me, the odds of there being two men on that road that day, both unaware of the other, and both just happen to be looking to abduct a women, one of which just coincidently happens to be the sister of a known Zodiac victim, both using the same light flashing, horn honking "Your wheel’s wobbling, please pull over" ruse, is just to mutch of a stretch, especially when Kathy claims the man who abducted her was the man featured on the wanted Zodiac Poster, and Carol Stine just happens to be the first target of the ‘the wobbling wheel’ routine.
I mean I know there’s no physical evidence to link the two womens encounter’s. But come on, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I won’t demand they supply me with it’s DNA as proof because odd’s are, it’s a duck lol.

But come on, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I won’t demand they supply me with it’s DNA as proof because odd’s are, it’s a duck lol.

Like that. Although I think it might be more accurate to say in this context that it "look like ducks" but we aren’t sure if it’s the same duck on the same day.

But come on, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I won’t demand they supply me with it’s DNA as proof because odd’s are, it’s a duck lol.

Like that. Although I think it might be more accurate to say in this context that it "look like ducks" but we aren’t sure if it’s the same duck on the same day.

Haven’t you heard that saying before traveller? "If it walks like a Duck, looks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, then chances are, it’s a Duck" Lol. Quite a well know phrase.

Whilst this example is a good analogy to use in most instances to get a point across, I want to make it clear that I am in no way comparing the San Francisco Zodiac Killer to Duck. Lol.

Anyway, back to being serious for a few seconds, I do think it’s a good analogy to use here because if the man looked like Zodiac, made threats similar to Zodiac, sounded like Zodiac, and took credit for abducting Kathy after he’d just tried the same thing with none other than Carol Stine, the sister of a known Zodiac victim, then the chances are, the man was Zodiac.

Put it this way, if another woman had came forward after hearing of Kathy’s abduction, and stated that she too had had a man try to stop her vehicle in the exact same way on that same road earlier that day, even that week, then i’d say that even though Zodiac took credit for the ‘rather interesting ride’, i’d be on the fence as to whether he really was responsible. But, the fact that Carol Stine seemed to have had a similar encounter with a male driver takes it from a 50/50 chance of it actually being Z that abducted Kathy, to a 75/80% probability, at least in my opinion. Otherwise, we would have to believe the following…

Kathy John’s was abducted by a man who just happens to resemble Zodiac, and the real Zodiac just happens to claim credit for this abduction also. Also, coincidently, Carol Stine, the sister of a known Zodiac victim and who’s other Brother had publically challenged Zodiac, also just happened to be encounter a vehicle on the same road and the driver did exactly the same as the man, reporting to be Zodiac, did to Kathy also.
Or, it could be that the man was actually Zodiac and was targeting Carol, and when that failed, abducted Kathy instead along the same stretch of road?

Her experience sounds more like a cover for an insurance claim, publicity, or call for (personal) attention. If this really were The Z., there were no (liftable) prints left behind and no reason to burn the car. If this were connected to him, all he could be found guilty for would be giving her a ride (so she jumped out with her child or he dropped her off and she wigged out).

Sure The Z. claimed this story to further expand his/their territory to further distract focus away from Vallejo, site of the two more related original murders, and keep their cover alive.

Her experience sounds more like a cover for an insurance claim, publicity, or call for (personal) attention. If this really were The Z., there were no (liftable) prints left behind and no reason to burn the car. If this were connected to him, all he could be found guilty for would be giving her a ride (so she jumped out with her child or he dropped her off and she wigged out).

Sure The Z. claimed this story to further expand his/their territory to further distract focus away from Vallejo, site of the two more related original murders, and keep their cover alive.

See now that’s not correct. Kathy had got into the mans vehicle, and as he was about to get in to his drivers side, Kathy realised that she had left her car’s lights on, along with the keys in the ignition. She mentioned this and the man returned to her car, opened her car door, switched her lights off, and removed her keys. So he did touch her car both externally and internally.
Z could claim this as his work when it wasn’t sure, but were you not the one that told me only yesterday that "Zodiac was in no way a stupid person" to which I agreed he was not? So do you now think that Zodiac would take credit for this, knowing it wasn’t him, and not even consider the possibility that the real abductor could be caught any moment and he’d be made to look like s stupid, lying, crime claiming attention seeker who tries to ride the infamy of someone else’s crime? I’m sure Zodiac would be well aware that to take credit for being her abductor if it wasn’t him would not serve any purpose because if Kathy’s assailant were caught then he, Zodiac, would make himself look like a complete idiot.

I don’t know why some people seem to see Zodiac as someone who confessed to crimes he did not commit all the time? To some, Zodiac is portrayed as so desperate for attention that when a report appears in the chronicle stating a 6 pack of beer was stolen from a mall, he’s dashing to his pen "This is the Zodiac Speaking. I am the man responsible for the theft of a six pack over at the mall last week. To prove this, here is one of the empty beer can’s" lol.
The truth of it is actually quite different. Zodiac did not offer a ‘Confession’ voluntarily to the Riverside/Bates murder, he was directly accused by Paul Avery in a public newspaper as being possibly responsible. For all we know, Zodiac may have decided to take credit for that because it helped to divert attention away down to Riverside. But yes, Zodiac did claim in several letters, "Me 17 – SFPD 0" and finally ended up with a claimed tally of "Me 37 – SFPD 0" but was he really taking credit for crimes there, or just winding the police up with numbers to piss them off?
I mean if this man was so desperate to receive media coverage and attention, he knew an easy way to guarantee he’d make the front page if he really wanted too. But does he, no. Instead he actually does the complete opposite and tells them he will no longer seek publicity by informing the press when he does ‘his thing’

Her experience sounds more like a cover for an insurance claim, publicity, or call for (personal) attention. If this really were The Z., there were no (liftable) prints left behind and no reason to burn the car. If this were connected to him, all he could be found guilty for would be giving her a ride (so she jumped out with her child or he dropped her off and she wigged out).

Sure The Z. claimed this story to further expand his/their territory to further distract focus away from Vallejo, site of the two more related original murders, and keep their cover alive.

See now that’s not correct. Kathy had got into the mans vehicle, and as he was about to get in to his drivers side, Kathy realised that she had left her car’s lights on, along with the keys in the ignition. She mentioned this and the man returned to her car, opened her car door, switched her lights off, and removed her keys. So he did touch her car both externally and internally.
Z could claim this as his work when it wasn’t sure, but were you not the one that told me only yesterday that "Zodiac was in no way a stupid person" to which I agreed he was not? So do you now think that Zodiac would take credit for this, knowing it wasn’t him, and not even consider the possibility that the real abductor could be caught any moment and he’d be made to look like s stupid, lying, crime claiming attention seeker who tries to ride the infamy of someone else’s crime? I’m sure Zodiac would be well aware that to take credit for being her abductor if it wasn’t him would not serve any purpose because if Kathy’s assailant were caught then he, Zodiac, would make himself look like a complete idiot.

Respectfully, but it is most likely correct. The Z. who I theorize to have done LHR, BRS, (first two his home base) LB, and SF, (each over 40 miles away from home base) would have claimed this to widen his circle of fear and increase belief in him as a roaming serial killer (I now theorize he was someone who killed out of necessity with help using The Z. as cover). No harm in claiming this as it wasn’t him if the real guy was found, The Z. could go on as a copycat, or The Z. could always claim this as a prank along with his bluffs.

Her experience sounds more like a cover for an insurance claim, publicity, or call for (personal) attention. If this really were The Z., there were no (liftable) prints left behind and no reason to burn the car. If this were connected to him, all he could be found guilty for would be giving her a ride (so she jumped out with her child or he dropped her off and she wigged out).

Sure The Z. claimed this story to further expand his/their territory to further distract focus away from Vallejo, site of the two more related original murders, and keep their cover alive.

See now that’s not correct. Kathy had got into the mans vehicle, and as he was about to get in to his drivers side, Kathy realised that she had left her car’s lights on, along with the keys in the ignition. She mentioned this and the man returned to her car, opened her car door, switched her lights off, and removed her keys. So he did touch her car both externally and internally.
Z could claim this as his work when it wasn’t sure, but were you not the one that told me only yesterday that "Zodiac was in no way a stupid person" to which I agreed he was not? So do you now think that Zodiac would take credit for this, knowing it wasn’t him, and not even consider the possibility that the real abductor could be caught any moment and he’d be made to look like s stupid, lying, crime claiming attention seeker who tries to ride the infamy of someone else’s crime? I’m sure Zodiac would be well aware that to take credit for being her abductor if it wasn’t him would not serve any purpose because if Kathy’s assailant were caught then he, Zodiac, would make himself look like a complete idiot.

Respectfully, but it is most likely correct. The Z. who I theorize to have done LHR, BRS, (first two his home base) LB, and SF, (each over 40 miles away from home base) would have claimed this to widen his circle of fear and increase belief in him as a roaming serial killer (I now theorize he was someone who killed out of necessity with help using The Z. as cover). No harm in claiming this as it wasn’t him if the real guy was found, The Z. could go on as a copycat, or The Z. could always claim this as a prank along with his bluffs.

Nothing wrong with having a theory, but can I ask what you base this on?

Respectfully, but it is most likely correct. The Z. who I theorize to have done LHR, BRS, (first two his home base) LB, and SF, (each over 40 miles away from home base) would have claimed this to widen his circle of fear and increase belief in him as a roaming serial killer (I now theorize he was someone who killed out of necessity with help using The Z. as cover). No harm in claiming this as it wasn’t him if the real guy was found, The Z. could go on as a copycat, or The Z. could always claim this as a prank along with his bluffs.

Nothing wrong with having a theory, but can I ask what you base this on?

http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop … f=96&t=645
Sure, it’s an unproven theory but it works and explains any loose ends. I’ll not lose any sleep if the case remains unsolved (My custody case is much more important and my son and I have years to make up) or my theory is proven wrong which I really doubt. But if someone catches on and proves me right, I’ll say "See, I told you so." …. and ask for a percentage.

When it comes to theories, It’s always good to have facts you can point to when someone questions it because it gives the theory far more credibility. Theories are fine to have, we are all free to have theories and they are an important part of investigation when your talking about an unsolved series of murders, committed by an unknown person/persons. But I always think that if your going to give a theory on a public forum, then it’s always a good idea to list the grounds you have for having the theory. If I post a theory, as I have done on here in several threads, I fully expect, want and welcome other members to scrutinize it, question it, try and prove the theory invalid and if after this, it still stands up as a plausible and possible theory after this, it gives that theory it’s credibility.

If you have a theory that someone was helping Zodiac, that’s something we’ all be interested in hearing, as long as you can tell us what the basis for it is

Not the same Judith.

Not enough concrete proof to verify it happened the same day. Not the same car either.

Tahoe, let’s say then, hypothetically, that we do know for a fact that Carol’s encounter occurred the same day as Kathy’s abduction, just for the purpose of this one post.
So, now it’s been determined that both womens encounters happened on the same day (Hypothetically, remember lol) would you still be of the opinion that it’s more likely that two different men were responsible who just happened to be on the sae road, on the same day, using the same technique as each other attempting to abduct women? The vehicle descriptions differing may be put down to the unreliability of eye witnesses testimony.

I mean for me, the odds of there being two men on that road that day, both unaware of the other, and both just happen to be looking to abduct a women, one of which just coincidently happens to be the sister of a known Zodiac victim, both using the same light flashing, horn honking "Your wheel’s wobbling, please pull over" ruse, is just to mutch of a stretch, especially when Kathy claims the man who abducted her was the man featured on the wanted Zodiac Poster, and Carol Stine just happens to be the first target of the ‘the wobbling wheel’ routine.
I mean I know there’s no physical evidence to link the two womens encounter’s. But come on, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I won’t demand they supply me with it’s DNA as proof because odd’s are, it’s a duck lol.

Nope. I don’t think it proves it was Zodiac.

Certainly could be the same creep who lived or worked in the area, but to assume it was Zodiac is a stretch. As we all know many, many men looked like that composite. A guy with horn-rimmed glasses….it was Zodiac!!!

After Paul’s murder and Joe’s threat at the time, 5 months or so go by…"Zodiac" was stalking Joe’s house and lucky enough Carol was there and he followed her and flashed his lights?? We don’t know if there would have been a "loose tire" scenerio. Like I said…it’s a stretch, but to each his own…

Too many ducks in the pond.

Zodiac wrote word for word what was in the Examiner..nothing original to prove it was him. Just another game he was playing, imo. "Yah..be on the lookout for THAT guy in THAT car"…

Not the same Judith.

Not enough concrete proof to verify it happened the same day. Not the same car either.

Tahoe, let’s say then, hypothetically, that we do know for a fact that Carol’s encounter occurred the same day as Kathy’s abduction, just for the purpose of this one post.
So, now it’s been determined that both womens encounters happened on the same day (Hypothetically, remember lol) would you still be of the opinion that it’s more likely that two different men were responsible who just happened to be on the sae road, on the same day, using the same technique as each other attempting to abduct women? The vehicle descriptions differing may be put down to the unreliability of eye witnesses testimony.

I mean for me, the odds of there being two men on that road that day, both unaware of the other, and both just happen to be looking to abduct a women, one of which just coincidently happens to be the sister of a known Zodiac victim, both using the same light flashing, horn honking "Your wheel’s wobbling, please pull over" ruse, is just to mutch of a stretch, especially when Kathy claims the man who abducted her was the man featured on the wanted Zodiac Poster, and Carol Stine just happens to be the first target of the ‘the wobbling wheel’ routine.
I mean I know there’s no physical evidence to link the two womens encounter’s. But come on, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I won’t demand they supply me with it’s DNA as proof because odd’s are, it’s a duck lol.

Nope. I don’t think it proves it was Zodiac.

Certainly could be the same creep who lived or worked in the area, but to assume it was Zodiac is a stretch. As we all know many, many men looked like that composite. A guy with horn-rimmed glasses….it was Zodiac!!!

After Paul’s murder and Joe’s threat at the time, 5 months or so go by…"Zodiac" was stalking Joe’s house and lucky enough Carol was there and he followed her and flashed his lights?? We don’t know if there would have been a "loose tire" scenerio. Like I said…it’s a stretch, but to each his own…

Too many ducks in the pond.

Zodiac wrote word for word what was in the Examiner..nothing original to prove it was him. Just another game he was playing, imo. "Yah..be on the lookout for THAT guy in THAT car"…

I didn’t claim that this proves anything. My question was not ‘Do you think this is now proof it was Zodiac?’ The reason I did not ask you that is because I am well aware myself that is isn’t proof. My question was, "would you still be of the opinion that it’s more likely that two different men" if, hypothetically, we knew without question that the two incidents occurred on the same day? I wouldn’t be stupid enough to ask do you consider it proof, because I know very well it isn’t lol.