*

When Zodiac wrote his first letter (the next day), all he knew was there was a description given by some "youngsters" – hence, "school children make nice targets"…and it’s pretty vague, imo:

There was no composite at that point and no mention of LE getting a close look at him. This, and his first letter not mentioning the "2 cops", could certainly confirm Fouke’s version of events.

While Zodiac most likely DID see 2 cops in a car,("they could have caught me if they searched the park properly") he may not have realized they got a good look at him.

I don’t think he was concerned with a description by some kids, but, I wonder had that composite come out prior to his first letter, would he have still staked claim to Stine’s murder?

I think the desire for infamy outweighed all reason at that point.

Tahoe wrote:-

I don’t think he was concerned with a description by some kids, but, I wonder had that composite come out prior to his first letter, would he have still staked claim to Stine’s murder?

Yes, one of several questions I was attempting to answer/debate. I’ve seen different suggestions over the years…..Z took the items from Stine,so if he was caught he could claim it was just a murder/robbery and he wouldn’t be found out as Z. The other….he came so close to being caught that night that he decided to call a halt.
While I think there may be some merit to the latter possibly,the former does little for me. I do take the point that he may not have thought things were as serious as they were the following day ( and therefore could afford to take responsibility) but still a big gamble and that’s where Nachtsiders comment is worth considering.

Nachtsider wrote ;-

I think the desire for infamy outweighed all reason at that point.

It could be that this was the culmination of something bigger and he couldn’t but claim responsibility or simply as you state. If I feel anything it is that Z took the items he did to use as proof he was responsible.
Again much depends on whether he did actually speak with cops. Imagine for example that Mr.X was Z…..would that person claim responsibility in the circumstances? How does that play out?

I don’t really get this. I’m with Nach, he did it because he wanted to do it, no more no less. He didn’t really care if admitting it increased his chances of being caught because he knew that he HAD gotten away with it.

I don’t believe that he wore a disguise, unless it was the glasses, but I do think he felt confident the description would not be enough to identify him. If he had in fact passed by the cops, or especially if he truly did talk to them, then he would be soaring. I think he also knew police were wrong about certain things.

Note that in that article it says he was seen running off into the park and the dogs were sent in. I believe he was not there and he knew that they were running in circles. In his letter he says that he was there and then in response police say that he was not, but they had earlier indicated that they thought he was otherwise they wouldn’t have searched the area.

I believe it is possible that the Z letter writer only killed one person–

Paul stine.The other crimes he just took credit for.

Research is not my strong point.

Could someone direct me to topics that explore and discuss this idea?

——So that I could form a better opinion and understanding and basis on whether this theory is at all possible or see other opinions against it.

Thanks…

ps

Or just give your jdeas why this is not probable.

I suppose the most relevant topics would be the ones dealing with a hoax theory of some kind.

As for your idea, the obvious counterpoints might look something like this:

BRS letter writer may have possessed information only the killer had access to (regarding both the LHR and the BRS crimes). It is, at any rate, highly unlikely that anyone other than a cop could have known about details such as:

The original position of BLJ’s body.
The ammo used at BRS. *

* The fact that the BRS caller mentions the ammo makes it almost impossible that anyone but a cop or the killer himself was responsible for the call (and it begins to approach pure fantasy if we presuppose that the caller, the killer and the letter writer are three different people).

Furthermore:

The writing on the car door at LB bears a strong resemblance to Z’s known writing. It is possible but highly unlikely that the killer did not write on the car door.

I’d say you need a cop and a motive (why was this done?) at the very least. Same as for any hoax type theory (in my opinion).

Question: is it absolutely, bullet-proof certain that the individual seen by the cops was Zodiac and not an innocent civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I suppose it isn’t.

We don’t have a bulletproof timeline for PH, which complicates matters endlessly when it comes to determining what actually happened and in what order.

If we presume that Z was the guy, however, this seems to fit pretty well: He exits the cab as observed by the teen witnesses, heads north on Cherry, turns east on Jackson and is seen by Fouke and Zelms.

(Red dot = crime scene / green dot = where he was spotted)

Now, if this guy was NOT the killer, we have to presume that he:

a) came walking along Jackson, eastbound or

b) emerged from one of the nearby houses

The killer would have walked (he did not run, according to the teens) north on Cherry and then, we can assume, escaped into the Presidio/Julius Kahn area through the gate at the far end of the street (which is what you’d expect him to do, but which the canonical Z did NOT for unknown reasons).

It seems reasonable to assume that if the man Fouke saw was not Z, there is

a) a fair chance the guy would have encountered the killer and

b) odd, perhaps, that he never came forward – as far as we know.

But, again, we don’t have an exact timeline for Stine. Nor do we have access to all the reports, so we don’t know to what extent the neighbors in that area were questioned after it became clear that Stine was a Z crime. Knowing the latter would be very helpful. If the guy was not Z, it seems reasonable they would have been able to establish this – but it’s hard to tell without more facts.

There’s also Pelissetti’s odd comment that he did not believe Fouke encountered Z.

Well, it just so happens that area is extremely well-lit, and I cannot imagine his not seeing the shine of blood on the clothing if it had been Zodiac. I feel bad for him, if he believes that was the Zodiac. I don’t think it was.

Pelissetti’s and Fouke’s various accounts of what did and did not happen that night are just a mess, though. Impossible to get one’s head around, which further complicates matters.

Norse

Thank you for responding and offering up

very good examples against ( the theory I was

pondering) Yes. I agree with what you said

concerning "facts" that only the killer would

know. You helped clear up the fog for me.

I really do love to read and I wish I could retain and obsorb at least 90% of the information in the process. But this is not the case as of yet.

So— I am happy to learn from you and others who are willing to share their thoughts and ideas.

Thank You!

Glad to be of service, bmichelle.

It’s not like my ideas have any more value than yours, but perhaps something good can come out of it when our respective ideas clash or meet or merge – and when others comment on the things which spring to our minds.

Absorbing 90% of what you read seems overly ambitious to me! If I remember a third of what I’ve read about the Z case, I consider it a good day. Most of the time I’m re-reading and re-checking just about everything. I blame the Internet. It’s done something to my capacity for storing facts. When I was a kid I could actually memorize facts – no such luck these days.