I always wondered the same thing. Certainly could have been a threat on the kids,I hope the papers didnt mention that the kids across the street saw him. Who knows, maybe he caught them looking at him

The Chronicle did run a small piece on it the following day. It said that the suspect was observed by "three youngsters".

Just throwing something out here, have no particular belief one way or another, it’s just that one thing led to another and got me thinking.

Three items:-
1. Zodiac’s threat to school kids in the Stine letter.
2. His later claim that he had spoken to/been stopped by Police (specifically 2)
3. The term "Routine Robberies".

I wondered if the threat to kill school kids was directed at the Stine witnesses, given it was first raised in that letter. (I’m not sure if this info could not have been gleaned from the papers the following morning, maybe it was. But Z does appear to have written his letter the very next day.

There was no mention of the Fouke and Zelm’s incident until a month later.

He heard of the teen witnesses after the fact and he later heard the rumor that Fouke and Zelms might have stopped someone. Ok he did pass them but didn’t think of using that to his advantage until rumors circulated.

Seperately for consideration but also ties in (as inside info could relate to a cop)…the term "Routine Robberies". Is it just me or does that sound distinctly
like a Police term as opposed to one that would be used by an average citizen.? The inclusion of the word "routine" makes it sound like an inside term?

Anyway just musing, I don’t doubt there are plenty of explanations.

I believe Zodiac’s threat to kill school kids was absolutely directed at the Stine witnesses and here my reason why…

When Zodiac responded to Cheif Lee’s claims of having evidence such as prints, descriptions and also said he took Zodiac’c claim of attacking a school bus serious, Zodiac stated the following:

"If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was, you deserve to have holes in your heads".

The words he uses are, for me, significant. "If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was…"

The school bus itself was just a metaphor to use to send a direct threat to the teenage witnesses while making it appear indirect and non specific. This would again seem to have supporting evidence in this FBI Document…

Was Zodiac threatning this Eight year old directly because he knew he’d been seen by him and knew that the Eight ear old mentionedin the above FBI document could ID him?

Could be but I was more interested in it, in the context of timing. Z wrote the letter the very next day apparently (in fact he seemed in quite a hurry to do so).
A small piece did appear in the Chronicle but I don’t know whether Z would have expected that. The only person who knew it was a Z crime was himself and given the time of night that it occurred, I don’t know if it was reasonable to expect it would make the following mornings papers. But even that aside, the piece
said "three youngsters", no further detail.
Z’s words in his letter was a threat to "Kiddies" which appears to me to specifically imply younger kids as opposes to teenagers. If that was the case and it was a threat aimed at the witnesses would that not mean he knew they were very young? Now maybe he did see them or deduce from the papers that they were that young. Or is it something he could only have heard, being somehow close enough to the investigation.

Could be but I was more interested in it, in the context of timing. Z wrote the letter the very next day apparently (in fact he seemed in quite a hurry to do so).
A small piece did appear in the Chronicle but I don’t know whether Z would have expected that. The only person who knew it was a Z crime was himself and given the time of night that it occurred, I don’t know if it was reasonable to expect it would make the following mornings papers. But even that aside, the piece
said "three youngsters", no further detail.
Z’s words in his letter was a threat to "Kiddies" which appears to me to specifically imply younger kids as opposes to teenagers. If that was the case and it was a threat aimed at the witnesses would that not mean he knew they were very young? Now maybe he did see them or deduce from the papers that they were that young. Or is it something he could only have heard, being somehow close enough to the investigation.

"Z’s words in his letter was a threat to "Kiddies" which appears to me to specifically imply younger kids as opposes to teenagers."

That doesn’t seem to hold up when compared to other comments Zodiac made, such as in his phone call’s…

"You’ll find two kids in a car." And "I also killed those Kids last year, Goodbye"

Zodiac seems to refer to his teenage (and early 20’s) victims as Kids over and over again.

<respectfully snipped>

Was Zodiac threatning this Eight year old directly because he knew he’d been seen by him and knew that the Eight ear old mentionedin the above FBI document could ID him?

So the eight-year-old male tentatively identified the killer? Did I understand that correctly? If so , the possible suspect had either a seven- or eight-letter last name?

I believe most of this centered around the 16 year old.

Dunno Welsh Chappie, the term Kiddies and "bouncing out"(of the bus) still registers with me as referring to younger Kids. Why would Z not use "kids" again here? If Z is calling people in their late teens/early twenties Kids, is it not reasonable to expect him to refer to younger as "Kiddies". Certainly not a term you would expect him to use the other way around or to refer to 20yo as kiddies.

<respectfully snipped>

Was Zodiac threatning this Eight year old directly because he knew he’d been seen by him and knew that the Eight ear old mentionedin the above FBI document could ID him?

So the eight-year-old male tentatively identified the killer? Did I understand that correctly? If so , the possible suspect had either a seven- or eight-letter last name?

We can only go by what the document states, and that is that an unknown Eight year old saw someone at a time and location unknown, and thought he may recognise him and gave a name to police. The report states this Eight year old simply ‘Identified _______ as possible subject in this matter"

Lets keep in mind that Armond Pelissetti states that when he got down to the area of Jackson & Maple, he saw a male walking his dog. This Child could just as easily be refering to the same man (who, its logical to assume would be a local man walking his dog) as it is that he’s refering to the actual shooter he witnessed at or around the Cab. It’s difficult to say with any clarity if this suspect was Zodiac he had seen because the report fails to say where this child saw the suspect, at what time, or from what vantage point.

I believe most of this centered around the 16 year old.

Dunno Welsh Chappie, the term Kiddies and "bouncing out"(of the bus) still registers with me as referring to younger Kids. Why would Z not use "kids" again here? If Z is calling people in their late teens/early twenties Kids, is it not reasonable to expect him to refer to younger as "Kiddies". Certainly not a term you would expect him to use the other way around or to refer to 20yo as kiddies.

Wier, please forgive this question for sounding stupid, but being British myself, I am not aware of the ages in which young people ride school busses. Is it only pre-high school students that ride school busses, or are High School students offered the same service?

What I am getting at is, could it be possible that children aged 14 and 15 (the same as that of the witnesses) would ride the busses and be who Zodiac may have been making reference too?

BTW I totally see where your coming from with your argument, that being Zodiac’s use of the term ‘Kiddies’ and ‘Bouncing out’ it seems to suggest that Zodiac was refering to younger, pre teen school kids. And tbh, i’d have to agree with you on the whole. But I just think its worth remembering that Zodiac did say to Nancy Slover "If you’ll go 1 mile East on Colombus Parkway to the public park, you’ll find kids in a brown car"

Regardless of the above question, I’d have to agree with you that it sounds like Zodiac is making a threat to younger children, and if he is directly threatning any of the witnesses, it would more than likely be the Eight year old mentioned in the above document.

Solar Pons brought this to my attention a few years back at the old mb. I was convinced right away–I will try and find the old thread.

I have no doubt Zodiac saw this article and the threat was a little jab at the "youngsters" who saw him. School children would be youngsters and youngsters would be "kiddies".

3. The term "Routine Robberies".

Seperately for consideration but also ties in (as inside info could relate to a cop)…the term "Routine Robberies". Is it just me or does that sound distinctly
like a Police term as opposed to one that would be used by an average citizen.? The inclusion of the word "routine" makes it sound like an inside term?

It does sound like cop lingo. A lot of what Zodiac wrote did. Not many people describe positions of peoples bodies—"feet to the west"…etc.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if Zodiac started off with robberies.

That article, while not directly claiming it was Officer Fouke that was the ‘Witness’ who saw someone running into the Presidio, imply’s that it was by stating that a witness saw a male run into the presidio, then giving a description straight afterwards of a male, approx 40 years of age, blonde crew cut, and a description of what he was wearing. The only person that we know of that gave this detailed description, was Don Fouke.

That article, while not directly claiming it was Officer Fouke that was the ‘Witness’ who saw someone running into the Presidio, imply’s that it was by stating that a witness saw a male run into the presidio, then giving a description straight afterwards of a male, approx 40 years of age, blonde crew cut, and a description of what he was wearing. The only person that we know of that gave this detailed description, was Don Fouke.

But that wasn’t Fouke’s description…gray pants, etc.

I think this was the youngsters’ description and why they later said the age was wrong in regards to the first composite. ?? They too mentioned the direction Paul’s killer was headed.