Not fond of that report. It’s like a mish-mash of semi-facts.

Not fond of that report. It’s like a mish-mash of semi-facts.

Yes. I know what you mean. I’m almost tempted to ask whether the "baggy pants" and the "paunchy stomach" are just carried over from the LB description, rather than being based on actual statements from either Fouke or the teen witnesses. It’s not a pleasant thought – because if it’s the case, the report is as sloppy as Z’s attire at Berryessa.

To add to the confusion, there’s the descriptions of the suspicious man watching girls that day in LB. He had black hair, was well built and good looking. He also doesn’t resemble the sketch of Stine’s murderer, but has a larger, round face.

When it comes to the varied descriptions just within the Stine reports, I’m going to go with the initial one, because I think what Norse was hinting at is correct. LE altered the description to fit the LB description.

Just a few further thoughts on the composite:

I think the person the kids witnessed looked like the composite. But that doesn’t mean his facial features matched those of the composite to a great degree.

What were they able to see from fifty yards, given the lighting conditions? A white guy. Light colored (brownish or blondish) hair, likely with a reddish tint. Short hair, possibly something like a crew cut. Possibly receding hairline. Definitely glasses, thick frames, possibly plastic ones. The guy was not very tall. He was most likely “heavy”, which might mean stocky, beefy or somewhat overweight – hard to tell exactly what kind of “heavy” he was. He definitely wore dark clothes. That’s pretty much it. And it is in line with both the composite(s) and Fouke’s description in his memo.

Anything beyond this – I’m skeptical about. Detailed facial features? As long as we don’t know precisely what the kids had to say about his appearance, we can only guess here. My guess would be that even if their view was unobstructed and the dome light in the cab lit the scene well enough, it would be hard to make out detailed features from that distance, in that light (it’s the sort of light which tends to blur details rather than enhance them, a fact which has been pointed out before by sharper wits than me – and a good point in my opinion).

To add to the confusion, there’s the descriptions of the suspicious man watching girls that day in LB. He had black hair, was well built and good looking. He also doesn’t resemble the sketch of Stine’s murderer, but has a larger, round face.

When it comes to the varied descriptions just within the Stine reports, I’m going to go with the initial one, because I think what Norse was hinting at is correct. LE altered the description to fit the LB description.

The one feature which stands out as similar for both LB and PH is the person’s remarkably small nose! Now, what could this mean? Either both real-life subjects HAD uncommonly small noses – or the sketches aren’t anatomically correct, not to say…they aren’t very good. I believe the latter is a good possibility.

Maybe none of the witnesses remarked on the person’s nose – and so the artist did nothing but draw some kind of (anatomically highly unlikely) nose to fill out the blanks, as it were. It says something about the artist(s), I think. And by extension it says something about how reliable the composites are. I don’t think the real Z (or the real LB man if he was not Z) walked around with a snout like that…unless Z really WAS a master of disguise!

I recently read this in regards to Criminal Investigation:

"Witnesses are often the key to solving crimes. They can provide eyewitness accounts, or they can provide leads that would be otherwise unavailable. However, such testimony is often unreliable, with the results of one study estimating that as many as 75 percent of the defendants eventually exonerated through the use of DNA evidence were wrongly convicted in the first place because of erroneous eyewitness testimony. Several states have passed legislation to create tougher standards for identifying suspects by witnesses, which is often considered on of the most problematic aspects of an investigation. Despite criticism and controversy regarding the value of eyewitness testimony, judges and juries accord significant weight to eyewitness evidence."

This type of thing was probably known by Toschi–not to mention the composite was so generic.

The one feature which stands out as similar for both LB and PH is the person’s remarkably small nose! Now, what could this mean? Either both real-life subjects HAD uncommonly small noses – or the sketches aren’t anatomically correct, not to say…they aren’t very good. I believe the latter is a good possibility.

Maybe none of the witnesses remarked on the person’s nose – and so the artist did nothing but draw some kind of (anatomically highly unlikely) nose to fill out the blanks, as it were. It says something about the artist(s), I think. And by extension it says something about how reliable the composites are. I don’t think the real Z (or the real LB man if he was not Z) walked around with a snout like that…unless Z really WAS a master of disguise!

I think it suggests his nose is indeed small, or at least very indistinguishable. But youre right, there isn’t much besides the nose that is really common to both. You also have to take Mageau’s description into account, and his has way more in common with the LB sketch in terms of build, but not hair color.

It has to be either a disguise, different killers, or just a matter of people being bad eyewitnesses. The frustrating thing is it could be either of those things or a combination. All I know is to me the LB composite does not resemble PH. The fact that PH killer was also described as a fairly big guy, and the hair color is not far off Mageau’s account gives me some hope they’re all the same guy.

That brings me to another point, if prints, handwriting, DNA, and sketches are all tenuous than what can we use as a guide for comparing POIs?

The amended sketch has ALWAYS bothered me. Don Fouke saw the guy for maybe a fraction of a second and under terrible viewing circumstances, and yet his description is somehow given more weight than the teen witnesses who saw a murder and knew that the guy were looking at was a criminal? It doesn’t wash. Fouke and Zelms weren’t looking for the man they saw so it’s hard for me to accept that they (and Fouke, especially) paid him nearly as much mind as the amended drawing and subsequent interviews would suggest.

The part that bothers me most is this: the original drawing shows a younger man. Everything about the Zodiac’s behavior and previous eyewitness testimony (Mageau, Hartnell, and everyone else at Lake Berryessa) depict a killer on the shy side of 30, if not significantly younger. Yet Fouke comes on the scene and suddenly, police are looking for a guy between 35 and 45. This does not fit with any of the psychological markers associated with the Zodiac’s behavior, both during and after his offenses.

I have a theory about this, one that I’ve held back for a while. I think Fouke, having recognized he made a tremendous blunder in rolling right past a notorious serial killer en route to a crime scene, overcompensated a bit. He got the clothing right, it seems, and the killer’s general appearance, but the more particular details that we’ve accepted as gospel these past 45 years?

He was, on some level that was probably unconscious, filling in the gaps in his memory with a description of himself. Kind of a radical thought, I know, but people do it. DaVinci used a mirror and his own reflection to iron out the cheekbones on the Mona Lisa and how often do we, on a daily basis, assess others by measuring them up to ourselves? I’d wager that projection of some sort plays a larger role than anyone realizes in making these sorts of comparisons.

Just my humble opinion.

Except Fouke states he had nothing to do with the amended drawing.

Except Fouke states he had nothing to do with the amended drawing.

I don’t like fouke and don’t trust him.

Soze

Except Fouke states he had nothing to do with the amended drawing.

And yet he echoes the descriptive language on the amended drawing/poster as well as in the police report to this day. Plus, there’s been a fair amount of contention surrounding some of his claims. (The back and form between him and Armand Pelissetti on the supplemental doc included on the Zodiac DVD comes to mind.) I don’t trust anyone whose memory gets better with age and so Don Fouke’s description of the Zodiac is one I take with as much salt as some of the wilder things Mike Mageau or Pam Huckaby have said over the years.

My ultimate point is that I feel like the PH sketch has done more harm than good when it comes to identifying the killer. Composites can be helpful but they’re often rather useless, given that three witnesses to the same crime can sit down with an artist and produce three incredibly disparate sketches. (The multiple and varying Son of Sam and Night Stalker composites are prime examples.)

That’s not to say that there aren’t some fine points on the PH drawing. The shape of the nose and placement of the eyes are identical to that of the Napa POI drawing, but all anyone ever seems to focus on is the crew-cut and glasses.

I hear ya…although I don’t know how anyone would have been able to describe his nose.

is there any truth that K johns was shown the sketch from the stine homicide?..and no composite was ever completed in regards to K johns???..may be one of you can clear that up..i still think that stine sketch looks like X in some ways…only other possibility I guess is I should give more serious consideration to multiple Z theory and frankly I think this is just a case of LEO mis-steps and not multiple Z..but multiple Z theory may have some validity..any help?

KJ said it was on the wall in the police station she was taken to.

KJ said it was on the wall in the police station she was taken to.

thats what I thought…nothing done when it mattered and here we are..