For all we know, Stine turned his head to the left just before Zodiac pulled the trigger, perhaps as he reached for his cash box, or instinctually when he saw the gun. Everything that happened could have occurred with Zodiac in the front seat.

Regarding blood, I don’t care how much the Zodiac had on his dark clothes, it wouldn’t stand out, especially at night, and especially with the officers whizzing past.

This is true. We don’t know for certain where he sat. However, based on the autopsy report, it would make more sense for him to shoot Stine from behind rather than from the side.

Regarding blood: if Foulke spoke with Zodiac as Zodiac claims, then there is NO WAY the two officers would not have noticed blood soaked hands and clothes.

Secondly, even If Foulke did not stop and speak to Zodiac, but rather drove by, then it seems impossible he wouldn’t have noticed that much blood because he gave such a detailed description of the suspect later on.

Thirdly, the Zodiac would have to be idiotic to shoot a man at close range, handle his head in his lap, and then walk off into the city night covered in blood.

I’m not discounting other theories. The truth is we will probably never know if he sat in the front or the back, but the evidence so far makes it more likely that the shot came from the backseat.

Some points:

"There is a large, ragged, irregular shaped apparent gunshot entry wound over the right side of the head. This wound is located at the superior and anterior attachment of the right ear.
The vertical dimension measure 4 cm. and transverse dimensions 2 cm. There is a blackening of the skin over the ventral aspect of this wound, extending from a distance over 2 cm.
When probed, the wounds penetrates left laterally towards the midportion of the left zygomatic arch."

I

So a half inch to an inch above the little hole in front of your ear called the pre-auricular. Most people have a little dip, or hole there. Feel for it and then move directly up to just above the ear. Is that about right? With an exit wound just behind and above the left cheek. So that would make the vertical angle of travel almost negligable and the horizontal angle going downwards…

Assuming he didn’t turn his head I would tend to think a position in front of the ear with the exit wound lower than the entry wound would be more consistent with a shot fired from front. I would expect a shot fired from the rear to enter near to the right of the cerebellum and exit a little higher rather than lower.

Or am I totally confused?

But we’re sure the entry wound is definitely in front of the ear?

Zodiac claimed he wiped the cab down to leave fake clews. I believe he meant that he wiped the cab to give the impression he might have left fingerprints somewhere. AKA a ruse.

Also, according to Carol Stine, nobody rode in the front of Paul’s cab unless Paul knew and trusted them.

Zodiac seemed very antisocial and likely had very little friends , so the odds of him also hailing a cab on a busy weekend night. When there was probably many and meant a driver he knew is unlikely to me. Specially if Carol said Paul wouldn’t let someone he didn’t know in the front seat. Just my opinion and can’t rule it out though that Zodiac was in the front seat. But I think Zodiac had just as good chance getting into Cash Cab then one and known Stine.

Well that’s not a bad assessment in the absence of physical evidence. But to say that it’s unlikely that they could have been friend because the Zodiac didn’t have friends would seem to imply that the you think the attack was still random and so a person with a large social circle would be more likely to coincidentally hail a cab driven by a friend. Or to put it another way, if the killer chose to target a friend/acquaintance on purpose it wouldn’t make any difference if he had many, or few friends.

What makes it seem unlikely is that one would choose to kill a friend to begin with, or that one would follow through on a random attack if they discovered the knew the victim.

However the front seat theory is an interesting one. I think that the Police would have established to their own satisfaction which seat he was in, unless they couldn’t make a determination. Although I would think they would have had a lot more techniques to determine that sort of thing than we do. If Armstrong said he was in the front he probably was.

Yes I’m making assumption that seem more logical to me. As for Zodiac targeting Stine I think that is a big reach. What are the odds Zodiac would have known which cab Stine was in on a busy weekend night in the Theater district ? Probably tons there and him able to flag it down before another customer did ? Unless this was preplained by both Zodiac and Stine and there is no proof of that so.

Assuming he didn’t turn his head I would tend to think a position in front of the ear with the exit wound lower than the entry wound would be more consistent with a shot fired from front.

Based on the autopsy report, the trajectory of the bullet was slight back to front. From the top/front of the ear to the middle of the opposite cheekbone. That would suggest a shot from the rear.

However, as Tom pointed out, there are other ways to achieve that kind of trajectory, but a shot fired while sitting in the backseat seems more logical to me.

But we’re sure the entry wound is definitely in front of the ear?

Based upon the autopsy and the ME report, yes. The shot was fired at very close range (probably against the skin) just a few centimeters above and in front of the right ear with the bullet traveling slightly forward and downward into the opposite cheekbone. There was no exit wound. The bullet hit the left cheekbone, fragmented and came to rest in the temporalis muscle on the left side of his skull.

Zodiac claimed he wiped the cab down to leave fake clews. I believe he meant that he wiped the cab to give the impression he might have left fingerprints somewhere. AKA a ruse.

Also, according to Carol Stine, nobody rode in the front of Paul’s cab unless Paul knew and trusted them.

Did the Robbins kids see Z wiping down the right front door?

It doesn’t make logical sense for Z to wipe down a door he did not touch, in order to leave a false clew, and then tell us he was leaving a false clew.

Logically, if he was leaving a false clew, he would not tell us it was false – he would let us believe it was actual. What Z would have us believe is that he left a false clew, and then told us it was false, which negates and makes the whole thing an absolutely pointless effort……………… if we believe him, which in my opinion, we should not.

Can’t speak for Tom and he may know the answer to your question. As for Zodiac saying about fake clews. I said this awhile back and think Zodiac really did leave his thumb print and realize it later. Then had his letter days later saying he left false clews and use airplane glue and etc. He was on damage control and knew they had his print. So wouldn’t believe two you know whats he said in the letter.

I’m probably being obtuse. But I’ll say again, a shot from in front of the ear whilst totally possible from the back seat seems slightly less likely than behind the ear assuming the head is not turned.

You’d be able to do it easily enough from the back right hand seat, but a right handed person would have to turn a few degrees, again still totally possible, and reach around in front of the ear. It’s a very slight difference in terms of probability but I think if you ran the test 100 times, 70 times you’d have the entry wound behind the ear. A person sitting in the front seat is marginally more likely to shot in front of the ear and person in the back is marginally more likely to shot behind the ear. It’s very slight though.

I also have zero problems with the shooter reaching across their body as a reach and slight turn is necessary from either position.

At best the autopsy shows equal probability.

Can’t speak for Tom and he may know the answer to your question. As for Zodiac saying about fake clews. I said this awhile back and think Zodiac really did leave his thumb print and realize it later. Then had his letter days later saying he left false clews and use airplane glue and etc. He was on damage control and knew they had his print. So wouldn’t believe two you know whats he said in the letter.

I agree.

I also wonder what purpose pretending to wipe down the cab door would’ve accomplished, if Z hadn’t known he was being observed. When he walked away, the Robbins kid followed him for a ways, so he knew at that point he was being watched, but did he know it when Lindsey Robbins was still inside, when Z was doing his wiping?

In other words, if wiping the cab was misdirection, it would have been pointless unless Z knew it was being witnessed by someone.

If Z knew/suspected he was being watched, and if it HAD been misdirection, a brilliant fake wipedown hoping there would be some other previous passenger’s print there on the cab that would lead LE down the wrong path, why in the world blow it by saying it was false, and that no print found could possibly have been his due to the glue on his fingertips?

Two more reasons I agree – Z wiped the cab because he had touched it, and he was trying to scrub away evidence he may have left.

Can’t speak for Tom and he may know the answer to your question. As for Zodiac saying about fake clews. I said this awhile back and think Zodiac really did leave his thumb print and realize it later. Then had his letter days later saying he left false clews and use airplane glue and etc. He was on damage control and knew they had his print. So wouldn’t believe two you know whats he said in the letter.

I agree.

I also wonder what purpose pretending to wipe down the cab door would’ve accomplished, if Z hadn’t known he was being observed. When he walked away, the Robbins kid followed him for a ways, so he knew at that point he was being watched, but did he know it when Lindsey Robbins was still inside, when Z was doing his wiping?

In other words, if wiping the cab was misdirection, it would have been pointless unless Z knew it was being witnessed by someone.

If Z knew/suspected he was being watched, and if it HAD been misdirection, a brilliant fake wipedown hoping there would be some other previous passenger’s print there on the cab that would lead LE down the wrong path, why in the world blow it by saying it was false, and that no print found could possibly have been his due to the glue on his fingertips?

Two more reasons I agree – Z wiped the cab because he had touched it, and he was trying to scrub away evidence he may have left.

Agreed on all and good post and your last sentence sums it up for me.

I’m probably being obtuse. But I’ll say again, a shot from in front of the ear whilst totally possible from the back seat seems slightly less likely than behind the ear assuming the head is not turned.

You’d be able to do it easily enough from the back right hand seat, but a right handed person would have to turn a few degrees, again still totally possible, and reach around in front of the ear. It’s a very slight difference in terms of probability but I think if you ran the test 100 times, 70 times you’d have the entry wound behind the ear. A person sitting in the front seat is marginally more likely to shot in front of the ear and person in the back is marginally more likely to shot behind the ear. It’s very slight though.

I also have zero problems with the shooter reaching across their body as a reach and slight turn is necessary from either position.

At best the autopsy shows equal probability.

What if Zodiac was left handed ? That may throw a monkey into the wrench.

What if he had hook instead of a hand?

What if he had hook instead of a hand?

Yea and him being left handed is a crazy never possible theory ? Sorry!

No that was just a joke. Although now that you mention it does highlight the number of possible variables. I think the best way to approach the information without being overwelmed is to ignore such variable as turned heads, or left handedness, even though they’re not at all unlikely. Just for the sake of getting things in order before we start throwing them into the mix too early.