Zodiac Discussion Forum

Notifications
Clear all

Why Washington & Maple?

22 Posts
16 Users
0 Reactions
1,208 Views
 Soze
(@soze)
Posts: 810
Prominent Member
 

Got to thinking, why did Z choose Washington & Maple? Could he have wanted to scare or send a message, or shock someone who lived there closeby- a boss, someone he had a gripe with, or bad deal with?
Most of the people on that block were wealthy & successful business people- attorneys & investors, etc.
I have been able to put a list together of many of the people close to that intersection. Question is, do any of these people jump out?

Madeleine H Russell was married to Leon Bazelgette Russell and that location is known as the Russell-Haas House. Madelelein is a relative of Walter Haas who owned the Oakland A’s (a Z letter sent to Taggert).

Peter E Haas, seen in another clip, is related to Madeleine.

I would be curious to know if Richard Oppenheimer is related to J Robert Oppenheimer of Berkeley, Los Alamos, Livermore fame.

 
Posted : April 11, 2021 6:35 pm
(@neski87)
Posts: 2
New Member
 

Zodiac implied that he had a hard life in the solution to the 340 cipher (MY NEW LIFE WILL BE AN EASY ONE IN PARADICE DEATH).

If he wasn’t sending a message to the wealthy residents than it may have been to the Presidio Hill School situated between Maple and Cherry. Perhaps he was a former employee or a student that was mercilessly bullied there.

 
Posted : April 12, 2021 10:54 am
(@nick-no-nora)
Posts: 541
Honorable Member
 

If I understand it correctly, the power-assertive serial killer tends to be highly successful. We’re in a wealthy neighborhood. Pacific Heights is probably loaded with the right type of people. But we look elsewhere.

Also – and I’m not strongly in a lived-in-SF or lived-in-Vallejo camp – but in the letter it says "over" by Washington and Maple. oes that inicate he is local? Would a person living in Vallejo refer to a place in another city as "over by"?

 
Posted : April 22, 2021 1:50 pm
Sam
 Sam
(@sam)
Posts: 88
Trusted Member
 

Nobody called him Arthur.

Ha, I love that one.

“Nobody called him Arthur.”

 
Posted : April 27, 2021 4:22 am
(@fishermansfriend)
Posts: 132
Estimable Member
 

I’ve never bought the idea of there being any specific relevance to the location.

I tend to think he just wanted to do something in SF, and that area is in some ways like the "Top" of the city. It’s a beautiful old neighborhood on a hill with a view of the bridge. Sort of iconic. It’s a wealthy area, so the crime would be out of place and get maximum media attention. Plus the Presidio to hide in and the bridge to potentially escape.

I think choosing a taxi driver allows him to call the shots so to speak, which he did in the previous three attacks. Consider the alternatives: Does it really seem like Z would just shoot a rando in the street? Or invade a home? No. He places someone at a disadvantage on his terms. He’s in control.

 
Posted : April 27, 2021 8:16 pm
Marshall
(@marshall)
Posts: 643
Honorable Member
 

I’ve never bought the idea of there being any specific relevance to the location.

I tend to think he just wanted to do something in SF, and that area is in some ways like the "Top" of the city. It’s a beautiful old neighborhood on a hill with a view of the bridge. Sort of iconic. It’s a wealthy area, so the crime would be out of place and get maximum media attention. Plus the Presidio to hide in and the bridge to potentially escape.

I think choosing a taxi driver allows him to call the shots so to speak, which he did in the previous three attacks. Consider the alternatives: Does it really seem like Z would just shoot a rando in the street? Or invade a home? No. He places someone at a disadvantage on his terms. He’s in control.

I completely agree with this! People in cars are sitting down and contained. At LHR, the first attack, Z probably asked them to exit the car, and after he shot Faraday and Jensen had a chance to run a short distance, he probably decided it was cleaner and safer to shoot his victims while they were still in their car, catching them by surprise with no chance to escape.

Again, LB is totally different. Had Bryan and Cecelia recognized the Z emblem on the bib as he approached, they could’ve run in different directions and at least one of them may very well have escaped uninjured. LB is a completely different type of attack in so many ways.

Zodiacs first confirmed kill was a single bullet into the head of his victim, and so was his last.

 
Posted : April 27, 2021 9:34 pm
(@cragle)
Posts: 767
Prominent Member
 

I’ve never bought the idea of there being any specific relevance to the location.

I tend to think he just wanted to do something in SF, and that area is in some ways like the "Top" of the city. It’s a beautiful old neighborhood on a hill with a view of the bridge. Sort of iconic. It’s a wealthy area, so the crime would be out of place and get maximum media attention. Plus the Presidio to hide in and the bridge to potentially escape.

I think choosing a taxi driver allows him to call the shots so to speak, which he did in the previous three attacks. Consider the alternatives: Does it really seem like Z would just shoot a rando in the street? Or invade a home? No. He places someone at a disadvantage on his terms. He’s in control.

I completely agree with this! People in cars are sitting down and contained. At LHR, the first attack, Z probably asked them to exit the car, and after he shot Faraday and Jensen had a chance to run a short distance, he probably decided it was cleaner and safer to shoot his victims while they were still in their car, catching them by surprise with no chance to escape.

Again, LB is totally different. Had Bryan and Cecelia recognized the Z emblem on the bib as he approached, they could’ve run in different directions and at least one of them may very well have escaped uninjured. LB is a completely different type of attack in so many ways.

Zodiacs first confirmed kill was a single bullet into the head of his victim, and so was his last.

I think you last line speaks for itself, (apologies for the bluntness) he reverted back to a tried and tested method.

1st attack was successful although BLJ managed to get a small distance away before being shot,
He learned he had to keep the victims contained

2nd attack was a failure. Whilst similar, he chose to not allow them out of the car and kept the victims confined, was not as clinical as he left a survivor.
He learned that a gun is not always successful, and that up close was better.

3rd attack was a failure. In an isolated area where it would have been very difficult for them to escape due to being surrounded by water on three side and the attacker blocking the 4th. He had a gun to use if needs be and proved it was loaded to deter them from any thought of flight. By tying the victims up he ensure that they categorically could not escape. Yes he could have used a gun but as it was daylight and there were people in the area so a knife was used. BH played dead and as he stabbed CS more times than BH he would have assumed she was dead also.
He learned a knife was not successful.

4th attack was a success. Victim was contained and Z was fully in control of the situation. Victims killed in virtually exactly the same fashion as DF.
This is an acclimation of what he had previously learned. Gun was his most effective method, he needed to contain the victim and a shot to the head from very close range proved to be the most efficient way of attack.

Again apologies from talking blarse about the victims. I truly do not intended come across as insensitive. Talking matter of factly unfortunately sometimes helps though. :cry:

 
Posted : April 27, 2021 11:27 pm
Page 2 / 2
Share: