My current thinking is the abduction happened. My reasoning is that in 1970, if Johns were creating a fabrication to tell police an the insurance compay, she wouldn’t have made the fictional attacker seem like a family man, by saying there was kids stuff in the car. The assailant would have been single. She probably would have gone the Fatal Vision route and said she was abducted by a hippie.
I think Kathleen Johns did indeed encounter the Zodiac.
- Kathleen Johns matched the man directly to the Presidio Heights composite sketch upon seeing the composite.
- Zodiac claimed responsibility for the abduction in a confirmed Zodiac communication.
Much hay has been made about what Johns actually said when reporting the crime. Recall the cop making the initial report was paraphrasing Kathleen’s words from memory after the kidnapping unfolded. At no point was the cop recording what she was telling him. He just listened to her. Kathleen said the cop did not even take notes while she spoke to him.
The police report was filed after the incident resolved and outside Johns’ presence. Kathleen Johns did not directly participate in the creation of that report. Skeptics discounting Johns based on the verbiage of that report are making an error.
That Johns’ retelling changed over time is not a sign of dishonesty – that witness memory “changes” is common knowledge in court rooms. Witness Linda Kasabian, who put the Manson Family away with her testimony, did not have a completely consistent recollection of all the events those two evenings. But the jury believed her.
That was too much!
@russ-thompson If she did encounter the Zodiac Killer and identified him via the sketch, then my question would be, why did the sketch look nothing like Lawrence Kane, who she claimed sat beside her for 90 minutes to 2 hours in her later testimony. She described the abductor as 30 years of age, yet Lawrence Kane was 45 on March 22nd 1970.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
@richard-grinell I was not aware that Johns had identified anyone as her abductor. Is there a resource for that available?
That was too much!
@russ-thompson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eawmhjJKCWo&t=1s
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
@richard-grinell Thank you for the link!
It seems in this instance Kathleen Johns was approached by someone who clearly had bias and wanted his suspect identified as Zodiac. The video did not include the photo Johns was identifying, so I cannot vouch for the likeness. It does cast doubt on Johns reliability as a witness.
Even so, Zodiac concurred and did take responsibility for the crime. So does Johns’ later recollections, cajoled by an amateur, impugn her initial reporting? Impugn yes, but does not make it de facto wrong. Victim Michael Mageau in later years pointed to a photo of Arthur Allen as his shooter. Sometimes even rape victims misidentify their assailants for investigators after the crime.
Looking just at the primary reporting we have, Johns story is still compelling. Perhaps I am more forgiving of the human mind/memory than most – wifey is a neuro-ICU nurse.
That was too much!
If she did encounter the Zodiac Killer and identified him via the sketch, then my question would be, why did the sketch look nothing like…
Prompts another question, did anyone else approach Kathleen Johns with a POI photo(s) hoping to match her memory of the alleged Zodiac? If so, what did she say?
That was too much!
@sandy-betts Do you know how many communications the Zodiac had with her after the incident? I have heard of the Halloween Card, but nothing else.
@richard-grinell Well, she made that ID in either the late 80s or early 90s. I also wonder how many other pictures she was provided. I thought that I heard that she had identified someone else at some point, too. I don’t recall who that was, though. To be honest, I don’t think I could identify someone that I rode around in a car with for 1.5-2 hours 15 to 20 years after the fact.
@vegas-lawyer There is a tendency for people to pick the person in the photo array or line-up that the investigator believes is the Zodiac Killer. Makes you wonder how these photographs were presented and the biased input put forth.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
Officer Fouke even tells us straight that Bawart tried to push Allen at him in a photo spread.
So that finished Mageau’s identification right there also.
https://youtu.be/uY_tqjdnDVk?t=1895
He also says the man he saw wasn’t Allen.
www.zodiachalloweencard.com has a 400 paged book for free containing the super solution with an overarching explanation of the cards and more.
I do know she had more than a few calls and received one Halloween Card. She sent that card to Paul Avery, I believe that was in 1970? She Id’d Larry Kane’s picture a month or so after I was given the same lineup, March 1990. As it turned out the person we picked, looked very much like Kane. Because my suspect was still very much alive after Kane had died. He had the same lazy eye, his face was slightly paralyzed on one side.
That is what caused him to talk the way he did with a slight drawl (Not a southern drawl) Sort of like if you were to hold your tongue and try to talk. He spoke slowly and enunciated each syllable as if he was reading, like what Nancy Slover described. (I believe that is from the paralysis)
He looked to be 30yrs old in 1968 when I saw him for the first time following me. I have received notes and letters from him that experts have said are a match to Zodiac’s writing! He left me jewelry from previous victims.
People find what I have to say hard to believe, and I understand that. I would also have a hard time believing it if it didn’t happen to me! I have some blood evidence that will prove came from the Lake Berryessa crime scene. Finding one good detective is all I need to break this case wide open! Finding one is like looking for a needle in a haystack, sad but true.
I think there is a tendency to take one piece of evidence and use it as the basis for a sort of rigid dichotomy. It seems that some think it was 100% could not possibly be the Zodiac, and the other side thinks it 100% had to be the Zodiac. I think too much focus is put on the more subjective evidence, Kathleen’s identification and description. One side will say “since she identified him from the sketch it must have been him”, or “her description is nothing like Z and she ID’d Kane later in life”. The problem is it’s all pretty subjective.
Lets focus only on the hard evidence. The fact of the matter is that a villain kidnapped a mother and child and set their car on fire. I believe that the hard evidence points strongly towards her kidnapper being a psychopath, and almost certainly capable of serial killing. Why so? Why not a prankster, or a thug? We’ll it’s the severity of the actions, and they’re actions that are so well documented as being common among psychopaths and serial killers. It’s well documented that serial killers often commit acts of arson, sometimes as an alternative to killing. Still not convinced? It’s the sort of thing that’s best to do your own research, it takes quite a bit of time to establish that this really is a common trait, and rattling off examples won’t do much to persuade anyone, so for the time being, just take this as my personal reasoning. Anyway, to me, burning the car tells me that this was no ordinary criminal. Since there can only be so many serial attackers at anyone time, I have to consider it at least plausible that it could have been the Zodiac. That is the end of my assessment of the hard facts. It leaves the Zodiac claim in the realms of plausibility.
Thinking back to the more subjective evidence, since the victim identified the sketch, I’m forced to upgrade it to “barely likely”, and further since the Zodiac claimed it, I’m forced to nudge the probability just over the line to “somewhat likely”. Not highly likely, just likely. At the very minimum it’s plausible. I see no real reason to object so strongly to Kathleen’s account, she may not be coherent, but then it’s not as if she’s making big claims. Small claims require only small evidence. In any case I’m not convinced, but I’m also not incredulous for the sake of it.
So there you have it, I think it is “somewhat likely”.
@replaceablehead So there you have it, I think it is “somewhat likely”.
Correct, there is no smoking gun here.
Beyond that, does the Johns incident really offer any investigative value if it were true?
It would place the Zodiac in an exact place and time that day, and her testimony also offers some behavioral insights. But that is not much at all toward leading back to the guy. Not much in the event creates any leads back to any suspect.
So not only is it “somewhat likely,” it does not further the investigation even if it is correct, sadly.
That was too much!
Being spotted during the Stine killing definitely scared him. So claiming he was the one who kidnapped Kathleen Johns given, she supposed to have sat next to the fucker for a couple hours (and should definitely know exactly what he looked like) is a clever move. Win win for him really.
