Surely, we aren’t relying on the word of a narcissistic, lying murderer to verify facts are we?

Also, Richard has done a marvelous job demonstrating why KJ’s story is likely BS:

https://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-ne … ion-or-not

Surely, we aren’t relying on the word of a narcissistic, lying murderer to verify facts are we?

Also, Richard has done a marvelous job demonstrating why KJ’s story is likely BS:

https://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-ne … ion-or-not

thanks for the link, i should have known richard would have covered this. i’ll just let his work speak for my point of view. i think she made it up for reasons unknown – perhaps an insurance claim on the car, maybe she was just mentally ill. i certainly don’t think she considered the end result of blaming a wanted serial killer for an abduction that didn’t happen, but most of what she describes doesn’t seem well thought out.

Agreed, masootz.

And if people are using the fact that the Zodiac claimed responsibility as proof that he did it, then we are in big trouble. Zodiac was a liar and a narcissist and would take any opportunity to falsely take credit for a crime he didn’t commit just to make himself seem more prolific.

[1] The three teenagers viewing of the suspect "last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street" was the only eyewitness testimony in the police report, and therefore the suspect description on page 2 could only have been derived from them. They stated the man was in his early forties

[2] Officer Donald Fouke described a man 35-45 years. Median age 40.

[3] The witnesses overlooking Julius Khan playground described the man running into the park as about 40.

Three eyewitnesses inside of 5 minutes describing a near identical age and clothing, with glasses and crew cut.

[4] Kathleen Johns sat with her abductor for anywhere from 90-120 minutes, so arguably should have been accurate when describing the man as 30.

There is a marked discrepancy. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, however, three sets of eyewitnesses in under 5 minutes should carry a modicum of extra weight.

The first description given on the SFPD wanted poster that I have dated Oct 13th 1969 said 25 to 35. It was later changed on the revised poster dated Oct 18th 69 . Was that from the three teens or was that from officer Fouke? Mike M said the shooter looked 26 to 30 , he reported that a few times. The three girls at Lake Berryessa said 25 to 35.

Guessing at a person’s age from a distance is a disadvantage to someone who sat next to the man for two hours. I am sorry but I disagree with him being in his 40’s in 1969. The man I saw fit the description Kathleen Johns gave and he looked to me to be about 30 yrs old in 1968, I was about 4 ft away from him at that time and worked as a cocktail waitress, who had a very good eye for ages. ( I had to or I would have been fired) He is the same man that Kathleen Johns rode with for a couple of hours. I have watched her interviews and have no doubt that she told the truth.
The poster a page or so back made the mistake of thinking Kathleen jumped out of a car that was moving???? Where do these people get such foolish ideas? The car was stopped when she got out with her baby!

People , please take the time to read the police reports to get a better understanding of the case.

The wanted poster I believe is a red herring. The police report stated that the man was "last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street". Therefore any suspect description in it could only have come from the teenagers. They described a subject in his early 40s and so did pretty much everybody else that day. The wanted poster was drawn up with the teenagers input and because of how the sketch turned out, my guess is the police attributed the lower age range to it (possibly thinking the teenagers were conflicted). However, it’s clear the teenagers were not happy with the original, which forced the police to revise the sketch to 35-45, more in line with their original estimate of early 40s. This was backed up by Donald Fouke and the Spruce Street eyewitnesses. In my opinion only, this takes precedence over any estimate by Kathleen Johns, because the Modesto abduction has not been classified as a canonical Zodiac crime.

I’m not convinced Kathleen Johns was a Zodiac crime, and she did later identity Lawrence Kane as her abductor. who was actually 45 years of age in 1970. This, in of itself, wildly conflicts with the estimated age (30 years) of the man she claims took her on a two-hour journey that night and morning – and Lawrence Kane didn’t look 30 in 1970. If Kathleen Johns was abducted by Lawrence Kane or somebody of his maturity, then she identified a 45-year-old man, which is more in line with the three sets of eyewitnesses at Presidio Heights.

While you believe Zodiac was 30 in 1968, this is anecdotal and can’t be applied across the board – because while some people may agree with your story Sandy, the people who don’t, aren’t bound by your estimate of 30. And there are so many individual beliefs throughout the world. We all have different takes. I go with a Zodiac who was 40ish in 1969, and others will disagree.

I went by what the very first wanted poster showed and that had to be from what the teens reported. The changes came after Fouke made his statement and a new wanted poster was created, with the suspects age increased. These are not my words they are what was written on the earlier wanted poster. We can’t erase what Mike M first reported and it was not a middle aged shooter. Bryan Hartnell said the voice was that of a young man age 20 to 30 yrs old. David Slaight who got the call from the killer said the caller had a calm voice and sounded to be in his 20’s. These are facts that are being ignored, regardless of my suspects age at that time. It will all come out in the wash, soon I hope and all of the people who think I am making up a story for whatever reason, will have egg on their faces!

The case has had people who muddy up the waters for their own benefit, that doesn’t make it correct. It makes the case harder to solve.

Choosing only the people who say he looked older and not putting all of the other reports showing he was younger is not fair to the case.

The only reason I highlighted the Presidio Heights witnesses Sandy is because they had the best view of all the eyewitnesses. The only information we have on the actual age of the killer are the people who crossed paths with him. While I don’t discount Michael Mageau’s testimony entirely, we both know the drawbacks with his testimony having been blinded by a flashlight and shot numerous times. Nancy Slover, David Slaight and Bryan Hartnell never saw the perpetrator, only heard his voice. This is a problem, because determining a person’s age by their voice is extremely difficult. Many people pick and choose the eyewitnesses and earwithnesses – credit some and discredit others – to serve the purpose of bolstering their own case. I have no suspect and therefore don’t care how old the Zodiac Killer was.

I always use the Ross Sullivan analogy, in that people have no problem using the sketch as evidence Ross Sullivan was the Zodiac Killer despite the distance and less than perfect visibility, while simultaneously writing off the height descriptions because of the angle the suspect was viewed from. It’s often quoted that it’s difficult to guage a suspect’s height from a steep angle, and in the case of Donald Fouke, from a seated position in a moving vehicle. But consider this – if Ross Sullivan was 5’8" or 5’10" as described by eyewitnesses at Presidio Heights, do you believe that the proponents of Ross Sullivan would be still discrediting the eyewitness testimony. They would now be championing it. The problem with having a suspect is it colours somebodies view of the case. They already know their suspect’s age and therefore they give credence to the eyewitnesses who conform to that age – while eyewitnesses who don’t conform to that age, they discredit that testimony. I am totally impartial, I have no suspect whatsoever and therefore don’t need to massage the evidence to suit my ends. I don’t care if the suspect was 20, 30, 40 or 50. I know you’ve read many Zodiac books Sandy, and these books are designed to sell a suspect with little to no impartiality.

If their suspect is 130lbs suddenly he’s wearing a fat-suit or wearing several jumpers, if he is 18 then all the eyewitnesses are mistaken due to poor lighting, if he is 5’4" then he is wearing high heels or walking on stilts like a circus clown. The more somebody has to employ these long-winded explanations to keep a suspect on track, the more unbelievable they become. For me Sandy, I don’t need to muddy the waters, because I do not care how old the suspect was and who he was – just that he is identified or caught.

The changes came after Fouke made his statement and a new wanted poster was created, with the suspects age increased.

This is not accurate. It was the three teenagers who asked that the second sketch be done and made to look older because they all agreed the first sketch looked too young. Foulke had no input in either sketch.

The case has had people who muddy up the waters for their own benefit, that doesn’t make it correct. It makes the case harder to solve.

There are certainly people who "muddy up" this case. Richard Grinell is absolutely not one of them. On the contrary.

It will all come out in the wash, soon I hope and all of the people who think I am making up a story for whatever reason, will have egg on their faces!

IMO, the biggest problem with the case is people who see the case as a "horse race" and hoping their suspect "wins", rather than an objective investigation that looks at all the evidence critically so that we can bring the bastard to justice regardless of who it is.

I was in no way accusing Richard for mudding up the waters, I have the highest respect for him. I just wanted people to show all of the other descriptions that say 25 to 30. I feel that Mike M in his later yrs was not reliable, but his first interviews with police, I do believe.

You are incorrect about the changes in the composite drawing being changed by the teens. I am sorry but I doubt you spoke to the artist who drew them, I did in January 1990 by phone and he told me the changes were made by Fouke and Zelms. The artist would know better than anyone else! This isn’t something that I just made up to prove you wrong. If you look back to 1998 when I first started posting on Zkiller.com, I brought up that fact.

You are incorrect about the changes in the composite drawing being changed by the teens. I am sorry but I doubt you spoke to the artist who drew them, I did in January 1990 by phone and he told me the changes were made by Fouke and Zelms. The artist would know better than anyone else! This isn’t something that I just made up to prove you wrong. If you look back to 1998 when I first started posting on Zkiller.com, I brought up that fact.

If I’m wrong, then so is Tom Voigt who also said that the changes to the sketch were done by the teenagers and that Foulke and Zelms, while agreeing the sketch was accurate, did not contribute to it.

Perhaps you should check with him.

In the 2007 Zodiac documentary Officer Donald Fouke stated "One month later, when the composite drawing came out at Richmond Station and was posted on the wall, he looked similar to the man I had seen on October 11th. I then wrote a scratch, interdepartmental memorandum, to my lieutenant to forward to homicide division, so that they would have the additional information about the appearance of the suspect. I never spoke to Toschi that I personally know of or remember. He may have been the inspector that came out and asked me about the composite drawing and I told them the suspect was older and heavier".

I don’t know why he stated this if he played any part in either the October 13th or October 18th sketches.

The descriptions of Z outside of PH have him as 25-30, for the most part, correct? It’s really only at PH that have him near 40.

The girls at Berryessa have him around 30. They saw him, in broad daylight, for half an hour or more, without the pressure of the crime.

I like your site, Richard.

The descriptions of Z outside of PH have him as 25-30, for the most part, correct? It’s really only at PH that have him near 40.

The girls at Berryessa have him around 30. They saw him, in broad daylight, for half an hour or more, without the pressure of the crime.

I like your site, Richard.

Thanks Nick. If we discount the Mageau description for obvious reasons, we have Lake Berryessa. Bryan, nor Cecelia actually saw the face of the perpetrator – only estimating age by voice concept. The three girls at Berryessa originally informed Dean according to the police report of a subject aged approximately 40 years of age, exactly the same as Presidio Heights.
http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport8.html