Technically I’m still on the fence here but I do appreciate the argument/find it hard to dismiss the idea that Zodiac, the guy the girls witnessed and the guy seen by the doctor an his son were all different people…..probably not.

I do think it quite possible that Zodiac was parked elsewhere and down in the area scouting around when he spotted the victims. He may have returned to his car somewhere to the north and simply stopped en route back south to write on the car door. Remember there was a lot of lost time here to account for between the crime and the time it took to make the phone call, perhaps this scenario accounts for some of it. Just thoughts!

The Riverside ones were left by a guy who had size 10 feet at the most

I know this is a bit of an old thread, but I think it’s the best one on the topic.

The above quote caught my eye as it seemed to be a great example of a problem that seems to pop up whenever people bring up the RCC shoe prints, specifically that the size is often quoted as being "8", or "8 1/2" and that there seems to be a subconscious assumption that the lower figure is inherently more conservative. It’s not. In fact based on DOJ report it’s more accurate to say that sizes 8, 9 and 10 have equal probability. That is to say there is a one in three chance of it being any one of those sizes. So if you feel that 8 is somehow more likely because it’s on the lower end, or if you feel 9 is more likely because it’s the average, or even if you feel 10 is more likely because it’s closer to 10 1/2, well your allowing yourself to be swayed by instinct.

The one caveat is that is depends on how we interpret the DOJ report. To me there are three possible interpretations:

1. That investigators used the measurement to arrive at a range of sizes based on common shoe size to sole size ratios.

2. That the investigators gave the measurements to Goodrich and they responded with an estimate of sizes that were most likely.

3. That the investigators gave the measurements to Goodrich and Goodrich were pretty confident the knew exactly which sole had been used and told the investigators the three shoe sizes that they fit that sized sole to.

If scenario one is correct than there would be some validity to saying that an average size of 9 is more probable than sizes 8 and 10.

If either of the other two scenarios are the case then the probability of any of the three given shoes sizes remains 1 in 3.

Now what about the 1/2 size difference between a size 10 and a size 10 1/2 shoe? Is it substantial, or negligible? All I can say is if you think it’s substantial, you must not own many shoes. A lot of shoe manufacturers don’t even make half sizes. My own foot size is closest to a 9 1/2, but I own many pairs of different sized shoes. For example I have a very comfortable size 8 pair of Ostrich skin boots (three payments), a pair of size 10 creepers (they do chafe a little) and a pair of size 9 DM’s, my previous pair were 10’s and the difference was minimal.

So my conclusion would be that a half size difference makes very close to zero difference. It’s emphatically negligible.

With that in mind I would give the probability score of the shoe size found at RCC as having a 1 in 3 chance of matching the LB shoe size, with the caveat that I am assuming the shoe manufacturers were consulted and influenced the police findings. And I don’t think that’s a stretch .