Several questions could be asked about our friend, the ranger.

He was a terrible witness, it seems. But you have to ask how he managed to come up with a pretty detailed description of something which never took place.

According to Hartnell’s interview, he does not say that he asked to be stabbed first. What Bryan says sounds like the knifing came out of the blue with little or no preamble.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview5.html

Yes. I edited my above post to reflect an interview Hartnell gave in 2007. His original police interview, from Voigt’s site, doesn’t mention such a thing either.

One has to wonder if the ranger made that statement, or Graysmith made it up. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m starting to think Graysmith should be in prison for fraud.

An article did appear in the Napa Register stating the stab me first, I’m chicken bit. The article was written by Astrid Edington who was the Napa Register’s society editor. This woman was not a beat reporter let alone a crime reporter. It’s hard to know whether or not Edington was interjecting the drama or if that is what Ranger White actually said. I have the article and will scan and PM it to you. It’s probably posted here somewhere but looking for it probably will take more time!

Regarding LHR – this video is invaluable, imo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI0jnsbZwys

To me, someone walks over to your car, shoots it, probably tells you to get out…that is exactly what you do, and what David and Betty Lou did. Zodiac shot David, then Betty Lou and went on his merry way. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Unless…it wasn’t Zodiac. There is potentially a different bullet hole. Then, it’s an entirely different scenario.

I personally don’t believe their is any sexual gratification. Seems like an entirely different type of killer.

Thank you, Seagull. I’d definitely enjoy reading that bit of information.

There is potentially a different bullet hole.

The ’38, you mean?

Or the hole in the roof?

Well, here is the article for everyone to read, though this probably isn’t the correct topic to put it in!

There is potentially a different bullet hole.

The ’38, you mean?

Or the hole in the roof?

One in the same–? Looks bigger than a .22 to me, but I cannot speak for how metal would expand via a bullet. I think angle was curios as well.

Well without a some kind of reference, such as a crime scene ruler, it’s hard to discern size at all…

Well without a some kind of reference, such as a crime scene ruler, it’s hard to discern size at all…

Not sure if they did that, but I think it was Lundblad who determined a larger bullet. It might have been clarified later.

Well without a some kind of reference, such as a crime scene ruler, it’s hard to discern size at all…

Not sure if they did that, but I think it was Lundblad who determined a larger bullet. It might have been clarified later.

Didn’t he use a wooden dowel of known diameter? Recall an image of that sort.

Well, this is what I recall (I did some reading-up on this business a while back, but I don’t remember all the details):

What looked like a ’38 slug was actually a ’22 that got mangled on impact. Lundblad addresses this in an interview – it’s posted here somewhere.

The hole is a bit different – it does look too big for a ’22. But the angle apparently plays a crucial part here. Someone presented a pretty a good explanation for this on one of the old boards, I recall: The bullet hit at an angle, thus producing a larger hole. I’m no ballistics expert, so I don’t know – but the explanation seemed reasonable enough to me.

Now, the key part – as I see it – is this: There is no ’38 slug, which makes the hole less relevant. If a larger caliber was used – and produced that hole – why wasn’t the bullet recovered?

Anyway – the theory is that there may have been two shooters (possibly the gang who killed a gas station worker), right? One of them with a ’22, the other with a larger caliber. Now, the obvious point to make would be this: Shooter 1 fires multiple shots with his ’22 – hitting both victims. But shooter 2, using his ’38, apparently fires just the one shot. Does that make sense? If it was a double-shooter hit, you’d expect both shooters to be heavily involved.

The hole is a bit different – it does look too big for a ’22. But the angle apparently plays a crucial part here. Someone presented a pretty a good explanation for this on one of the old boards, I recall: The bullet hit at an angle, thus producing a larger hole. I’m no ballistics expert, so I don’t know – but the explanation seemed reasonable enough to me.

Yes, thought the same but said nothing.

It’s a matter of conic sections, which we all learned in school. Take a plane and intersect it with a cone. If the plane intersects parallel to the cone’s base (90 degrees to the cone’s line of symmetry), you have a circle. If not, you have an ellipse (assuming a full intersection).

Simply, the ellipse has greater area than the circle.

Does that make sense? If it was a double-shooter hit, you’d expect both shooters to be heavily involved.

If there were two shooters, Jensen would not have had a chance to run simply because in all likelihood there would have been one shooter on Faraday and one on her.

I really do not understand why some people insist on multiplying entities beyond necessity.

I think there were other things which suggested more than one person to the cops. Seems like one of the angles was really high–like a gun fired from the back of a truck or something. Now THAT would for sure suggest no sexual gratification. Could it be Lundblad’s theory affected his conclusion? Could be…

If there were two shooters, Jensen would not have had a chance to run simply because in all likelihood there would have been one shooter on Faraday and one on her.

Yes – that’s what you’d expect. One shooter targets DF, the other BLJ.

Anyway, I don’t think there’s anything here which can’t be explained from the basic assumption that there was only one shooter (namely the one who took credit for it six months later).