Here is one; "If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was, you deserve to have holes in your heads."

"In answer to your asking for more details about the good times I have had in Vallejo, I shall be very happy to supply even more material. By the way, are the police having a good time with the code? If not, tell them to cheer up; when they do crack it, they will have me."
This by the way, before anyone says, is NOT a lie. Here is a portion of the cracked 408.

"I want you to print this cipher on the front page of your paper. In this cipher is my idenity."

However this is a lie.

The previous statements are rather explanations than lies, imo. Don’t forget about Radetich, the EMEORIE.. part of the cipher etc.

The only ‘lie’ I know of is that his knife had broken inside Cheri’s body..but even that could have been true if he had removed or later found it in the dark, when searching with his flashlight. One prediction was wrong, too, that he will place body parts all over town.

QT

"I want you to print this cipher on the front page of your paper. In this cipher is my idenity."

However this is a lie.

This is only a lie if one makes the incorrect assumption that the word "Identity" has the same definition as "Name." Which it does not.

Simple Definition of identity
: who someone is : the name of a person
: the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others

Simple Definition of name
: a word or phrase that refers to or that can refer to a specific person
: a word or phrase that refers to a specific place or thing
: a word or phrase that refers to a type or group of things

He didn’t have a "little list".

It was several pages long.

That’s the thing, it’s hard to prove that anything he said was a lie because we don’t know what was true beyond what the evidence says.

I’m inclined to believe he lied about watching the cops searching for him in PH.

Or were you looking for something like a Horanism where he was wrong about a specific detail, like the number of bullets or distances, etc? That supposedly show he wasn’t really at the crime scene?

There was a post that asked, "How many murders do you think the Zodiac committed?" The Zodiac of course claimed many, 37, I believe. Do we assume he’s lying? He did a lot of talking. Did he have the habit of lying in his letters? If I am not mistaken, in one letter, he said that he was going stop telling which murders were his. Maybe he kept his word about this.

There was a post that asked, "How many murders do you think the Zodiac committed?" The Zodiac of course claimed many, 37, I believe. Do we assume he’s lying? He did a lot of talking. Did he have the habit of lying in his letters? If I am not mistaken, in one letter, he said that he was going stop telling which murders were his. Maybe he kept his word about this.

Except after that statement there is "activity" in Riverside, and…Kathleen Johns. Even he didn’t have anything to do with KJ, he still took credit for it. Is it okay because she didn’t die? He’s supposed to be all secretive, then still blabs his mouth. What is the point of it?

The Zodiac almost certainly didn’t kill 37 people. He was a braggart who enjoyed domestic terrorism. He didn’t actually claim 37 victims, what he said was Me – 37. It simply depends on how you interpret this. His previous totals predominantly came with a crossed circle.

His claim of there being "a hell of a lot more down there" with regard to Bates and Riverside does not jibe with his previous claims about how many he had killed to date.

So, there’s a lie there: Either he was lying about how many he had killed when he said, for instance,

This is the Zodiac speaking up to the end of Oct I have killed 7 people.

(Nov ’69)

Or he was lying about there being a lot more in Riverside. In Nov ’69 there could have been one more "down there" at the most (canonical 5 + Bates + NN). So, unless he went back "down there" between Nov ’69 and March ’71 and killed a bunch of people, he was lying.

I suppose you can’t call the above a technical lie either, since he could have – theoretically – killed people in the Riverside area en masse after the Nov ’69 letter. But it was probably BS – just as much of what he claimed was probably BS. He wasn’t particularly truthful at the best of times, that would be my guess.

Read in between the lines of Zodiac’s lies and he gives away information about himself. All we have to do is eliminate the least probable responses.
After the Riverside connection was made, Z’s options were as follows:

If guilty of the CJB crime.
1) Stay silent = show weakness
2) Deny responsibility = show weakness
3) Claim responsibility and misdirect = show indifference = power

If NOT guilty of the CJB crime.
4)The only option he would choose is to immediately rub it in LE’s faces that they incorrectly connected him to a crime he didn’t commit.

Since Z chose (3), I think it tells us, he is responsible for CJB, but his misdirection/lie tells us he actually didn’t kill anyone else "down there."

Read in between the lines of Zodiac’s lies and he gives away information about himself. All we have to do is eliminate the least probable responses.
After the Riverside connection was made, Z’s options were as follows:

If guilty of the CJB crime.
1) Stay silent = show weakness
2) Deny responsibility = show weakness
3) Claim responsibility and misdirect = show indifference = power

If NOT guilty of the CJB crime.
4)The only option he would choose is to immediately rub it in LE’s faces that they incorrectly connected him to a crime he didn’t commit.

Since Z chose (3), I think it tells us, he is responsible for CJB, but his misdirection/lie tells us he actually didn’t kill anyone else "down there."

I don’t think this holds up, logically. If Z was not guilty of the CJB crime, he had multiple reasons to still claim it:

1. It would be consistent with his assertions (perhaps lies) about having more victims.
2. It would show indifference = power as you stated
3. It would be the ultimate misdirection, because any evidence LE had regarding the CJB case would point away from Z, if he was not involved.

So, he’d get to claim a new victim, he’d garner more headlines in the Bay Area and also become famous in Riverside, the fear he’d be creating would increase, all with the added bonus of providing him a degree of immunity. What more could he possibly ask for?? Claiming credit for CJB would be a no-brainer.

I can see Z on trial, and his lawyer calling on LE witnesses, from handwriting experts to various detectives familiar with the case, all asserting that LE had definitively tied the CJB case to the Z case. But… Z can prove he wasn’t in Riverside at the time, his hair and DNA don’t match what was found at the crime scene, etc., etc. So, he can’t be Z because, while he can’t prove a negative with regards to the "other" Z crimes (he can’t prove he didn’t commit them,) he fortunately does have an airtight alibi for the CJB murder. And with that, the only way he could be convicted of the other Z crimes would be if LE did back-flips trying to disconnect the cases from each other.

I don’t think this holds up, logically. If Z was not guilty of the CJB crime, he had multiple reasons to still claim it:

1. It would be consistent with his assertions (perhaps lies) about having more victims.
2. It would show indifference = power as you stated
3. It would be the ultimate misdirection, because any evidence LE had regarding the CJB case would point away from Z, if he was not involved.

I think it’s odd that he would select CJB murder to claim considering there are so many others he could have claimed as his.

I don’t think this holds up, logically. If Z was not guilty of the CJB crime, he had multiple reasons to still claim it:

1. It would be consistent with his assertions (perhaps lies) about having more victims.
2. It would show indifference = power as you stated
3. It would be the ultimate misdirection, because any evidence LE had regarding the CJB case would point away from Z, if he was not involved.

I think it’s odd that he would select CJB murder to claim considering there are so many others he could have claimed as his.

He also picks a murder that still remains unsolved after 50 years.