I don’t think the HC card was Zodiac either. I’ll leave it at that.

Tahoe, I find your posts here to be consistently interesting and worthwhile reading, so I’m curious about this, if you don’t mind my asking (and forgive me for maybe taking this thread a bit off-topic for a moment.) Especially since you’re the one who found the Tim Holt "By Knife" tie-in.

Do you have specific reasons why Z was not the LB killer, and independent, specific reasons why you don’t think Z wrote on the car door, and specific, independent reasons why you don’t think Z wrote and sent the halloween card?

Or is it more of a cascading thing, where you don’t believe Z was the LB killer, therefore Z couldn’t have written on the car, and therefore Z wouldn’t have referenced "By Knife" in a card?

In conclusion, I might add, in jest, that of course you don’t consider Z to have claimed LB, if you dismiss everything involving LB as non-Z.

Hi Marshall–

For me, it was just things I personally discovered and felt there were discrepancies. Just to note–I used to believe it was all Zodiac; every case, every letter…Z. For the most part, I think people do this in general–we believe what we read.

I mean, who doubts the Halloween Card? It is one of the creepiest communications. Who doubts the freakiest murder, Lake Berryessa?

Honestly, I can’t remember which doubt came first. Probably Lake Berryessa, although I have had my doubts about the HC card for a while now too. The HC card has too many characteristics of others communications which I think were quite obvious fakes.

There were thousands of fake letter writers and I think there was one guy out there who rose to the top, psychotically admiring Zodiac and his ways. It was his letter that first grabbed the attention of the S.F. Chronicle’s Paul Avery, and so it went from there.

In regards to the HC card, you can read here: viewtopic.php?f=70&t=162

And also another fake (I believe) which ties to it here: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=62
The faker was claiming kill counts after Zodiac had already (privately–not in newspaper) claimed them.

Most are very set in their ways of thinking, as was I. But after years of looking closely and deeply, I simply changed my perspective.

Zodiac never claimed to have murdered Cheri Jo Bates.

Not directly. But i think the understanding is that he accepted it. But maybe it’s because he did do it. And there is an outside chance that he did many other murders and this is just one of those many and therefor got lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

Zodiac never claimed to have murdered Cheri Jo Bates.

Not directly. But i think the understanding is that he accepted it. But maybe it’s because he did do it. And there is an outside chance that he did many other murders and this is just one of those many and therefor got lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

There is a possibility he committed more murders we are not aware of. There is also plenty of evidence linking him to Riverside. There are people who will tell you otherwise, but when you ask for any evidence, you get nothing…

Hi Marshall–

For me, it was just things I personally discovered and felt there were discrepancies. Just to note–I used to believe it was all Zodiac; every case, every letter…Z. For the most part, I think people do this in general–we believe what we read.

I mean, who doubts the Halloween Card? It is one of the creepiest communications. Who doubts the freakiest murder, Lake Berryessa?

Honestly, I can’t remember which doubt came first. Probably Lake Berryessa, although I have had my doubts about the HC card for a while now too. The HC card has too many characteristics of others communications which I think were quite obvious fakes.

There were thousands of fake letter writers and I think there was one guy out there who rose to the top, psychotically admiring Zodiac and his ways. It was his letter that first grabbed the attention of the S.F. Chronicle’s Paul Avery, and so it went from there.

In regards to the HC card, you can read here: viewtopic.php?f=70&t=162

And also another fake (I believe) which ties to it here: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=62
The faker was claiming kill counts after Zodiac had already (privately–not in newspaper) claimed them.

Most are very set in their ways of thinking, as was I. But after years of looking closely and deeply, I simply changed my perspective.

Tahoe: Thank you very much. I read the threads you referenced and it has me re-thinking some things too.

Norse had a great post in one of them, where he classified the Z missives into categories. If we simplify things as follows: Z wrote all the confirmed letters that did not include cut/paste, and Z’s crimes were the confessed LHR, BRS, and PH, then there is substantial consistency in all of it.

As we go beyond that, to LB, the HC, the Pines card, etc., we start dramatically expanding Z’s MO, his intent, his state of mind, his area of activity, his skill set, not to mention witness descriptions, and so on.

Basic, confirmed, undisputed Z: Find victim(s), shoot them, write about it, repeat. And if we wonder why his proof of LHR and BRS was simply to mention details only the police would know, while at PH he went extreme and sent in bloody clothing, it could be his reaction to an interloper coming into play (the LB killer.)

Again, thanks Tahoe. I think of it as going back to basics…

I mean, who doubts the Halloween Card?

I do. For all sorts of reasons.

Who doubts the freakiest murder, Lake Berryessa?

I don’t. For all sorts of reasons.

There is also plenty of evidence linking him to Riverside.

No. There isn’t.

There is one handwriting expert claiming he produced the Riverside material. That is all.

That is not "plenty of evidence" by any reasonable standards.

There actually is plenty of evidence linking him to Riverside.

I’ll also throw in some of the rhetorical logic that is often used on this site:
Zodiac was in Riverside, that is a fact, because that is what I believe.

There, can’t argue with that!

I mean, who doubts the Halloween Card?

I do. For all sorts of reasons.

Who doubts the freakiest murder, Lake Berryessa?

I don’t. For all sorts of reasons.

Norse,
If you discount the HC and it’s "By Knife" reference, what is there about LB that points to Z, besides the car door writing?

I will admit, the car door writing does look like Z, but it’s a small writing sample, and given the fact people here have made a good argument for numerous suspects based on handwriting (Sullivan, TK, Manalli for starters,) I think the car door writing isn’t enough to say LB was done by the "original" Z.

In the Stine confession letter, he says he’s the same man who "did in the people in the north bay area." Vallejo is definitely in the North Bay Area, but is LB? It seems like he’s distancing himself from LB… he certainly isn’t providing details only the police would know, or providing a bit of victim clothing. Z went to great length to prove he was the killer on the other confirmed crimes, culminating with taking the time to rip Paul’s shirt off his back to prove his claim, but he is silent regarding LB.

The shooting crimes are all pretty consistent. Z chooses victims who are in cars, at night, kills them relatively quickly by shooting them (single shots only required for the point-blank head shots, multiple shots into the other victims), then writes his simple letters, some with ciphers, some with crude drawings, claiming his victims (and perhaps exaggerating the numbers.)

What about LB makes you think it’s the same person? The description is different, it’s during the day rather than at night, the killing method is different, the .45 Bryan saw is not the usual 9mm (or .22), the level of interaction with the victim, the element of stalking on foot, and the ridiculous outfit are all quite different. In a previous post you convinced me there almost couldn’t be an odd Z costume at LHR due to the tight timeline, Mike M. didn’t see one at BRS, and the witnesses didn’t see a mask or costume at PH (neither did Foulke for that matter.) Without that car door, there is virtually nothing that would suggest the LB killer was the same as the killer at the other 3 scenes.

You’ve made an excellent point that a "copycat" at LB makes no sense precisely because of all these differences. Well, I agree with your argument but not your premise. It didn’t need to be a copycat – it could’ve been someone putting their own killing fantasy into action.

As you’ve pointed out in another post, the early, confirmed Z letters that do not involve cut and paste, skeleton cutouts, etc. are very consistent in their tone. There’s the Melvin letter, which I think is purely sarcastic on Z’s part, especially when he follows it up with his "Melvin eats blubber" reference in the Dragon card, but other than that, individuals aren’t mentioned in these communications, which are all sent to newspapers (of course – where else would Z send them, since he wanted to see them published.)

It all fits quite well. until you include LB, because suddenly just about everything about Z begins to expand rapidly and in many different ways. It’s almost as if Z would have to be a split personality to have been the LB killer, in my opinion, and that is ridiculously unlikely. Much more probable would be just some interloper, morphing the Z legend into his own "vision."

Marshall:

The “by knife” phrase connects the HC and LB – no question about that. I do not deny it – and consider it a valid point against the basic hypothesis that the HC was produced by an impostor.

The question, however, is how heavily it weighs – valid though it may be. The phrase is by no means unique, and – as I’ve pointed out elsewhere – it doesn’t appear in isolation but as part of a larger design, i.e. the “wheel of death” concept. As far as I know a possible impostor could not have known that Z used it at LB (as we know, LE kept it back and it was not made public until well after Avery received the HC) but the fact that the LB killer used a knife was known.

What speaks against the HC being legit, as far as I’m concerned, is the nature of it (what you touch on above): Hardly any writing, sent to a private person with the – obvious – intention of intimidating said person, etc. This is not the standard operating procedure of the canonical Zodiac – simply put. The most obvious reason for NOT writing a normal letter, but opting for some kind of copy/paste and/or all-capitals approach, is that you don’t want to put your handwriting out there. The canonical Zodiac never had a problem with this. The obvious question is this: If Z wanted to communicate with Avery – for whatever reason – why didn’t he send him a regular letter? Sure, there’s the Halloween theme – which he may have found amusing – but he could have sent him a greeting card with a regularly written message included. The canonical Z is cryptic in a literal sense, i.e. when he uses cryptograms. He isn’t vague or obscure to any significant degree outside of this.

What connects Z to LB? Positively, materially? Nothing. We all know this. My stance remains the same: LB makes more sense as a Z attack than an attack carried out by a “copycat”. Someone playing out his own murder fantasy? Not inconceivable as such. Someone who is not into actually copycatting Z (he adds more new features to the recipe than he copies known ones) but who nevertheless goes to considerable trouble to pin the crime on Z (a figure who was nowhere near as notorious at the time as he is now)? Unlikely in my opinion. Highly problematic, at any rate – pretty much unique in the annals of crime, as far as I know.

There actually is plenty of evidence linking him to Riverside.

Such as? And how do you define "evidence"?

I’ll also throw in some of the rhetorical logic that is often used on this site:
Zodiac was in Riverside, that is a fact, because that is what I believe.

Yes, it’s often used – both here and elsewhere. I don’t see why you would want to throw that in here, though.

Marshall:

The “by knife” phrase connects the HC and LB – no question about that. I do not deny it – and consider it a valid point against the basic hypothesis that the HC was produced by an impostor.

The question, however, is how heavily it weighs – valid though it may be. The phrase is by no means unique, and – as I’ve pointed out elsewhere – it doesn’t appear in isolation but as part of a larger design, i.e. the “wheel of death” concept. As far as I know a possible impostor could not have known that Z used it at LB (as we know, LE kept it back and it was not made public until well after Avery received the HC) but the fact that the LB killer used a knife was known.

What speaks against the HC being legit, as far as I’m concerned, is the nature of it (what you touch on above): Hardly any writing, sent to a private person with the – obvious – intention of intimidating said person, etc. This is not the standard operating procedure of the canonical Zodiac – simply put. The most obvious reason for NOT writing a normal letter, but opting for some kind of copy/paste and/or all-capitals approach, is that you don’t want to put your handwriting out there. The canonical Zodiac never had a problem with this. The obvious question is this: If Z wanted to communicate with Avery – for whatever reason – why didn’t he send him a regular letter? Sure, there’s the Halloween theme – which he may have found amusing – but he could have sent him a greeting card with a regularly written message included. The canonical Z is cryptic in a literal sense, i.e. when he uses cryptograms. He isn’t vague or obscure to any significant degree outside of this.

What connects Z to LB? Positively, materially? Nothing. We all know this. My stance remains the same: LB makes more sense as a Z attack than an attack carried out by a “copycat”. Someone playing out his own murder fantasy? Not inconceivable as such. Someone who is not into actually copycatting Z (he adds more new features to the recipe than he copies known ones) but who nevertheless goes to considerable trouble to pin the crime on Z (a figure who was nowhere near as notorious at the time as he is now)? Unlikely in my opinion. Highly problematic, at any rate – pretty much unique in the annals of crime, as far as I know.

Norse, thanks for your, as always, well thought-out reply. I am enjoying this conversation and hope I’m not coming across as being overly argumentative.

It sounds as though you question the HC card because it is so different from the writings of the canonical Zodiac, yet you think Z committed the Lake Berryassa attack, even though it was even more different from his other murders. The HC is quite different from known, undisputed Z letters/cards, but virtually nothing was the same at LB, compared to the other three crime scenes. I’ve read your post a few times, trying to catch the nuance as to why you discount one but accept the other, and don’t quite understand. Especially when we seem to agree that the two are connected – it seems likely the HC writer knew something about the LB murder that wasn’t in the public domain (the "By Knife" reference on the car door.)

We definitely agree the LB killer was no copycat. He did nothing to copy Z’s work. So the question is, what’s more likely:

1. Z suddenly completely changed his MO for a brief time, and committed murder in a totally different manner, different time, taking different risks, using different equipment, making a costume just for this one crime, and then decided to not boast about it (when boasting of his crimes seems to have been his main motivation,) only to follow it up by killing Paul just 2 weeks later, and bragging about that while dramatically producing bloody clothing, yet mentioning nothing about LB? And then, he either writes and sends the uncharacteristically artistic HC card to a private person – yet another deviation (Belli exception noted,) or a copycat writer sends the HC card and gets very lucky by referencing "By Knife." Since we both now discount the HC card as being from Z, this scenario implies someone else knew about the "By Knife" reference on the car door.

Or 2. One of the many people who were inserting themselves into this crime spree by writing fake Z letters and cards (and there were many as we, and LE, all agree,) decided to actually kill someone too, and then write and send the HC card.

I can see Z claiming credit for murders he didn’t commit, like inflating his kill counts and so on, but I cannot see him NOT claiming Cecelia Shepherd.

What connects Z to LB? Positively, materially? Nothing. We all know this. My stance remains the same: LB makes more sense as a Z attack than an attack carried out by a “copycat”. Someone playing out his own murder fantasy? Not inconceivable as such. Someone who is not into actually copycatting Z (he adds more new features to the recipe than he copies known ones) but who nevertheless goes to considerable trouble to pin the crime on Z (a figure who was nowhere near as notorious at the time as he is now)? Unlikely in my opinion. Highly problematic, at any rate – pretty much unique in the annals of crime, as far as I know.

Since we know that there were many people playing out their own murder-related fantasies by writing fake Z letters and cards, I don’t see it as being a stretch that one of them may have taken it a step further. That, to me, is not a huge leap. As far as being unique in the annals of crime, how common would it be for a repeat killer to suddenly – in the middle of his spree – change absolutely everything about his MO for a single crime, then revert back? Or for a killer who’s motivation was publicity, notoriety, and claiming credit, to go to such great effort to commit his "masterpiece," and then not claim it, but rather kill someone else shortly after, and brag all over the place about that one?

On a side note, the costume… The killer at LB went to great effort to keep Bryan and Cecelia calm and under control. Yet he was wearing an outfit that, had they understood this was the murderous Zodiac they were dealing with, would’ve caused quite the opposite reaction. So, from a practical perspective, why was this guy wearing an outfit that should’ve told them they were about to be murder victims? And, since he leaves the scene assuming he has just committed a double murder, what purpose (other than protecting against blood splatter) did the outfit serve? The only people who saw it were presumably dead. He’d be the only person who knew he had been wearing it.

Just 2 weeks later, at PH, Z didn’t seem too concerned about blood splatter, especially as he was cutting bloody clothing off the victim. So, this seems to indicate the only purpose Z (or Z Junior) would’ve had for wearing that silly costume was that it was important to him. Some sort of ritual maybe, and the By Knife reference was also important enough to mention. That Tim Holt tie-in Tahoe found of course comes to mind and it also occurs to me that LB was also "By Rope" and "By Water."

Bryan Hartnell was a very intelligent and observant witness to the crime, he gave TV interviews, and recalled meticulous detail about the attack for its 15 minute duration, including the knife, gun and elaborate costume. He ultimately ended up the perfect living eyewitness, recounting every detail and giving the Zodiac Killer all the unbridled publicity he could have wished for. There was simply nothing for Zodiac to add in the form of a letter, the newspapers had given him the ultimate platform, courtesy of Bryan Hartnell.

Z suddenly completely changed his MO for a brief time, and committed murder in a totally different manner, different time, taking different risks, using different equipment, making a costume just for this one crime, and then decided to not boast about it (when boasting of his crimes seems to have been his main motivation,) only to follow it up by killing Paul just 2 weeks later, and bragging about that while dramatically producing bloody clothing, yet mentioning nothing about LB?

He didn’t completely change his MO.

Since we know that there were many people playing out their own murder-related fantasies by writing fake Z letters and cards, I don’t see it as being a stretch that one of them may have taken it a step further. That, to me, is not a huge leap. As far as being unique in the annals of crime, how common would it be for a repeat killer to suddenly – in the middle of his spree – change absolutely everything about his MO for a single crime, then revert back? Or for a killer who’s motivation was publicity, notoriety, and claiming credit, to go to such great effort to commit his "masterpiece," and then not claim it, but rather kill someone else shortly after, and brag all over the place about that one?

After Z became big news, yes. After Stine, that is. And there’s an immense difference between writing fake letters (which is something people do, so to speak – it’s a common phenomenon) and carrying out a murderous assault.

On a side note, the costume… The killer at LB went to great effort to keep Bryan and Cecelia calm and under control. Yet he was wearing an outfit that, had they understood this was the murderous Zodiac they were dealing with, would’ve caused quite the opposite reaction. So, from a practical perspective, why was this guy wearing an outfit that should’ve told them they were about to be murder victims? And, since he leaves the scene assuming he has just committed a double murder, what purpose (other than protecting against blood splatter) did the outfit serve? The only people who saw it were presumably dead. He’d be the only person who knew he had been wearing it.

Yes – the costume. It’s bizarre. But what is more bizarre:

a) Zodiac, an unknown subject we don’t know everything about (as far as, say, pathology is concerned), dons a crazy costume for whatever reason at LB,

or

b) Someone else, not Zodiac, dons a crazy costume with Zodiac’s symbol on it (which is entirely pointless as a means of identification – he intends to kill his targets, but we may add for good measure that he doesn’t say a word to them about being Zodiac either, what he says is that he’s an escaped convict headed for Mexico, a detail which has absolutely nothing to do with Zodiac as he would have been known to an impostor), and goes to great lengths to make sure the attack is attributed to Zodiac.

Well? Why is it so important to this non-Zodiac killer – who is not a copycat in the normal sense of the word, as we agree on – to pin the crime on Zodiac? Why does he find it necessary to wear a costume with Z’s symbol on it (something we only know about because Bryan, thankfully, was lucky enough to survive)?

Is he obsessed with Zodiac? Seems odd, doesn’t it? Both because he doesn’t actually emulate him to any great extent – and because Zodiac at the time (before Stine, before San Francisco, before he became truly notorious) wasn’t someone an arbitrary loon was very likely to become obsessed about.

Bryan Hartnell was a very intelligent and observant witness to the crime, he gave TV interviews, and recalled meticulous detail about the attack for its 15 minute duration, including the knife, gun and elaborate costume. He ultimately ended up the perfect living eyewitness, recounting every detail and giving the Zodiac Killer all the unbridled publicity he could have wished for. There was simply nothing for Zodiac to add in the form of a letter, the newspapers had given him the ultimate platform, courtesy of Bryan Hartnell.

But this happened later… In the immediate aftermath of the LB attack, Z had no way of knowing one of the victims at LB would survive, give detailed interviews that would satisfy his need for attention, and therefore no need to immediately claim it, and no need to ever claim it?

Two weeks after LB, Z killed Paul Stine on the night of October 11. His letter claiming credit, with undisputed proof, was postmarked just 2 days later. So, why didn’t Z write letters shortly after LB, before he knew that Bryan would eventually give him all that publicity? And when he did write next, which was that Oct. 13 Stine letter, why did he specifically identify himself as: "The same man who did in the people in the north bay area?" Not even a mention of the LB attack.

Mike Mageau was also a witness and interviewee, but that didn’t stop Z from proving he was the killer at BRS, describing details the public wouldn’t/couldn’t know. Mageau wasn’t the stellar interviewee Bryan was, but, again, how could Z know that, and would he really care enough to sit back and let Bryan act as his press agent for the most spectacular murder of his "career?"

Having said all that… this only concerns a possible explanation why Z didn’t claim credit for LB. I think there is still a lot of reason to believe Z wasn’t the LB killer and very little reason to believe he was.