"They described the subject as Approx. 40 years old…"

WC please read my first post on this thread.

You relying on second hand hearsay of the police officer writing what he says Dean from the college told him he remembers what he thought he heard the girls said to him.

In my first post I show the actual first hand statement of the girls to police where they say 28 and 30.

As a neutral observer without any POI, I see about 6 different sets of witness reports – all of which have an element of doubt about them. About 90% of these agree on an estimated age in the range of 25-35, 1 other says 35-45.

I wouldn’t discount any of them but as a neutral investigator my training would tell me to go with the 90% of eye witnesses.

In regards to Fouke…

He begins with the lower age of approximately 35 years old. Not all that far off from 30.

I think he goes to the older age JUST IN CASE it was graying and not simply the lighting as he stated was a possibility.

We can all go around and around with an age approximation.

I say that Zodiac was between 21 & 45, was white, and ……well that’s it, that’s my guess That’s the problem with this whole case. His ages vary. The SF sketch looks nothing like the Berryessa sketch. Fouke said 35-45,but he sounded early 20’s on the phone, and to Hartnell in person. Almost everybody with a POI can feel confident in the possibility that their guy was zodiac. I think everybody here will agree, Zodiac was NOT 16 or 17, so we are looking for a guy in his 20’s-40’s, who is white, and may of may not wear glasses. That should narrow it down to a million people in CA

Here is what the official police report states about Mageau’s recollection of the man who shot him. (I will leave out comments and statements that are not relevant to the age of suspect, such as ‘Subject did not have moustache.’) The Official Police report quotes:

"States he (Mageau) just saw subjects face from the profile, side view, and does not recall seeing a front view. Michael reemphasises that he really did not get a good look at subject other than his profile. Also, it was dark out and it was hard to see the subject.
Stated subject was a White Male, Approx. 26 – 30 years. Was unable to judge real well what his age was."

That is Michael Mageau’s official statements in the immediate aftermath of the event so the incident at this time would be fresh in his memory. Mageau doesn’t simply imply or suggest that he may not be very accurate on the age of the man who shot him, but rather, as the report shows, Mike wanted to ‘reemphasise that he did not get a good look at the subject’ and that ‘it was dark out and it was hard to see the subject’ before finally speaking of the suspects age specifically declared he was ‘Unable to judge real well what his age was.’

The above is a statement given by a young man who seems to want to portray that he is unsure, at best, what the Approximate age was of the man who shot him. Compare this with Don Fouke’s confident and consistent claim that the man he saw was aged 35 – 45, even going as far as to tell Toschi that the famous sketch was ‘Similar to the man I had seen on Oct 11, but that the suspect was older and heavier" and you have to ask yourself who sounds more sure here?

Here is the excerpt from the memo, followed by links to clips showing Don speaking and always stating suspect was 35 – 45.

Fouke Memo:

Fouke interview Crimes of the Century (starts at 1 minute of clip exactly – "The individual I saw that night was A White Male, approximately 35 to 45 years old."): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3kD-j25jQ

Fouke interview for The Documentary This is the Zodiac Speaking. At 1:25.25 of the clip, Fouke recounts Toschi asking him about the accuracy of the Richmond Sketch and Fouke states "I never spoke to Toschi that I personally remember. He may have been the inspector who came out to ask me about the composite drawing and I told him that the suspect was older and heavier." Link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI0jnsbZwys

And let’s not forget Fouke’s overall description of the man he saw at PH. (The description given in the "This is the Zodiac Speaking" video.) It is amazingly detailed, right down to the height of the man’s shoe tops. If Fouke–at cruising speed and under cover of at least partial darkness (street lamps considered)–can recollect that amount of detail from what had to be no more than a 5- or 10-second sighting, then we might want to consider his age estimate with a little more validity.

And let’s remember: Zodiac stopped taking risks after the PH murder. We can’t confirm a single killing after that. Every action is a choice (unless he died or went to prison), and every choice has reasons. If he chose to stop using the Bay Area as his personal hunting ground, then why? Maybe because the composite and the Fouke sighting and the eyewitnesses all hit a little too close to home. The guy was no moron. Maybe he knew the jig was up, or at the very least there were too many arrows getting near the mark. "Know when to hold ’em; know when to fold ’em." Maybe, finally, he overplayed his hand at PH, and he was smart enough to know his luck was about to run out.

I await the sayers who nay to come and tell me I’m 1 part gold and 99 parts speculation. Fair enough, but so much of this case is just that, speculative, so I’m guilty as charged, your honor(s)….

I’m not sure how much stock one should put in any of these descriptions – as far as the age thing goes. Some people are a bit hard to determine in that respect. Besides, the estimates don’t vary that wildly – Mageau’s highest estimate is close enough to Fouke’s lowest, one could say.

I was reading Hartnell’s statement not too long ago – and was struck by the following: The interviewer asks H whether Z seemed like an "educated" (or words to that effect) man, to which H says: "hell no!" but then adds that he didn’t seem uneducated either and that his initial response had more to do with Z’s clothes than his voice or choice of words (this is what he seems to imply, at least). And that makes sense: A person’s clothes can easily distort one’s perception of him or her – as can many other external (and strictly speaking irrelevant) factors. I’m in my late thirties. Depending on who observed me (briefly, at night, say), whether I was wearing a conservative suit or a pair of baggy shorts and T-shirt could easily add or remove a decade to/from my real age to a casual observer.

There are many reasons that, while circumstantial, I believe Z was in the 35 – 45 age range, and here’s a few of those reasons:

Zodiac made many references to his victims, but here are just a few examples: " The boy was originally sitting in the front seat when I began firing." This was in reference to Mike Mageau, age 19.

When referring to 22 years old Darlene Ferrin he writes: "girl was wearing patterned slacks."

When he phoned and spoke with Nancy Slover, he told her that they’ll; "find kids in a brown car."

Zodiac is referring to 19 and 22 year old victims as the boy and girl in the singular, and as ‘Kids’ in the collective. If Zodiac were himself in his twenties then surely he would not refer to them as kids? By referring to teens and twenty-something’s as kids, he himself see’s himself as an adult.

In my experience it’s not uncommon for kids (not much older than, say, their mid teens) to refer to kids of a similar age as…er…kids! But I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone past twenty refer to their contemporaries as "kids". Whereas an older person might easily talk about "college kids", for instance, even though the people in question are technically adults.

So, yes – I would agree with your reasoning, Welsh. The question is how much older you have to be in order to refer to someone around twenty as a "kid". Not necessary all that much, I think. A thirty year old could refer to a twenty year old as a "kid" given the right circumstances.

My guess would be at least a decade older.

The question is how much older you have to be in order to refer to someone around twenty as a "kid". Not necessary all that much, I think. A thirty year old could refer to a twenty year old as a "kid" given the right circumstances.

If one had such an inflated view of himself, he might call contemporaries "kids" just to reaffirm (if only to himself), that he is in a better "class" of people. I agree, however, that the simplest explanation is that Z was probably a few years older than his victims. At 25, I’m not sure would have referred to an 18 year old as a kid. At 30… maybe. Then again, what I do or would do has no bearing on what Z would/did do.

I found this article from December 1975, six years after the Stine murder. It says at that time Zodiac’s estimated age was 40 to 50 years old. That puts Zodiac at the upper range of the various ages he was thought to be. The article also does a little bit of profiling, too.

There’s one fact for sure regarding the time Fouke has to view Z….

Fouke is moving towards Z at about 52′ per second, Z is moving towards Fouke at about 5′-6′ per second. They’re moving towards each other at about 57′ – 58′ per second. Fouke’s cant see Z from 400′ away, can’t see him from 300′ away. So we’re more in the 5-7 seconds range, and that’s giving Fouke time to slow down a bit. 6 to 7 seconds after Fouke leaves Z at 3712 Jackson, Fouke’s encounters Pellessetti at Cherry and Jackson. The timing is very tight. Too bad we never heard from Zelm’s. Of all the players involved Eric had the best/closest look at Z. And he had the younger eyes.

Very interesting topic!!!!Some people appear to be older then they appear to be and vice versa. I have had people tell me I am 20 years younger than I look (wish THAT were true!)
So, guessing age is a game of chance.

Having said that, the killer had to be over 21 and probably under 35. The few who saw Z said he was plump. Other then that information, we have little information to go by.

That wide gap in biography, information, etc, is what makes it possible for these wild-tale books and other claims to be born. Maybe I will write a book – "The Zodiac was my brother"……
…………………..NOT!!!!!