What does Z do with his hood as he’s chasing Cecelia? As you’ve noted, the hood already limited his vision. Running with it would’ve bounced it around and had it twisted a couple inches, would’ve completely blinded him. Does he discard it, with the sweat, hairs, skin cells likely inside it (this from a guy who apparently was careful enough to not leave skin cells on postage stamps?) Or does he chase Cecelia after taking off the hood, tucking it under one arm as he holds the gun with the other, with the sheathed knife at his side and the rope wrapped around his waist? Either way, his disguise is now compromised as both Bryan and Cecelia can see his face.

Suppose one of them does try to swim away and the gun has to be used. Gunshots over water can be heard from miles away. Does Stabber Z shoot Bryan and Cecelia, alerting everyone in the entire area, including everyone between him and his vehicle, then walk back to his car with the executioner hood on (to avoid witness descriptions) or does he walk out with the hood under his arm? I assume he also removes the bib which advertises him as a serial killer.

At BRS, Mike described Shooter Z as being very calm, walking to the car, emptying his gun, walking back to his car to reload, walking back and shooting some more. At PH, Lindsey described Shooter Z taking his time, wiping down the cab, then walking calmly away.

So in this LB scenario, where the gun has to be used, if it’s the same assailant, does he walk calmly back to his car, past anyone in the area, as if he hadn’t heard the shots, or wasn’t curious or concerned about them? A guy walking calmly from a scene where shots had just been fired would be highly suspect, and with his hood off, surely he would’ve been seen, later possibly identified, maybe followed to his vehicle, maybe even confronted and apprehended with the Zodiac symbol on him and 2 shot victims behind him, etc. If he ran, he would by necessity have to have removed his hood, and running simply wasn’t Shooter Z’s style.

Look, this is all hypothetical speculation and the only purpose for it is to show that a careful planner avoids the possibility of the situation flying out of control like this. Many things could’ve gone haywire at LB. Shooter Z, however, planned his killings in such a way as to give his victims no power to escape.

My argument isn’t with a hypothetical scenario – it is with the ridiculously flawed and vulnerable plan utilized at LB. It is a dramatic deviation from the evolutionary planning of Shooter Z.

All excellent points. I think that is why he had his escaped con/robbery story rehearsed. I don’t know if he had a plan B. Any resistance would have been a difficult challenge for him to overcome. If he shot them, his escape would be much more difficult. If he tried to overpower them, one or both could have made a getaway or he could risk getting hurt or killed himself if they fought back. I don’t know if I would characterize a plan that worked as "ridiculously flawed and vulnerable." It accomplished its objective but for the extraordinary constitution of Bryan Hartnell.

He did not KNOW OR THINK MM was dead, hell he even went back to try to finish the job when MM screamed out.

Yes, when he realized Mike wasn’t dead, he reloaded and went back to make sure Mike was dead. Had he thought Mike still wasn’t dead, he would’ve kept firing until he was dead. Shooter Z wanted Mike dead and obviously assumed he was, otherwise he would’ve kept putting more bullets into him.

In a previous post I believe you agreed that Mike’s survival was a Zodiac failure. You are also saying that he then made the exact same assumptive mistake in his next attack. We’re going to have to agree to disagree about it being the same killer because I think Z’s next attack, after BRS, was PH where he over-compensated for his BRS mistake by killing Paul very decisively.

All excellent points. I think that is why he had his escaped con/robbery story rehearsed. I don’t know if he had a plan B. Any resistance would have been a difficult challenge for him to overcome. If he shot them, his escape would be much more difficult. If he tried to overpower them, one or both could have made a getaway or he could risk getting hurt or killed himself if they fought back. I don’t know if I would characterize a plan that worked as "ridiculously flawed and vulnerable." It accomplished its objective but for the extraordinary constitution of Bryan Hartnell.

It did work. My point isn’t with how things played out, or could’ve played out if this or that; my point is that, from a planning perspective, it left too many variables – options open to the victims.

Consider BRS, what options did Darlene and Mike have? None except Mike did flop into the back seat. What option did Paul have? None. Eyes on the road as he’s driving, shot in the head with no chance to do anything.

The MO of a killer evolves, but trying to make LB and it’s planning somehow fit into the Zodiac crime timeline doesn’t work IMO.

It did work. My point isn’t with how things played out, or could’ve played out if this or that; my point is that, from a planning perspective, it left too many variables – options open to the victims.

Consider BRS, what options did Darlene and Mike have? None except Mike did flop into the back seat. What option did Paul have? None. Eyes on the road as he’s driving, shot in the head with no chance to do anything.

The MO of a killer evolves, but trying to make LB and it’s planning somehow fit into the Zodiac crime timeline doesn’t work IMO.

Why didn’t the Copycat strike again? Why didn’t Shooter Z call out the Copycat Z in subsequent letters? We know Z wrote a whole cipher to call out a copycat caller. Can you explain why he wouldn’t call out a copycat killer?

It did work. My point isn’t with how things played out, or could’ve played out if this or that; my point is that, from a planning perspective, it left too many variables – options open to the victims.

Consider BRS, what options did Darlene and Mike have? None except Mike did flop into the back seat. What option did Paul have? None. Eyes on the road as he’s driving, shot in the head with no chance to do anything.

The MO of a killer evolves, but trying to make LB and it’s planning somehow fit into the Zodiac crime timeline doesn’t work IMO.

Why didn’t the Copycat strike again? Why didn’t Shooter Z call out the Copycat Z in subsequent letters? We know Z wrote a whole cipher to call out a copycat caller. Can you explain why he wouldn’t call out a copycat killer?

Why didn’t Stabber Z strike again? I don’t know, why did Shooter Z stop after Stine?

Can you explain why he didn’t send a detailed letter describing the Lake Berryessa adventure? With the shootings he described the ammunition, the wounds inflicted, the position of the bodies, and even included bloody clothing.

Yet he was radio silent about LB.

delete

Why didn’t Stabber Z strike again? I don’t know, why did Shooter Z stop after Stine?

Can you explain why he didn’t send a detailed letter describing the Lake Berryessa adventure? With the shootings he described the ammunition, the wounds inflicted, the position of the bodies, and even included bloody clothing.

Yet he was radio silent about LB.

If you believe that Zodiac kidnapped Johns, he did not stop after Stine. The same can be said for Donna Lass.

As to why he never wrote about Berryessa, first I would ask, was there ever any doubt that he committed that murder at the time? Did Napa question whether it was really Zodiac? If not, then he really didn’t need to. He gave facts in his first letter to prove he was the killer. He gave additional facts in response to doubts expressed by VPD as to whether the letter writer was really the killer. If everyone agreed that Shooter Z committed the Berryessa attacks, why would he need to write about it? The Stine murder required him to write and provide some proof because taxi cab robberies were common in SF. Costumed stabbings were not common at Berryessa, especially where the perp is wearing a Zodiac symbol.

Marshall has a good comment when he wrote, But IF he got caught he would be charged with 3 murders.
The day of lake Berryessa crime he went to the lake with a plan. He knew the location he brought the knlft, gun, black hood, wingwalker shoes, felt-pen. and he must have tryed something like it before. We don,t think he did again, was that because it was hard to see though with his view partly blocked ?

You mention a good point with the felt-tipped pen. Correct me if I am wrong, wasn’t the writing on Hartnell’s car door blue felt-tipped pen? If so, was the color of the pen ever released by the newspapers? If not, then I think that is good evidence that Shooter Z and LB Z are the same person.

Checked to be sure, the Felt tipped Pen was black handwriting that matched with his previous writings. At the time Felt Pens were not common like they are today.
The better ones used in his letter writing were expensive to buy. and not stocked at a corner store. He didn,t use the hood again, since it served it,s purpose, for the
crime he was committing. He did use the symbol again with himself being, broadcast by the Media in newspapers and on T.V.

Why didn’t Stabber Z strike again? I don’t know, why did Shooter Z stop after Stine?

Can you explain why he didn’t send a detailed letter describing the Lake Berryessa adventure? With the shootings he described the ammunition, the wounds inflicted, the position of the bodies, and even included bloody clothing.

Yet he was radio silent about LB.

If you believe that Zodiac kidnapped Johns, he did not stop after Stine. The same can be said for Donna Lass.

As to why he never wrote about Berryessa, first I would ask, was there ever any doubt that he committed that murder at the time? Did Napa question whether it was really Zodiac? If not, then he really didn’t need to. He gave facts in his first letter to prove he was the killer. He gave additional facts in response to doubts expressed by VPD as to whether the letter writer was really the killer. If everyone agreed that Shooter Z committed the Berryessa attacks, why would he need to write about it? The Stine murder required him to write and provide some proof because taxi cab robberies were common in SF. Costumed stabbings were not common at Berryessa, especially where the perp is wearing a Zodiac symbol.

I don’t believe Shooter Z kidnapped Kathleen Johns. His MO was to begin the killing process soon after initial contact, not drive around chatting for hours.

But that doesn’t matter because I then ask, okay, why did he stop after Johns, or Lass or whomever? It isn’t a fair point to ask why Stabber Z stopped because we don’t know when he did. Maybe he’s the guy who killed Lass, or others, wearing his halloween costume, and no witnesses lived to tell.

You are saying he didn’t write about LB, his masterpiece, because he didn’t have to. Then why aren’t there only 2 authentic Z letters; the first claiming LHR and BRS, and the second claiming PH? Clearly, his gloating, taunting letters served a much bigger purpose to him than saying: "That one’s mine."

Anybody could’ve plopped themself down at a sewing machine, stitched up a costume, gone out and stabbed a couple people, and then drawn the crosshairs and added some well-known information about previous Zodiac crimes on the car. Just like anybody could write a letter with no details only Z would know, put the crosshairs symbol at the bottom, and pretend to be the Zodiac. All the costume and car door writing tie together are each other – the guy who killed Cecelia wore a Z outfit and wrote on the car door. That’s it.

The Shooter Z letters tie the letter writer to the crimes themselves by mentioning details not commonly known. The first few Z letters, confirmed, tie to each other. After that, things get murky, as copycat letter writers and "possible" Zodiac attacks come into play.

Are there similarities? Yes.

Are there differences? Yes.

Then why is an outlandish impostor theory that relies on confirmation bias a more believable assumption than a Zodiac costumed killer, who struck in the nearby vicinity of the crime scenes outside of San Francisco and whose appearance matched other witness descriptions in several ways, being the real Zodiac?

If the grandiose, arch-supervillain Z from Lake Berryessa were proven a copycat…well…then numerous theories linking the car door writing to later correspondences go right in the
circular file, like a torn comic book…and much of the mystique of the case goes right with it.

And certain people seem…invested…in those theories.

There would still be plenty of mystique surrounding this case even if Lake Berryessa had never happened. I reject the impostor theory because it is contrived and implausible.

Amongst some, a LB Zodiac copycat theory is consistently called "outlandish" in the same way liberals consistently call the claims of readily apparent instances of voter fraud 6 months ago "baseless"…doesn’t quite make it so…opinions are like…well, you know…everybody’s got one…

Personally…methinks thou doth protest too much…

Confirmation bias?
Two guys sitting at a bar…
"You know, Zodiac wore a homemade costume at Lake Berryessa."
"Like a comic book supervillian? That’s weird."
"Yeah, I bet he liked comic books a lot. Maybe he was even inspired by them."
"Maybe…but who knows? He wrote on the car door too, right?"
"Yeah, the experts said it matched his letters…well, kinda matched. There were differences, but he was in a hurry…so…"
"So it didn’t match exactly?"
"NO! it matched. They said so. And guess what? Somebody found a 1950s Western comic book that had some of the same words he wrote on the car door and a later letter in it. So that ties it together. It had a Death Wheel with the same phrase he used on it, and Zodiac talked about his Death Machine…so that’s a match. And it also had a symbol in it that was kind of similar to one he drew later on…it all ties together." (beams proudly)
"A Western, huh? I woulda thought he’d have been into crime comics…they were popular back then, if I remember right…but…doesn’t all this still leave it open to possibly being a copycat? Wasn’t some of this stuff in the newspapers before the attack? And wasn’t the stuff from the car door in the papers shortly afterward, too? Maybe a copycat liked comic books?"
(With an icy glare) "It was Zodiac. Only an idiot would believe some outlandish copycat theory."
"Uh…okay…hey bartender? This guy’s had enough…"

It did work. My point isn’t with how things played out, or could’ve played out if this or that; my point is that, from a planning perspective, it left too many variables – options open to the victims.

Consider BRS, what options did Darlene and Mike have? None except Mike did flop into the back seat. What option did Paul have? None. Eyes on the road as he’s driving, shot in the head with no chance to do anything.

The MO of a killer evolves, but trying to make LB and it’s planning somehow fit into the Zodiac crime timeline doesn’t work IMO.

Why didn’t the Copycat strike again? Why didn’t Shooter Z call out the Copycat Z in subsequent letters? We know Z wrote a whole cipher to call out a copycat caller. Can you explain why he wouldn’t call out a copycat killer?

Perhaps he realized…serial killing is tough work…especially in the manner he killed in.

Perhaps Shooter Z got an ego boost out of Lake Berryessa…"Look at THAT. I’ve got FANS…and they worship me." So no real need for a response, just add it to the stats and motor right along…

On the flipside, copycat caller diminished Shooter Z…portrayed him as weak, and not in control…hence a demand for a response.

At Lake Berryessa…the MO is different, the signature is different…from all the other Z attacks…hell, the entire psychological underpinning of the event practically screams "I’m not the same guy!"

But let’s just discount all that in favor of a comic book theory that ties it all together…allegedly.

Makes sense…

If he hadn’t written after the Stine murder, nobody would have believed that crime to be Zodiac had it been posited as one. So the crux of the argument comes down to "it wasn’t Zodiac because he didn’t write about the Berryessa crime in any great detail".

At Lake Berryessa…the MO is different, the signature is different…from all the other Z attacks…hell, the entire psychological underpinning of the event practically screams "I’m not the same guy!"

You mean the style of the attack at Berryessa was different from just two attacks, so therefore based on only two attacks, the Zodiac Killer is compelled to stick to this rigid format of killing couples late at night ad infinitum, otherwise we draw the conclusion it must be somebody different.

If he hadn’t written after the Stine murder, nobody would have believed that crime to be Zodiac had it been posited as one. So the crux of the argument comes down to "it wasn’t Zodiac because he didn’t write about the Berryessa crime in any great detail".

At Lake Berryessa…the MO is different, the signature is different…from all the other Z attacks…hell, the entire psychological underpinning of the event practically screams "I’m not the same guy!"

You mean the style of the attack at Berryessa was different from just two attacks, so therefore based on only two attacks, the Zodiac Killer is compelled to stick to this rigid format of killing couples late at night ad infinitum, otherwise we draw the conclusion it must be somebody different.

Why does anyone expect a strictly logical pattern of behaviour from perhaps the most infamously eccentric serial killer in the history of criminology? He sent unhinged communications to the press including cryptograms and musical theater references, shot a man and evaded police in the middle of a major city, but donning a strange costume and stabbing a couple in a public park must have been an impostor because of some variances compared to the other murders? As if a serial killer’s modus operandi cannot be motivated by psychological abnormality, not just reasons of efficiency. I find it ludicrous, frankly.

Can we agree it is more probable that a child, maybe 8-14 years old, would be reading Tim Holt comics, as opposed to an adult aged 18-28?
Do we also agree Tahoe’s Tim Holt comic find ties directly to the LB attack and the halloween card?

As stated above, from Chaucer’s spreadsheet, the age description from the Robbins kids and Foulke peg Z at 35-45 years old, with 40 being the consensus midpoint. The witnesses at LB said this about the LB attacker:

Hartnell: 20 to 30 years of age by voice concept
Miss Linda: approximately 28 years
Miss Linda Lee: approximately 30 years

Furthermore, the dispatchers the Zs called said that BRS Z sounded older, while the LB dispatcher, like Hartnell, said that Z sounded younger.

A person that age, somewhere between 20 and 30, would’ve been 3-13 in 1952 when that Tim Holt comic came out. If we agree this is a more likely age range for that comic to have been read, then the younger age estimate (a ten year difference) makes the age estimate of the LB killer a far more likely tie-in to the comic and halloween card, which fits right in with the fact he was the guy writing "By Knife" on the car door.

To say the killers at LB and PH are the same you must believe one of the following:
1. The 3 witnesses plus the dispatcher all missed LB Z’s age by 10 years, and the guy was reading comic books, and being influenced by them, as an adult. Or,
2. Foulke, a trained police officer, and the Robbins kids, who had the clearest, longest look at Z, missed his age by a full 10 years.

The story the LB killer told Bryan was an obvious fantasy, about being an escaped prisoner. If it was true, as noted above, he couldn’t have been Shooter Z. So, he’s invented this fantasy story about being a villain (an escaped prisoner,) he’s taken great care to sew together a costume which also makes him a fantasy villain, he lies about needing money or a car… Everything he says is BS, and geared towards his play acting the role of super villain, quite in keeping with the comic book. He actually puts on quite a theatrical production with the elaborate costume.

And still, we’re supposed to believe he is actually Shooter Z because…….. he says so?

Richard, in other posts I replied to your analysis of the 340 and how you think it directly connects to the halloween card and LB. Without re-hashing it here, By Rope, By Gun, and By Fire, can be found in 3 of the 340 quadrants. By Knife can be found in 2. Only 12 letters are needed to make all 4 of them. Since the middle column can be used for the quadrant on either side, there are 90 characters in each quadrant. It isn’t surprising that the 12 letters we are looking for are in most of the quadrants, but not all. To me this is pretty clearly random, not to mention, the letters used to spell the weapons are not adjacent, and some within a quadrant are duplicated.

So, with that discounted, what exactly is the reason to believe the killer at LB is the same as Shooter Z? Completely different descriptions, completely different MOs.

If a guy commits a crime at one end of town and calls himself "Bob," and there’s another crime, totally different, committed on the other side of town, and that guy too uses the name "Bob", do we assume it’s the same guy, even if their descriptions differ by 10 years? Or could it be different people using the same name?

Started reading back over the thread and thought I would comment on the above post.

Looking at the above post and, others, it would seem that the hiccup here is age. What age was the Zodiac really?

From your post, its clear that people who heard the Zodiac’s voice as it relates to LB, thought the Zodiac sounded young and between the ages of 20 and 30 years. As you point out, someone between the ages of 20 to 30 years of age, would have been 3 to 13 years at the time the Tim Holt comic book came out. Makes sense why some would think that there is some carryover from his youth to the LB attack. He is appearing to act out some fantasy here with the hood and his story.

But then you talk about the dispatcher at BRS believing the Zodiac sounded older. Well, to my understanding, this caller also acted out (similar in a way to LB) some sort of feeling/belief/fantasy when he ended the call with good-bye. This ending, again to my understanding, was deeper in tone. So was the dispatcher referring to the older sounding voice as it pertained to the whole call or from what was most memorable – the deep, stretched out good-bye that, sounded so strange?

I haven’t looked at the police reports in years. Maybe I am wrong here. But I tend to think that it is more likely that the dispatcher was referring to the ending of the call because it was the most memorable and attributed it to the whole call. Even then though we haven’t heard the call. How do we know that he wasn’t acting out some fantasy through the entire call? So I don’t put a lot of stock into the caller at BRS being older.

This leaves us with PH.

I know that it’s important to take a witness statement to heart. But, the Robbins kids, were kids. How many kids, who doesn’t know a particular person, can look at that person and say “he was 35-45” and they be correct in age to within a few years? Kids, unintentionally, over-exaggerate. They think anyone, not within their age range, is old or way older than they actually are. So I don’t put a lot of weight into their statements of age because I don’t think they really knew.

This leaves Foulke.

I don’t like Fouke, simply because, I think he lied in his report a month after Stine’s death. I think he did stop Z, believing that Z might have knowledge of this “negro male” he was on the hunt for and, couldn’t swallow the fact that he actually had the Z. If the “negro male” tidbit is true one can’t blame Fouke for not getting the Z. But Fouke had pride and that pride, probably even some vanity there, kept him from admitting he stopped him. If he could lie about stopping the Z, in an instance where it would have been understandable if he had, then how can we believe all of what he wrote about the guy “he claims” he saw? In my opinion he doesn’t want the Z caught at this point. Why would he want his interaction with the Z to make center stage again?

At this point I don’t believe the ages here either. I believe that Foulke, a trained police officer, and the Robbins kids, missed his age by a full 10 years at least; intentionally and unintentionally.

If he hadn’t written after the Stine murder, nobody would have believed that crime to be Zodiac had it been posited as one. So the crux of the argument comes down to "it wasn’t Zodiac because he didn’t write about the Berryessa crime in any great detail".

At Lake Berryessa…the MO is different, the signature is different…from all the other Z attacks…hell, the entire psychological underpinning of the event practically screams "I’m not the same guy!"

You mean the style of the attack at Berryessa was different from just two attacks, so therefore based on only two attacks, the Zodiac Killer is compelled to stick to this rigid format of killing couples late at night ad infinitum, otherwise we draw the conclusion it must be somebody different.

Richard, there is so very much that is different. Let’s look at your first point for example. You are right, we wouldn’t have known LHR was a crime committed by a serial killer known as Zodiac if he hadn’t written about it, after securing his escape. We wouldn’t have known it was Zodiac at BRS if he hadn’t written about it, after he had secured his escape. And, yes, "If he hadn’t written after the Stine murder, nobody would have believed that crime to be Zodiac had it been posited as one."

Pretty consistent MO there, isn’t it. Kill, make sure you get away with it, THEN claim it. But at Lake Berryessa, he’s identifying himself as the Zodiac before he even contacts the victims. And after the attack, he literally, with that bib, has Zodiac written all over himself. And, he writes it again before escaping the crime scene.

But you think it must be the same guy because he said so.