That focusing on one or two particular characters in a sample is something a lot of cranks do. No offense, but I’ve seen it again and again over the years. Usually when they’re trying to rule in a suspect or a dodgy letter. "This ‘n’ is exactly like Zodiac’s — it’s him!" Have to look at the overall picture. And, let’s face it, most people who look at the door will think it resembles Zodiac’s writing, without the aid of a microscope.

I agree, focusing on a few characters is silly and worthless. My point was, so is looking at just 18 letters. When entire mailings remain inconclusive, it is amazing how some will insist those 18 letters on that car door are conclusive, especially when, as I have shown, the 3 "e" examples are so disparate. And you say, "Well, so what, that’s just 3 characters…" but that is fully one sixth of what we have to work with on that door. Throw them out and we’re down to 15.

FYI, Tahoe completely ditched the imposter theory when she discussed the Halloween card on TV. Later said that she realized it was unpopular, so she let it go. I agree that she raised valid concerns about the cards — I haven’t the foggiest how you could "authenticate" the Crackproof card. (Though Avery claimed they changed their mind later.)

"By knife" had leaked to some out-of-state journalists as early as 1969. I think that tidbit flew under the radar for so long because folks in the microfiche days weren’t scavenging through out-of-state newspapers. So it’s disputable how secret "by knife" really was. Somebody, apparently, was yapping about it (…or Kermit Jaediker was the Zodiac and stupidly outed himself). And if a troll noticed that discrepancy in the reporting, they might be tempted to act on it.

That focusing on one or two particular characters in a sample is something a lot of cranks do. No offense, but I’ve seen it again and again over the years. Usually when they’re trying to rule in a suspect or a dodgy letter. "This ‘n’ is exactly like Zodiac’s — it’s him!" Have to look at the overall picture. And, let’s face it, most people who look at the door will think it resembles Zodiac’s writing, without the aid of a microscope.

P.S. I wasn’t implying that Zodiac always hastily departed from crime scenes. But his overall style was hit-and-run. The only time we know that he lingered after the murder was Stine. (Nope, I’m not counting the car door.)

Perhaps she was overcome…practically swooning, even…from being so close to the tatted-up ‘roid freak who spent 3 minutes as a Feeb…and momentarily forgot what she actually believes about Lake Berryessa…it could happen.

Or perhaps, as she mentions in the comments shown via the link below…she (or the producers) tailored her comments "for the masses" watching the TV show…

https://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-ne … of-fortune

Either way…an ethical betrayal of one’s long-standing beliefs in such a manner is eyebrow-raising, at the very least…whether she got paid to appear on the show or not.

As an aside about the show…if the tatted-up ‘roid freak who spent 3 minutes as a Feeb, who believes the Tim Holt comic is an example of Zodiac’s interest in "obscure comic books" (perhaps someone should explain to him what the word obscure means) was one of the best investigators they could get…well, it explains why that show was the sh*tshow it was, doesn’t it?

Lastly, as to what most people who look at that car door writing think…well, most people are incredibly stupid, as the last year can certainly attest to…

Perhaps she was overcome…practically swooning, even…from being so close to the tatted-up ‘roid freak who spent 3 minutes as a Feeb…and momentarily forgot what she actually believes about Lake Berryessa…it could happen.

Or perhaps, as she mentions in the comments shown via the link below…she (or the producers) tailored her comments "for the masses" watching the TV show…

https://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-ne … of-fortune

Either way…an ethical betrayal of one’s long-standing beliefs in such a manner is eyebrow-raising, at the very least…whether she got paid to appear on the show or not.

Well, ever since I joined this site she has been very nice to me, taking time to reply to questions I’ve had, and so on. And i think she is very clear-thinking, and that her Tim Holt find is outstanding. So, I see way, way more positive there than your complaint and conclude you might be being a bit harsh in your assessment.

I also think that it’s hard to discuss the Zodiac with people who aren’t really into the case, by immediately delving into the various confusing complexities and theories that are at odds with each other. You mention Bates, and a 2 hour debate could ensue as to whether she was a Z victim. Same with many other possible victims. All but the early correspondences (everything after 1971) has been debated. You could lose an audience pretty fast if you bog down into debating whether 75% of what you talk about is actual Zodiac. So going along with the HC card being part of it seems more productive when presenting a high-level overview of the case.

Furthermore, Tahoe is one of the very few on this site who seems to have some strong opinions, yet actually, truly, is of the opinion she might very well be wrong. For instance, she found the Tim Holt comic that connects solidly to the HC card, even though it argues against her personal opinion. I wish more people took that approach – trying to figure out the truth rather then establishing, and then rigidly defending, a position.

My reasoning for thinking Stabber Z and Shooter Z are different people has grown beyond the early influences that first got me to consider that possibility. I remain open to the possibility I’m wrong, but have seen nothing that convinces me that I am, yet. That’s why I spend time here.

I’ve seen that car door in person and Zodiac must have been rather uncomfortable writing on it. Karmann Ghia’s are low to the ground and the writing on the door went nearly to the bottom. A very awkward way to write. Here’s a video I made: https://youtu.be/ugm8ZRuJ1T4

Good point. To that, I would add that there were three factors at play: 1) a horizontal vs. vertical writing surface; 2) squatting vs sitting; 3) the size of the text. Perform this experiment: write the same phrase on a chalkboard or marker board that you wrote on a piece of paper. Then, change the size of the writing from normal to very, very large. Then, try writing large text while squatting down vs sitting. Your writing will be different each time. I think that adequately explains any differences between the Zodiac letters and the car door.

I think you should go out, buy a Karmann Ghia, perform the experiment you just suggested and film yourself whilst doing so. Then post it to Youtube and link it here.

Don’t worry, everyone will wait…

Zodiac emptied his clip, went back and re-loaded, returned to shoot some more, but I don’t believe he emptied his clip a second time. Meaning, he didn’t run out of bullets. What he did is made the mistake of assuming he had done enough damage to both victims that they were both dead.

Shooter Z didn’t make that mistake again. LB Stabber left both victims alive. If anything, LB is a regression; lessons NOT learned from previous mistakes.

There is no indication that Z reloaded at BRS. I think only 9 shots were fired, which is a standard clip for a 9mm. He didn’t go back to the car to reload. He was leaving and heard Mageau scream or whimper.

As much as I think Zodiac was terrible at killing, to be fair to him, it was reasonable to conclude that Bryan and Cecilia would die before being found. Bryan was just lucky. Zodiac just didn’t know how to efficiently kill anyone with a knife. I don’t think lessons from LHR and BRS transfer to LB. Your argument is kind of like saying that because a boxer finishes his opponents with a right hand, he can’t also knock them out with a left hook. Or because he always wins in the first round, he can’t choose to take a fighter deeper into a fight to get some rounds under his belt. And how many times have we seen fighters do remarkably well for several fights only to regress and have a tough fight (Tyson vs. Douglas)? You seem to think Zodiac is bound to act one way and one way only.

Incredibly bad analogy, and even worse example.

Tyson didn’t lose to Douglas because he "regressed" and had a tough fight…he lost to Buster because he didn’t train seriously for the fight…hell, one might be inclined to say he didn’t train at all…and spent the entire week leading up to the fight drinking, drugging and partying with geisha girls practically 24/7…

Which is not even remotely the same thing as your implication.

That focusing on one or two particular characters in a sample is something a lot of cranks do. No offense, but I’ve seen it again and again over the years. Usually when they’re trying to rule in a suspect or a dodgy letter. "This ‘n’ is exactly like Zodiac’s — it’s him!" Have to look at the overall picture. And, let’s face it, most people who look at the door will think it resembles Zodiac’s writing, without the aid of a microscope.

I agree, focusing on a few characters is silly and worthless. My point was, so is looking at just 18 letters. When entire mailings remain inconclusive, it is amazing how some will insist those 18 letters on that car door are conclusive, especially when, as I have shown, the 3 "e" examples are so disparate. And you say, "Well, so what, that’s just 3 characters…" but that is fully one sixth of what we have to work with on that door. Throw them out and we’re down to 15.

On the car door, he also wrote the number 6 four different ways.

Ok same question I’ve asked Marshall numerous time but without answer, could please please elaborate on your arguments. What are YOUR reasons for believing that this was a different person than the zodiac crimes ?

Every post I have made in this thread, almost from page 1, provide reasons for believing Shooter Z and Stabber Z were different people. The post I’ve just made above is an example, about the car door with its 18 letters including 3 distinct "e" examples, being highly inconclusive. I am not writing a book, I don’t have a website or podcast, so I don’t have a neat summation. If you want to see the dialogue, the arguments for and against, you’ll have to do some reading. Or, use the search functionality on this site.

I’ll assume that you weren’t being patronizing with the above.

You clearly previously stated ”Actually, I’ve had this identical debate, sometimes vigorously, with Richard and others, a couple times before. I don’t want to be overly redundant and go through the same things again but maybe tonight I can link those threads into this one if you want to see what was previously discussed.” ?

Incredibly bad analogy, and even worse example.

Tyson didn’t lose to Douglas because he "regressed" and had a tough fight…he lost to Buster because he didn’t train seriously for the fight…hell, one might be inclined to say he didn’t train at all…and spent the entire week leading up to the fight drinking, drugging and partying with geisha girls practically 24/7…

Which is not even remotely the same thing as your implication.

Tyson would have struggled with Douglas on that night no matter if he trained incessantly. Douglas had a long jab, moved laterally, and wasn’t afraid of Tyson. Tyson’s lack of training led to the KO. But, Tyson at his best either squeezes out a tough decision or loses a split decision. Douglas was a bad style matchup for Tyson in much the same way Lennox Lewis was.

I think you should go out, buy a Karmann Ghia, perform the experiment you just suggested and film yourself whilst doing so. Then post it to Youtube and link it here.

Don’t worry, everyone will wait…

I just bought a new house. I have no interest in buying a car. However, maybe I can find a Karmann Ghia door at a junk yard and try it.

You clearly previously stated ”Actually, I’ve had this identical debate, sometimes vigorously, with Richard and others, a couple times before. I don’t want to be overly redundant and go through the same things again but maybe tonight I can link those threads into this one if you want to see what was previously discussed.” ?

Yes, I did what you can do too, I used the search functionality for my old posts and discovered most of that debate with Richard and others was, in fact, this very thread, going back to the first or second page of it. Now we’re on page 36.

I am sorry I can’t provide information to you in a simpler form.

I wish more people took that approach – trying to figure out the truth rather then establishing, and then rigidly defending, a position.

The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

You clearly previously stated ”Actually, I’ve had this identical debate, sometimes vigorously, with Richard and others, a couple times before. I don’t want to be overly redundant and go through the same things again but maybe tonight I can link those threads into this one if you want to see what was previously discussed.” ?

Yes, I did what you can do too, I used the search functionality for my old posts and discovered most of that debate with Richard and others was, in fact, this very thread, going back to the first or second page of it. Now we’re on page 36.

I am sorry I can’t provide information to you in a simpler form.

I take it you were being patronising then. I will go back in my corner.

You clearly previously stated ”Actually, I’ve had this identical debate, sometimes vigorously, with Richard and others, a couple times before. I don’t want to be overly redundant and go through the same things again but maybe tonight I can link those threads into this one if you want to see what was previously discussed.” ?

Yes, I did what you can do too, I used the search functionality for my old posts and discovered most of that debate with Richard and others was, in fact, this very thread, going back to the first or second page of it. Now we’re on page 36.

I am sorry I can’t provide information to you in a simpler form.

I take it you were being patronising then. I will go back in my corner.

Yes. You have been very very bad!

You clearly previously stated ”Actually, I’ve had this identical debate, sometimes vigorously, with Richard and others, a couple times before. I don’t want to be overly redundant and go through the same things again but maybe tonight I can link those threads into this one if you want to see what was previously discussed.” ?

Yes, I did what you can do too, I used the search functionality for my old posts and discovered most of that debate with Richard and others was, in fact, this very thread, going back to the first or second page of it. Now we’re on page 36.

I am sorry I can’t provide information to you in a simpler form.

I take it you were being patronising then. I will go back in my corner.

Why not just read the thread? Then you can see the flow of the discussion and other peoples’ views besides just mine.

I honestly do not know what you want from me.

The imposter was very clever, because not only did he attempt to write in similar fashion to Zodiac, use his crosshairs moniker, and structure the wording of the phone call in Napa in similar fashion to the Blue Rock Springs message, he also travelled in a trajectory from Berryessa to Napa to suggest he may have been heading back to Vallejo, where he was under the assumption the first two crimes occurred at. But he was even cleverer than we could ever envisage, because when he read the August 4th 1969 letter transcript in the newspaper, he remembered that it mentioned Zodiac had hung up the phone at Springs & Tuolumne and it had drawn attention to Zodiac and his car. So he thought to himself, I must leave the Napa payphone off the hook to convince people I am a Zodiac who is learning from my mistakes. And I shall do all this for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I don’t even get credit for it. I am risking a death sentence to give somebody else more notoriety.