And we are just all gonna believe what the hell we want to believe and ignore everything…. and there’s that
I’m not sure how we can say that the voice on the Napa call sounded younger than the voice on the BRS call. Stover never heard the Napa caller, and Slaight never heard the BRS caller. So, you’re relying heavily on Slover’s perception of what sounds "old" and Slaight’s perception of what sounds "young." Two people can hear the exact same voice and come to very different conclusions as to the age of the speaker.
And Bryan said Z sounded about 28. All witnesses at LB estimate the 28-30 year old range while at PH the estimates are 10 years older. Not conclusive either way.
Shooter Z probably never bothered to write on a car door because the cars were so close to the crime scene. At LB, the car was a good distance from the crime scene and visible from it. So, if someone saw him write on the car, they would not assume that he was the killer. If someone saw Zodiac writing on Faraday’s car door with bodies strewn about, there is no doubt that he is the killer.
Shooter Z never wrote on a car door because he didn’t claim the crime until days later, after making sure he escaped. This is a HUGE difference in MO, and the mindset of the killer. And, yes, if someone saw Stabber Z, in his halloween costume, writing the Zodiac symbol and big letter "by knife" on a car door, they might assume something was amiss.
Are you trying to tell me that the script of the BRS call and the Napa call are not eerily similar? Was the text of the BRS call published in a paper before the LB attack? If so, then your copycat theory has a shot. If not, you’re dead in the water.
I agree, and I think that means the theory still has a shot. In fact, the way the LB caller stumbled over the words, it sounds like in replicating the BRS call, he flubbed his rehearsed lines.
Are you trying to tell me that the script of the BRS call and the Napa call are not eerily similar? Was the text of the BRS call published in a paper before the LB attack? If so, then your copycat theory has a shot. If not, you’re dead in the water.
Slover and Slaight both described a calm and rehearsed sounding voice. How impressive that the "impostor" managed to emulate Zodiac’s unusual coolheadedness in the immediate aftermath of leaving a murder scene.
I agree, and I think that means the theory still has a shot. In fact, the way the LB caller stumbled over the words, it sounds like in replicating the BRS call, he flubbed his rehearsed lines.
Where are you getting the suggestion that the Lake Berryessa caller flubbed his lines? As far as I can tell, both police dispatchers described a caller sticking to his script. Regardless, an "impostor" emulating Zodiac by stumbling over his words would be an absurdly extraordinary attention to detail.
I agree, and I think that means the theory still has a shot. In fact, the way the LB caller stumbled over the words, it sounds like in replicating the BRS call, he flubbed his rehearsed lines.
Where are you getting the suggestion that the Lake Berryessa caller flubbed his lines? As far as I can tell, both police dispatchers described a caller sticking to his script. Regardless, an "impostor" emulating Zodiac by stumbling over his words would be an absurdly extraordinary attention to detail.
Referring to the “a murder, no a double murder” statement.
I agree, and I think that means the theory still has a shot. In fact, the way the LB caller stumbled over the words, it sounds like in replicating the BRS call, he flubbed his rehearsed lines.
Where are you getting the suggestion that the Lake Berryessa caller flubbed his lines? As far as I can tell, both police dispatchers described a caller sticking to his script. Regardless, an "impostor" emulating Zodiac by stumbling over his words would be an absurdly extraordinary attention to detail.
Referring to the “a murder, no a double murder” statement.
Which could have been a flair of the dramatic as much as it could have been an error. The fact is both dispatchers described unusually calm callers seemingly sticking to their scripts, both ruling out the "Sam" caller to the Jim Dunbar show being the same.
I agree, and I think that means the theory still has a shot. In fact, the way the LB caller stumbled over the words, it sounds like in replicating the BRS call, he flubbed his rehearsed lines.
Where are you getting the suggestion that the Lake Berryessa caller flubbed his lines? As far as I can tell, both police dispatchers described a caller sticking to his script. Regardless, an "impostor" emulating Zodiac by stumbling over his words would be an absurdly extraordinary attention to detail.
Referring to the “a murder, no a double murder” statement.
Yes, thanks.
And Bryan said Z sounded about 28. All witnesses at LB estimate the 28-30 year old range while at PH the estimates are 10 years older. Not conclusive either way.
And, yes, if someone saw Stabber Z, in his halloween costume, writing the Zodiac symbol and big letter "by knife" on a car door, they might assume something was amiss.
Fouke is the only person to estimate an age above 35. He claims that he didn’t speak to Zodiac (and we don’t really know that the guy he saw was Zodiac). If he didn’t speak to Zodiac, he only saw him for mere seconds while driving by him. On the other hand, the Robbins kids observed the actual Zodiac for several minutes. They placed his age at 25-35, which is not far off the LB age estimates.
Do you really think the LB suspect wore the hood while writing on the car door? He didn’t don the hood until he got close to Bryan and Cecilia. So why assume he would wear the hood while leaving the scene?
And Bryan said Z sounded about 28. All witnesses at LB estimate the 28-30 year old range while at PH the estimates are 10 years older. Not conclusive either way.
And, yes, if someone saw Stabber Z, in his halloween costume, writing the Zodiac symbol and big letter "by knife" on a car door, they might assume something was amiss.
Fouke is the only person to estimate an age above 35. He claims that he didn’t speak to Zodiac (and we don’t really know that the guy he saw was Zodiac). If he didn’t speak to Zodiac, he only saw him for mere seconds while driving by him. On the other hand, the Robbins kids observed the actual Zodiac for several minutes. They placed his age at 25-35, which is not far off the LB age estimates.
Do you really think the LB suspect wore the hood while writing on the car door? He didn’t don the hood until he got close to Bryan and Cecilia. So why assume he would wear the hood while leaving the scene?
The problem is that we don’t know that the person who was seen at LB by the three students was the Zodiac and the three kids who described Zodiac were just that, kids. How good are children at judging age ? Everyone to them is old, as my kids continually remind me 
. Personally I hold more weight to the LE’s description, but that just my opinion.
Personally I hold more weight to the LE’s description, but that just my opinion.
Based upon a couple second observation? That’s quite a lot of faith in Fouke’s observation skills…and his memory. Not mention, if Fouke really spoke to the Zodiac (and I think he did), he has the most motive to muddy the water by casting doubt on the Robbins’ description. He does not want to be the guy that had the Zodiac dead to rights and let him go.
And Bryan said Z sounded about 28. All witnesses at LB estimate the 28-30 year old range while at PH the estimates are 10 years older. Not conclusive either way.
And, yes, if someone saw Stabber Z, in his halloween costume, writing the Zodiac symbol and big letter "by knife" on a car door, they might assume something was amiss.
Fouke is the only person to estimate an age above 35. He claims that he didn’t speak to Zodiac (and we don’t really know that the guy he saw was Zodiac). If he didn’t speak to Zodiac, he only saw him for mere seconds while driving by him. On the other hand, the Robbins kids observed the actual Zodiac for several minutes. They placed his age at 25-35, which is not far off the LB age estimates.
Do you really think the LB suspect wore the hood while writing on the car door? He didn’t don the hood until he got close to Bryan and Cecilia. So why assume he would wear the hood while leaving the scene?
The whole costume thing makes little sense. Did he wear the hood to avoid being later described, or was it just for the killing ritual? And how about the bib with the symbol of the mass killer Zodiac? Did he put that on and take it off, too? Wouldn’t it then have been noticeable if he left the crime scene carrying those things?
I’m not proposing answers here, just raising questions.
Personally I hold more weight to the LE’s description, but that just my opinion.
Based upon a couple second observation? That’s quite a lot of faith in Fouke’s observation skills…and his memory. Not mention, if Fouke really spoke to the Zodiac (and I think he did), he has the most motive to muddy the water by casting doubt on the Robbins’ description. He does not want to be the guy that had the Zodiac dead to rights and let him go.
You’re the second person in this thread to suggest Foulke was sabotaging the investigation to catch the Zodiac. Letting Zodiac get away was not his fault.
And Bryan said Z sounded about 28. All witnesses at LB estimate the 28-30 year old range while at PH the estimates are 10 years older. Not conclusive either way.
And, yes, if someone saw Stabber Z, in his halloween costume, writing the Zodiac symbol and big letter "by knife" on a car door, they might assume something was amiss.
Fouke is the only person to estimate an age above 35. He claims that he didn’t speak to Zodiac (and we don’t really know that the guy he saw was Zodiac). If he didn’t speak to Zodiac, he only saw him for mere seconds while driving by him. On the other hand, the Robbins kids observed the actual Zodiac for several minutes. They placed his age at 25-35, which is not far off the LB age estimates.
Do you really think the LB suspect wore the hood while writing on the car door? He didn’t don the hood until he got close to Bryan and Cecilia. So why assume he would wear the hood while leaving the scene?
The whole costume thing makes little sense. Did he wear the hood to avoid being later described, or was it just for the killing ritual? And how about the bib with the symbol of the mass killer Zodiac? Did he put that on and take it off, too? Wouldn’t it then have been noticeable if he left the crime scene carrying those things?
I’m not proposing answers here, just raising questions.
IMO, I think Z wore the costume as a plan B. This attack was much more riskier than the last two, being in broad daylight. If he got caught during this attack, he would of at least gone down in style which is probably what he would of wanted.
You’re the second person in this thread to suggest Foulke was sabotaging the investigation to catch the Zodiac. Letting Zodiac get away was not his fault.
Sabotaging the investigation is going way too far. I am merely pointing out that Fouke had motive for the guy he observed to not be the PH shooter. That motive could have colored his recollections.
Personally I hold more weight to the LE’s description, but that just my opinion.
Based upon a couple second observation? That’s quite a lot of faith in Fouke’s observation skills…and his memory. Not mention, if Fouke really spoke to the Zodiac (and I think he did), he has the most motive to muddy the water by casting doubt on the Robbins’ description. He does not want to be the guy that had the Zodiac dead to rights and let him go.
So we are supposed to take three people who saw somebody who was very possibly not the Zodiac and three children’s description as gospel? LE are trained in this field, the only change to the sketch was to make Zodiac look older, let’s not forget that LE has the closest view also.
