We’ve had several people over the years who have resembled the composite to a degree (how good a match it is seems to depend at least partly on how good a suspect we think the person is). When I look at the photos recently posted in Mr X’s section (which show Mr X around 1970), well, he’s a more than decent ringer for the composite. Ross Sullivan clearly looks like the composite. Some years ago people pointed out that “Peter O” looked just like the composite. Recently someone brought up a sex offender with an unusual name who could easily be called a decent ringer for the composite too. And there have been many more – as anyone who has followed the case for some time knows.
Let’s say a person surfaced who could be linked – compellingly – to at least one Z crime. And who had a history of violence, say. Or a history of threatening behavior. And a history of seeking attention in one way or another – a need to be recognized in one form or another. A person who roughly matched the height and weight of Z as described by witnesses. And who lived in the general area (somewhere near or in Vallejo, say – or in Napa or SF for that matter).
Would you discard that person as a viable suspect if he didn’t look much like the SF composite?
Further questions:
How accurate do you believe the composite is?
It’s a sketch based on what the teens saw, from a distance, at night, in lighting conditions which can’t be called perfect.
What does it actually mean if a person looks like the sketch – not generally, but in terms of facial features, details, etc.? Can you maintain that such a resemblance is truly compelling without, at the same time, presupposing that the artist – actually – managed to capture the perpetrator’s photographic likeness? And how likely is the latter?
If I can dig up a person who lived in SF (or in Vallejo, or Napa, or even Riverside) in the years between 1966 and 1970, and who actually resembles the composite to an undeniable degree – would that, in itself, be enough to make him interesting?
It’s a sketch based on what the teens saw, from a distance, at night, in lighting conditions which can’t be called perfect.
For those simple reasons, I’ve never been able to take the composite all that seriously. At least it’s something, but it looks like just about every guy that wore glasses in the ’60s.
Police sketches can be eerily correct, if you cherry-pick your data sample points:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm- … lery.html’
And for humor:
I think they CAN be eerily correct, but then again, they are only as good as the information provided to them.
I wouldn’t completely rule out anyone who didn’t look like the composite–in general.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Would you discard that person as a viable suspect if he didn’t look much like the SF composite?
No, because though we have what appears to be confirmation of the Zodiac’s rough appearance from Fouke, no one, and I mean no one, can be sure the Zodiac did not disguise himself that night. I suspect he did. He wore a costume at LB, which was a far more exposed environment than the previous crime scenes, and he struck at night, in the dark, and very quickly, at LHR and BRS. Clearly he did not want to be seen. So why would he expose himself so easily and openly at PH when anyone could have been looking out their window, as was the case, and anyone could have been walking their dog?
We also do not know how faithfully rendered the depictions are to the actual Zodiac. As you said, the children saw the killer from an angled distance, at night, under inferior lighting conditions. Fouke viewed the Zodiac as his patrol car was driving past the killer, under poor lighting, at a distance, with the killer looking down.
Not only that, but the two composites do not actually match each other, which means there are clear discrepancies, as captured in the sketch, between what Fouke and the children claim to have seen.
How accurate do you believe the composite is?
Not terribly accurate. I think the killer, that night at least, was wearing glasses and appeared to have a receding hairline. Beyond that, not much.
I hardly think the Zodiac, the actual man, possessed a ridiculous-looking fish-mouth, pace Ross Sullivan, and I also seriously doubt the killer had a nose so narrow he’d need nasal intubation to breathe. No need to even comment on the deformed glasses.
Basically the sketch portrays the Zodiac as a white guy with a receding hairline, glasses, eyes, mouth and nose. That’s it. It’s pretty vague and when you factor in the likely possibility the Zodiac very well could have been disguised. and the fact that neither party had an excellent look at the killer, I wouldn’t recommend firing up the gas chamber for any reputed suspects based solely on a crude sketch.
I think they CAN be eerily correct, but then again, they are only as good as the information provided to them.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Bad witnesses most often produce bad identifications.
And in this case, none of the witnesses rate very high on the probability-fidelity chart, imo.
What does it actually mean if a person looks like the sketch – not generally, but in terms of facial features, details, etc.?
It means not much, really, and as up2something stated above, millions of men back then looked like the sketch. If it weren’t for optical contacts and Lazik, millions more today would look like him.
Can you maintain that such a resemblance is truly compelling without, at the same time, presupposing that the artist – actually – managed to capture the perpetrator’s photographic likeness?
If you mean to say should any of us assume the Zodiac looked like the sketch even though the artist didn’t capture the Zodiac’s true likeness, then obviously no.
But that’s not the real issue, imo. The real issue is how well did the four witnesses capture within their memory the Zodiac’s appearance that night?
And how likely is the latter?
Likely, if the children and Fouke were able to see the Zodiac well enough to discern important details, and if their memories were not corrupted by recall, time, and emotional turmoil.
If I can dig up a person who lived in SF (or in Vallejo, or Napa, or even Riverside) in the years between 1966 and 1970, and who actually resembles the composite to an undeniable degree – would that, in itself, be enough to make him interesting?
No, because we don’t know how well the sketch matches the Zodiac’s general appearance, or even if he were disguised that evening, and because the rather crude depiction is simply far too vague to include or exclude enough people living at that time.
Thanks for the replies, good people.
I like ’em, myself – you speak sense, I think.
One thing, though: Fouke apparently had nothing to do with the sketch. Apparently. Not even the second one. He just thought the guy looked older.
I think in general we could say there are similarities to BRS, LB and SF, but we can also say there are distinct differences as–which allows almost everyone to be considered.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
This photograph was taken with flash photography (adding light) from a relatively short distance, the three teenagers were 60 feet away. Are these faces full of detail………no.
Look there’s Zodiac in the middle with the suit on 
I can read the small numbers on the front left of the taxicab. I wonder if the teenagers could read this number from 60 feet away.
To be fair, that is a pretty grainy black and white photo using 1960s camera technology in low light conditions. Couldn’t it be possible that a teenager’s 20/20 eyesight from the backdrop of a large fully lit house was good enough to get a fair idea of his face – especially if he was observed from various angles for quite some time? Don’t forget they said the dome light was on in the cab and the whole scene was illuminated for some time.
I do agree though, I don’t think we can accurately interpret that Z had one ear 3mm lower than the other or a wrinkle in his forehead, etc. If a few teenagers agreed on it looking like him and Fouke/Zelms checked it and backed it up as being a flipping good match to the guy they encountered around the corner, then I’m happy that it is a reasonable likeness to how Z looked that night at least. And it could well be that Fouke/Zelms did actually halt their car to stop Z and chat to him from 15feet away…
You know……he really looks a lot like Max Headroom.Is anyone here familiar with the M/H signal intrusion out of Chicago in the mid 80’s? It’s one of those things that make you go HMMMMMM!
To be fair though, that is a grainy black and white photo using 1960s technology in low light conditions. Couldn’t it be possible that a teenager’s 20/20 eyesight from the backdrop of a large fully lit house was good enough to get a fair idea of his face – especially if observed for quite some time?
In general, yes, imo. Facial features such as a droopy left eye, no. I don’t think so.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
The children’s eyes would be accustomed to lit spaces from inside the house, thus one could surmise their view of a darker space such as the outdoors would be hindered even more so.
