I’m curious how he carried everything under his windbreaker to and from the Stine crime scene. Maybe, as was suggested, this contributed to Zodiac’s stocky look. He would have his gun, and maybe a spare clip. And room for a towel or large rag to wipe the cab down with if he wasn’t using a piece of Stine’s shirt. Maybe there was a large pocket sewn on the inside of the jacket to accomodate this stuff.

He could have been using a shoulder rig to conceal his pistol. That may explain the bulkiness as well.
EDIT: Here is what I’m talking about.

Holds both the gun and spare magazines. He did use a holstered weapon at Berryessa so having a shoulder rig like this isn’t improbable. He could also have some sort of rudimentary bullet proof vest on as well, it would easily fit under a t-shirt and make the wearer look bulky.

Not that it (dis)proves any possible theory but AFAIK the old school (pre kevlar and whatnot) bullet proof vests were pretty heavy affairs which wouldn’t have been ideal for a killer on the move.

Somehow I doubt that Z, in his brazen approach, was expecting to have to contend with return fire.

Somehow I doubt that Z, in his brazen approach, was expecting to have to contend with return fire.

Seems very unlikely, I agree.

If he considered that side of things at all, my guess would be that this would have been a calculated risk to him – and nothing more. He may even have considered some sort of "suicide by cop" an acceptable outcome.

The Zodiac was heavy. Everyone said so. And he left heavy shoe impressions.

So yeah, I’d say he was on the heavy side with respect to his reported and reputed height.

And in all likelihood he kept his gun in a holster and/or his jacket pocket.

Hard to tell with Mageau. He certainly isn’t a rock solid eyewitness, which is understandable given the circumstances. There are discrepancies in his testimony, no doubt – what he says doesn’t add up if taken at face value. Very difficult to assess which is which, though. Is he mistaken about what he, himself did (and in what order), or about what he actually saw?

I’m inclined to think more the former, less the latter. If he says the assailant wore a t-shirt, for example, I see no reason to doubt this. Mageau emphasizes the detail that Z was beefy, not blubbery – which isn’t something one can easily explain away by pointing to either his condition or a possible willingness to please the investigators.

The unshapely/baggy-attire-as-disguise angle is one I’ve considered myself many times. But Mageau is a huge problem here. He observed his assailant wearing a t-shirt – and unless we doubt that particular part of his testimony (which is much more problematic than doubting his general status as a witness), we have to conclude that Z was a bulky guy (though not necessarily an overweight one).

What Mageau said immediately after BRS isn’t much suspect. If you read his 1969 narration, it’s not much and he doesn’t deviate. There are no moments of pure fantasy.

Later on, many years later, after booze and drugs and only god knows what else, yes, Mike’s impressions of that night become highly suspect.

I tend to think what he said in 1969 was pretty accurate, but thereafter, not at all.

I’m curious how he carried everything under his windbreaker to and from the Stine crime scene. Maybe, as was suggested, this contributed to Zodiac’s stocky look. He would have his gun, and maybe a spare clip. And room for a towel or large rag to wipe the cab down with if he wasn’t using a piece of Stine’s shirt. Maybe there was a large pocket sewn on the inside of the jacket to accomodate this stuff.

Why theorize things he likely didn’t have? He probably wiped the cab down with Stine’s shirt. Probably why he tore it. Probably took the keys and wallet because he touched them, which means he probably wasn’t wearing gloves.

(for all we know, Stine’s keys and wallet are on the bottom of the San Francisco Bay, which, if I had shot Stine, is where they would have gone…)

Anyway…he needed only a gun. Even a spare clip could have been placed into his other jacket pocket.

Not really sure why people feel the need to multiply entities beyond necessity.

My point was to speculate how Zodiac’s attire could have made him appear bigger than he actually was. I looked at Howard Davis’ website again and how Eric Zelms described Zodiac to his wife — "Zodiac appeared quite ordinary in size and stature. He was not physically imposing enough to stand out in any way." I would trust Zelms’ observations.

What Mageau said immediately after BRS isn’t much suspect. If you read his 1969 narration, it’s not much and he doesn’t deviate. There are no moments of pure fantasy.

Later on, many years later, after booze and drugs and only god knows what else, yes, Mike’s impressions of that night become highly suspect.

I tend to think what he said in 1969 was pretty accurate, but thereafter, not at all.

Yes, I agree. I wasn’t referring to his overall (we all know that he struggled with both this and that over the years) status as a witness. I’m thinking specifically about discrepancies in his ’69 account of what happened (see above). And those may be explained by his condition at the time (being the victim of a murderous attack, in short) – that’s what I meant. Not his condition as such, in later years.

My point is basically that MM may have been mistaken about precisely what he did, and in what order he did it, but there is no reason to doubt what he claimed to have seen – such as Z wearing a t-shirt and being beefy.

My point was to speculate how Zodiac’s attire could have made him appear bigger than he actually was. I looked at Howard Davis’ website again and how Eric Zelms described Zodiac to his wife — "Zodiac appeared quite ordinary in size and stature. He was not physically imposing enough to stand out in any way." I would trust Zelms’ observations.

No reason to doubt Zelms. But what we have isn’t Zelm’s description of Z, but his wife’s recollection of said description. That’s hearsay in the second degree, so to speak. Offered as an answer to who-knows-what question, with what slant, from the researcher who interviewed her. This is problematic in itself.

I have no reason to think either Zelms or his wife are/were anything but honest people. That doesn’t mean we can take this particular description (which is ambiguous to begin with, on top of everything else) at face value.

My point was to speculate how Zodiac’s attire could have made him appear bigger than he actually was. I looked at Howard Davis’ website again and how Eric Zelms described Zodiac to his wife — "Zodiac appeared quite ordinary in size and stature. He was not physically imposing enough to stand out in any way." I would trust Zelms’ observations.

Fouke also said the Zodiac was "barrel-chested", specifically, which would indicate a build beyond the mesomorph. Fouke also said Zelms likely never even saw the Zodiac, and I wouldn’t put much faith in what Davis has to say since he’s spent years trying to pin the Zodiac crimes on a man who was absolutely not the Zodiac.

Regardless, all other indications, arriving from various witnesses and evidence, would indicate the Zodiac was on the heavy side.

Could he have worn clothes that would have made him look larger? Yes, but if so why then did Zelms claim the killer appeared as he did? If the Zodiac was wearing clothes to make himself look larger that night on Jackson, he must have failed when it came to Fouke’s description because the officer merely described the Zodiac as barrel-chested, which is a very odd way of saying he looked big in his clothes.

Also, Hartnell would have noticed baggy clothing, and unless the Zodiac was wearing a fat suit, there’s no way he, the killer, could have dressed himself in such a way to give the impression of possessing a large torso. He would have looked "large" all over.

Not really seeing where this line of inquiry is going, to be honest, unless you want to pigeon-hole Bruce Davis as the Zodiac.

What Mageau said immediately after BRS isn’t much suspect. If you read his 1969 narration, it’s not much and he doesn’t deviate. There are no moments of pure fantasy.

Later on, many years later, after booze and drugs and only god knows what else, yes, Mike’s impressions of that night become highly suspect.

I tend to think what he said in 1969 was pretty accurate, but thereafter, not at all.

Yes, I agree. I wasn’t referring to his overall (we all know that he struggled with both this and that over the years) status as a witness. I’m thinking specifically about discrepancies in his ’69 account of what happened (see above). And those may be explained by his condition at the time (being the victim of a murderous attack, in short) – that’s what I meant. Not his condition as such, in later years.

My point is basically that MM may have been mistaken about precisely what he did, and in what order he did it, but there is no reason to doubt what he claimed to have seen – such as Z wearing a t-shirt and being beefy.

I agree. I think being repeatedly shot and having the girl you love (according to Mike) brutally murdered would play some havoc on the memory, but as you said, his description of the killer seems vague enough and yet pretty much on par with what one would expect: a heavier man tooling around on a hot summer night in a t-shirt.

Had Mike been lying, or hoping to impress or please the police, he would have given false details that would likely ring untrue in light of what was later determined.

Mike’s description of The Zodiac is, in my mind, apt and genuine, because it’s not fantastically specific and yet ably synchronized with later facts and common sense.

Somehow I doubt that Z, in his brazen approach, was expecting to have to contend with return fire.

Seems very unlikely, I agree.

If he considered that side of things at all, my guess would be that this would have been a calculated risk to him – and nothing more. He may even have considered some sort of "suicide by cop" an acceptable outcome.

The Zodiac was a coward and a sneak. He operated under the "cloak of night" and used a ridiculous disguise to cover his appearance at LB. He was a fantasizing wanna-be. He had no desire to get into armed confrontation, although I imagined he fantasized about such a scenario, a scenario in which he would have been victorious and a "hero" to the entire city.

This is also the guy who failed to eliminate prints at crime scenes, thus he doesn’t strike me as the meticulous planner type, although I suspect he imagined he was the Patton of serial murder.

Regardless, my opinion is that he likely thought of the scenario wherein he would encounter armed police resistance, imagined a triumphant victory, and then cowardly operated in such a way as to render that possibility highly unlikely.

Not really seeing where this line of inquiry is going, to be honest, unless you want to pigeon-hole Bruce Davis as the Zodiac.

Precisely. Davis (Howard, I mean, not Bruce) has unearthed some interesting info over the years, located and interviewed some interesting people – and so forth. And I’m happy to give him credit for that. But that’s where it ends. What he has done with said info, what slant he has put on the accounts provided by said people – well, that’s a completely different kettle of fish. One has to thread carefully there, I think – and be very aware of context, bias, methodology, etc.

No reason to doubt Zelms. But what we have isn’t Zelm’s description of Z, but his wife’s recollection of said description. That’s hearsay in the second degree, so to speak. Offered as an answer to who-knows-what question, with what slant, from the researcher who interviewed her. This is problematic in itself.

I have no reason to think either Zelms or his wife are/were anything but honest people. That doesn’t mean we can take this particular description (which is ambiguous to begin with, on top of everything else) at face value.

This. And that goes for any researcher in a any field who favors a particular outcome.

Twisting of words is easy enough subconsciously, but some do it quite well knowing exactly what they are doing.