Welsh Chappie, Subject: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:10 am
I don’t know if it’s important or not, but i have been reading Kelleher’s & Van Nuys ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer’ and wondered why he (whoever he was) decided to call himself ‘Zodiac’? He didn’t seem to be big into Astrology if his letters are anything to go by. Van Nuys does offer one, quite good, explanation.
He says "In the late 1960 Astrology was enjoying a rebirth of interest. Since astrology is concerned with how the Planets are believed to control our destiny, the writers use of the term may reflect his sense of being an individual could control the destiny of others – especially their life and death."
The Word ‘Zodiac’, also spelled ‘Zodiak’ has it roots in Middle English and also in Latin & Greek. In each instance, the term means ‘Circle’. In Middle English, it literally means ‘Circle of Animals’. Z used a Circle with a cross through it as his signature to end letters.
But, he doesn’t seem to make any reference to Astrology at all, other than calling himself ‘Zodiac’.
It also seems as if he came up with the moniker for himself almost as an after-thought. After his first murders at LHR, he didn’t send anything to any paper, nor did he make a phone call shortly after the crime as he did at BRS & LB. It’s not untill after his attack at BRS does he write and take credit for both attacks. And even then, the writer doesn’t identify himself with a name or symbol, but only states he is the murderer of the two teens at xmas 69, and Darlene on July 4.
Was ‘Zodiac’ born after the murder of Darlene Ferrin, of whic Mike Mageau survived, purely for no real reason? Or was ‘Zodiac’ created for some oter sinister purpose?
I’ve often wondered if one or more of the killings were targeted ‘hits’. I mean, statistics show that, of the people who fall victim to homicide, over 70% of them will know their killer. And we all know that because of this, the first people like look to as suspects are the victims family & circle of friends. So, if your someone that want’s to ‘eliminate’ someone that can be linked to you in anyway, how do you avoid being a suspect (or at least shift the suspicion away)? You could always invent a serial killer, a mad man who murders random people, as are the geographical locations. Then, if you commit one homicide to ‘plant the idea’ (Lake Herman Rd), you could then murder your intended target and claim it was simply the nut case serial killer striking at random again? Just seems strange that if this man is such a braggat, such a publicity seeking egotist, that he doesn’t write, or call, or anything after his LHR ‘work’, nor does he decide to call himself anything till 8 months after the first attack.
There is a chance that he started using ‘Zodiac’ because he simply did not like the name the papers were using to refer to him, ‘The Cipher Slayer’. It would make sence because it’s after he mails the 3 part cipher that the paper calls him the cipher slayer, and its his very next communication that he tells his readers ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’.
Any thougts, idea’s or opinions on the origin of his name, why he decided to call himself Zodiac & Why he failed to announce himself to the World after LHR?
Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:14 am
The Zodiac crimes have the air of someone wanting to be a comic-book supervillain. Ciphers, taunting letters, a bizarre costume emblazoned with a symbol. My guess is that he hit on the name after deciding he needed a catchier moniker than ‘the murderer’. Then again, he was signing his letters with a ‘Z’ as far back as 1967 (yeah, I’m a firm proponent that those ‘Bates Had to Die’ letters were his).
If any of the victims knew the killer, my money is on Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards, or perhaps Cheri Bates. Certainly not Darlene Ferrin.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am
I have expressed all those same thoughts and concerns Chappie. I too don’t think he liked what they were calling him.
.. My guess is that he hit on the name after deciding he needed a catchier moniker than ‘the murderer’. Then again, he was signing his letters with a ‘Z’ as far back as 1967 (yeah, I’m a firm proponent that those ‘Bates Had to Die’ letters were his)
That’s the funkiest Z I ever saw. Looks more like a 1, 2, and 3 meshed together. 
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:57 am
The Zodiac crimes have the air of someone wanting to be a comic-book supervillain. Ciphers, taunting letters, a bizarre costume emblazoned with a symbol. My guess is that he hit on the name after deciding he needed a catchier moniker than ‘the murderer’. Then again, he was signing his letters with a ‘Z’ as far back as 1967 (yeah, I’m a firm proponent that those ‘Bates Had to Die’ letters were his).
If any of the victims knew the killer, my money is on Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards, or perhaps Cheri Bates. Certainly not Darlene Ferrin.
You’d say there’s more chance that Cheri Jo knew Zodiac (If he was her killer) than Darlene? The same Darlene that reportedly knew half of the SFPD officers, enjoyed living the single life even though married, and seemed to have someone stalking/pestering her, and even claims to have seen this unknown man murder someone? Cheri Jo, a student who was not known to be promiscuous, nor have any friends or associates that were known to be violent or dangerous. We know Zodiac has been described as an older male, Most common age describes him as between 35-45 years of age. Let’s go for the average, 40. Lets say he was 40 in 1969, then that means he would have been 37 in 66. I mean if Z was Bates killer, then that would mean he knew her persoanlly (Knew her car to disable it), and that after she couldn’t start it, she felt safe enough to walk with this man who is old enough to be her father, down a quiet lane at the side of a house. No, i can’t see that. I think her killer was her age for several reasons. Her killer scratched the poem into the desk of the College Library, suggesting he wouldn’t have looked out of place in a college library (age wise). Also, Cheri probably walked with him because she knew him, or at least recognised him, because he was around her own age. And Cheri Jo’s murderer targeted her specifically, Zodiac never did. The letter writer refered to her by name ‘Bates Had to die’ & ‘Miss Bates was stupid’ etc. Zodiac never personalised his crimes or victims, he refered to them as teenagers, or boys and girls, ‘I am the murderer of the two teenagers last christmass’, or ‘The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat’ & ‘I am the murderer of the taxi driver…’ etc etc.
And a lot will claim that the MO is similar in Bates & Kathlene John incidents. Well yes, and no. Bates car was disabled so she couldn’t leave the library car park, she was a selected target that had her vehicle disabled for the sole purpose of him having the means and opportunity to murder her…completely premeditated and planned. Kathy Johns was a case of wrong place, wrong time. Completely random person as a victim and he selected her as a random victim because she, like Ferrin, Betty Lou, David Farraday etc, were alone on a isolated road at night.
Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:44 am
The only one to describe Zodiac as an older male was Fouke. Everyone else said he was young – between 20 and 30. I’d say he was 35 in 1969, tops. His writings support this notion. When you read the Zodiac letters, does an older author leap to mind? If anything, he sounds like a malcontent youth, pissed off at society and the world.
Chappie, your entire post contradicts itself. First, you assert that Darlene had lots of personal entanglements, including stalking. Next, you go on to stress that Zodiac’s attacks were impersonal as they come. I’m confused.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:02 am
The only one to describe Zodiac as an older male was Fouke. Everyone else said he was young – between 20 and 30. I’d say he was 35 in 1969, tops. His writings support this notion. When you read the Zodiac letters, does an older author leap to mind? If anything, he sounds like a malcontent youth, pissed off at society and the world.
Chappie, your entire post contradicts itself. First, you assert that Darlene had lots of personal entanglements, including stalking. Next, you go on to stress that Zodiac’s attacks were impersonal as they come. I’m confused.
Does an older author leap to mind after reading the Zodiac letters? Absolutely.
1 – He refers to his victims on the phone as ‘Kids in a brown car’.
2 – He states ‘the boy’ was shot in the knee’.
3 – He writes he is the murderer of ‘the teenagers last christmas’.
He does this over and over. As Dr David Van Nuys correctly points out, to refer to them as kids, its to suggest he himself in an adult.
And yes, Fouke may be the only one to put Zodiac’s age range at 35-45, but Fouke is the only one, i believe, who got to look him square in the face and right in the eye from a few feet away, not across a street somewhere, and Fouke is trained to observe and remember things about people that distinguish them because thats part of his job.
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:11 am
Because he liked the name, it sounded cool….and "that weird kid Zode from San Bernardino Pacific HS used to call himself ZODIAC,and it sounded cool,and he was picked on like me,so maybe i will use his persona"
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:00 am
Because he liked the name, it sounded cool….and "that weird kid Zode from San Bernardino Pacific HS used to call himself ZODIAC,and it sounded cool,and he was picked on like me,so maybe i will use his persona"
Well regardless of the name itself and why he may have chosen it, why (and i know any answers to these questions are going to be speculation) would he not either phone the police to brag about, or send any letters to take credit for, the Lake Herman murders. Why would he wait untill his next murder, 7 months later, to suddely send three ciphers & letters to 3 papers, aswel as phone the police after comitting the BRS attack.
I have one possible idea as to why, but anyone else want to add there ideas?
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:08 am
One of two reasons:
The first, he may have been questioned by police or had some dealings with police early on,and wanted to wait until he felt safe. Or,it was his first kill,and he was nervous,but the excitement built up every month until he couldnt contain it anymore and had to strike again.
or
He may have been out of the area for a while for work, military,school,Family or some other reason
I lean with the first one
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:40 am
He was waiting for his pen to dry.
I’ve posted recently on this ‘wait’ and to summarize I think he was just preparing and coming up with ideas for another go at becoming ‘The Zodiac’. After his initial ‘testing of the water’ with the Bates case, I see in this what looks like a second attempt to get the ball rolling on his ‘game’.
As for the name ‘The Zodiac’, well I would go along with Nacht on this one regarding the comic book, super-villain kinda thing. Costumes, hidden identities, codes etc etc all very super hero, anti hero kinda stuff. Reason for waiting to reveal? well maybe just that actually, he waited because it was reveal. He wanted to see how the ‘game’ would go this time before wasting his name on it – or – he introduces the name to make sure that the ‘game’ goes well this time.
He does after-all introduce the name after he gets a reply/response from his first letters to which he responds that he would be very happy to supply even more material. And he does, and with a name this time. He’d found his ‘buddy’ (the press and only them, not the police or relatives of victims) and now it was time to introduce himself.
QueenOfClews, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:30 pm
I think this is a very interesting question. I think he may have wanted a super villain persona, but I also think it is part of his game of misdirection. He knew that the name itself would send the cops in a thousand wild directions, receiving unsolicited and distracting help from amateur astrologists everywhere.
Many times I have tried to come up with some scenario that would allow for Z to merely be a prankster letter writer and not both the letter writer/murderer. I haven’t been able to come up with anything to explain the evidence away.
I think that his personality, as demonstrated through his letters, changes over time. Initially he is very serious and includes primarily just the dry facts. After he begins to refer to himself as Z, he really does begin to take on the "muah, ha ha ha…" villain personality. It also seems that his original letters were not very deep, and lacked the wit and intelligence of his later letters. I have always thought that he took great pains to come across as a simpleminded person. His spelling mistakes are not authentic in my opinion.
Why didn’t he initially say anything about the LHR murders? I don’t know. Maybe because he was not the murderer. How could that be? Well, who would have had access to the details of the case? How cautious were the police at that point in time about keeping case details away from the public.
Then again he did not say too much about LB either, although that was his most flamboyant act.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:12 pm
Maybe it could have something to do with Mike Mageau having unexpectedly survived? Zodiac may have known Mike, and feared maybe Mike would tell police any day now, so he quickly invented ‘Zodiac’, the mad psychopath & random killer to try and divert any attention/suspicion away from a personal motive and him being a suspect?
Mageau did go AWOL from his hospital bed and did his best to vanish into thin air, after he legally had his name changed. Did he know who shot him and feared he’d come back again to kill him because he knew Mike could ID him?
I dunno, sounds unlikely i must admit, but…..you never know. Mike certainlly acted suspicious with his story changes, his name change, his vanishing act etc.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:56 pm
IF (a big if) it was drugs they were going to LHR for, I would say it was Mike who knew the person they would meet.
Darlene leaves late at night to go find "fireworks"—leaves her baby with the sitter, calls Mike who comes dashing out to the car and they head to BRS for a chat?
Zodiac shot from Mikes side, and never made an attempt to go around to Darlene side.
Mike’s name and home address was put in the Chronicle right after the attacks. I’d get out of there too. BUT, apparently there were some in Vallejo who murdered and stuck you in the back of a trunk if you were a narc. 
And as we all know, he never mentioned Zodiac when he made the call in Vallejo.
It truly wouldn’t surprise me if the whole Zodiac persona was created to cover up at least ONE of those murders; Stine included.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:20 pm
IF (a big if) it was drugs they were going to LHR for, I would say it was Mike who knew the person they would meet.
Darlene leaves late at night to go find "fireworks"—leaves her baby with the sitter, calls Mike who comes dashing out to the car and they head to BRS for a chat?
Zodiac shot from Mikes side, and never made an attempt to go around to Darlene side.
Mike’s name and home address was put in the Chronicle right after the attacks. I’d get out of there too. BUT, apparently there were some in Vallejo who murdered and stuck you in the back of a trunk if you were a narc.
And as we all know, he never mentioned Zodiac when he made the call in Vallejo.
It truly wouldn’t surprise me if the whole Zodiac persona was created to cover up at least ONE of those murders; Stine included.
Well lets not forget, the night Betty-Lou & David were murdered, there officers said they had been on LHR minutes earlier on their way to a drugs raid….Marijuana of all things. Didn’t David apparantly threaten to talk about a drug deal he had allegedely found out about, and he had known enimies (supposedly) because of this. Raid gets carried out at 10:30, David is shot execution style at around 11:00pm.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Here is a link to the drug bust thread:
http://zodiackillersite.forummotion.com … -drug-bust
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:02 pm
Here is a link to the drug bust thread:
Much appreciated Tahoe
Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:05 am
Does an older author leap to mind after reading the Zodiac letters? Absolutely.
1 – He refers to his victims on the phone as ‘Kids in a brown car’.
2 – He states ‘the boy’ was shot in the knee’.
3 – He writes he is the murderer of ‘the teenagers last christmas’.He does this over and over. As Dr David Van Nuys correctly points out, to refer to them as kids, its to suggest he himself in an adult.
And yes, Fouke may be the only one to put Zodiac’s age range at 35-45, but Fouke is the only one, i believe, who got to look him square in the face and right in the eye from a few feet away, not across a street somewhere, and Fouke is trained to observe and remember things about people that distinguish them because thats part of his job.
Older than the victims? Oh, absolutely. A middle-aged man, though? I don’t think so, and neither did Mike Kelleher or David Van Nuys. I’ve read their book; take another look at the likely age they ultimately conclude Zodiac to be, based on the words and phrases he uses.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:46 am
Does an older author leap to mind after reading the Zodiac letters? Absolutely.
1 – He refers to his victims on the phone as ‘Kids in a brown car’.
2 – He states ‘the boy’ was shot in the knee’.
3 – He writes he is the murderer of ‘the teenagers last christmas’.He does this over and over. As Dr David Van Nuys correctly points out, to refer to them as kids, its to suggest he himself in an adult.
And yes, Fouke may be the only one to put Zodiac’s age range at 35-45, but Fouke is the only one, i believe, who got to look him square in the face and right in the eye from a few feet away, not across a street somewhere, and Fouke is trained to observe and remember things about people that distinguish them because thats part of his job.
Older than the victims? Oh, absolutely. A middle-aged man, though? I don’t think so, and neither did Mike Kelleher or David Van Nuys. I’ve read their book; take another look at the likely age they ultimately conclude Zodiac to be, based on the words and phrases he uses.
The articles below were written betweem 1969-75, and they clearly all seem to point to a man in his 40’s.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XP … ller&hl=en
And again, in this newspaper article from 1970, the article states that Z’s age has been given anywhere from 25 to 40
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ni … ller&hl=en
Again, in 1975 the paper claims ‘He (Z) is believed to be between 40 and 50 years old’
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8o … ller&hl=en
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:33 am
The original sketch had z at 25-35, PLUS Hartnell & Slaight,who both talked to Z on the day of the attack both described Zodiac’s voice as younger. Hartnell stated "like a student’s" and Slaight described it as "in his early 20’s".
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:51 am
The original sketch had z at 25-35, PLUS Hartnell & Slaight,who both talked to Z on the day of the attack both described Zodiac’s voice as younger. Hartnell stated "like a student’s" and Slaight described it as "in his early 20’s".
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you then Morph, and lets hope one day we get an answer with his identity being uncovered. (And i just realized & remembered that Kane was around age 45 in 69/70, and that it may therefor seem as if i’m upping the age to Fit Kane, but it honestly has nothing to do with Kane…i only just rremember Kane and his age and how it may look). If proof came out tomorrow that showed Kane innocent beyond all doubt, i really would still believe Z was late 30’s to early 40’s based on his personality, abilities & letters content. (Wasn’t aware Slaight described the caller as sounding fairly young. Nanacy Slover seems to suggest a voice in the vocal range of Richard Gaik, and he isn’t young sounding). Thats what this case seems to do at almost every turn, for every bit of evidence that seems very good, theres almost always its contradictory nemesis waiting around the corner.
Lets just hope that in the near future we won’t need to debate his age because we will know it.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:09 am
Welsh Chappie – I would advise not relying too much on newspapers, because what is their source?
Better are the direct statements from witnesses. The problem I have is that you are basically excluding ALL OTHER witnesses and relying soley on Officer Fouke saying 35 to 45. Now we could argue police are trained observors, but if Fouke is telling the truth, then he was looking for a black male, saw the white male from a distance, did not talk to him, and saw him very briefly from a moving car in bad light.
Fouke is, as Nacht said, the outlier on age. If we exclude Fouke, look at ALL the visual witness and voice witness statements, and create a rough average from them, we are at 21 to 35 broadly, 25 to 30 narrowly.
Bryan Hartnell said that the Zodiac had a voice “Like a student’s.” (P 67.) He also said, “It was a remarkably calm voice that came from beneath the hood, a voice that was not high- or low-pitched, a monotone. The speaker sounded to Bryan to be between twenty and thirty years old.” (P 31. YB)
After the Lake Berryessa stabbing, Officer Slaight received a call from the Zodiac. Later, he said, “It sounded like the voice of a man in his early twenties…” (P 75.)
Teenage witnesses to the Paul Stine slaying described the killer as, “A white male…around twenty-five or thirty years of age… (P 95.)
Mike Mageau said 25 to 30, the Lake Berryessa college girls said 25 to 35, Kathleen Johns said around 30 in 1970, voice witnesses said "young", "student" and "twenties".
The first poster said 25 to 30, and that is what I think as well.
It has never been real clear WHY they revised the poster – was it because of Officer Fouke’s description? I have never really heard a clear definitive answer on that issue. Some say one of the teens said he needed to look more like 35 than 25. And the first poster may have been influenced by the "test run" robber, who may have been Zodiac, and was described as 25.
In any event, it appears based on the SF teens they said 25 to 35, the LB college girls said 25 to 35, Johns said 30 and Mageau said 25 to 30. Yes Mageau had a flashlight in his eyes but he was close to the shooter. Johns was very close to Zodiac (?) and saw him with no light in her eyes. I think Zodiac probably did the 63 Santa Barbara murders, and if suspect "Sandy" was the killer, that means Zodiac was 18 to 22 in 63, putting Zodiac at 24 to 28 or so in 1969.
Factor in the voice witnesses saying young and twenties, and I am comfortable coming down in the 25 to 30 range. Though I wouldn’t rule out any good Zodiac suspect as long as he was between 21 and 35.
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 am
AK, I agre with everything you just said. I too think Z was 22 on the low end, and possibly up to around 30. The average of the girls at Berryessa (if they saw Z)Johns(if she was really in the car with Z)puts Z around late 20’s to around 30. But I too would consider any good suspect from 22-45
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:12 pm
I agree Zodiac was around 30.
But, who said this if not Fouke?
(note the age)
http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineReport2.html – 10/12/69 – and who is Sullivan?
If I’m not mistaken, the kids say "gray" pants.
Did Fouke say something that night and for whatever reason he needed to write up that scratch later on? Odd.
QueenOfClews, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:34 pm
I think it is very hard for younger people to accurately estimate a person’s age. As far as voices are concerned, there are 17 year olds with voices that sound like John G. Wells, and there are men in their 40’s who sound like they are in their twenties. I would say that using voice to guesstimate age is not particularly useful for anyone past puberty. We also have conflicting accounts of Z with a drawl, and Z sans drawl. One more confusing piece of the puzzle.
This is just my opinion, but from the short bit of Fouke that I saw on the video, I would say he is a very sharp observer, keen like a bird of prey.
If indeed they stopped Z, they had their full attention on him until he indicated he had seen the suspect. That is long for a San Francisco police officer to make an assessment. We are not talking about a cop from Mayberry who has never had to be observant or suspicious of anyone. We are looking at a cop who works in one of the busiest cities in America.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:33 pm
Fouke says he did NOT stop and talk to the man and that he was looking for a black male and saw the man briefly from a moving car in bad light. If Fouke is right than almost a dozen witnesses are wrong.
QueenOfClews, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:00 pm
I agree Zodiac was around 30.
But, who said this if not Fouke?
(note the age)http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineReport2.html – 10/12/69 – and who is Sullivan?
If I’m not mistaken, the kids say "gray" pants.
Did Fouke say something that night and for whatever reason he needed to write up that scratch later on? Odd.
I did not see a reference to a Sullivan on the page you linked. Can you please confirm location?
TIA
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:12 pm
Yeah Tahoe,I didnt see a Sullivan refernce in the link you added either.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:44 pm
Sorry—pg 1: http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineReport1.html
He appears to be the first Officer to sign the report. Hadn’t heard of him.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:48 pm
Fouke says he did NOT stop and talk to the man and that he was looking for a black male and saw the man briefly from a moving car in bad light. If Fouke is right than almost a dozen witnesses are wrong.
Keep in mind now, as you’ve pointed out, this is a brief night time passing by of a man walking, 5 to ten seconds Fouke estimates.
(Audio of Fouke’s own words for the documentary ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’)…
"I noticed on the North side of the street, a white male adult, dressed in a derby, or 3 quarter lenght waist jacket with elastic at the waist and on the cuffs, and regular flap down collars. He had a crew cut. He was wearing rust colored pleated trousers that were unusual for the time. He had on engineering type boots, 3 quarter of the way in length and they were tan in colour."
Now all this wonderful detail, from the elastic on his cuffs to the tan colour of his boots, all from a 7/8/9 second sighting, and a sighting tha, in his own words ‘Saw it was a White Male…..Step on the gas’. I mean once he instantly saw the man was white, his suspicion & attention was instantly drawn away and to spped up and get to the scene, so he managed to get all this detail from 5 – 10 second sighting at night that he himself claims ‘Saw it was a White M….Step on the gas’, whci could be interperated as ‘When we saw the man was white….not interested, had no reason to therefor pay any particular attention to him and we sped off’.
I’ve anticipated that most will say ‘Fouke just made that description in such detail up.’ And i wouldn’t try and argue against this if there was evidence to do so…
Bryan: He had on these pleated pants, the old suit type of pants. They were either black or dark blue.
Fouke: He was wearing rust colored pleated trousers that were unusual for the time.
Bryan: He had on this cotton coat, yoou know the type, you can turn the collar up on them. It has a zipper down the front and is real light…..Super thin, ya know?
Fouke: Dressed in a waiste length jacket tha has a zipper down the front. Regular flap down collar.
Bryan: He was, i dunno, around 5′ 8, maybe 5′ 10 talll.
Fouke: He stood arund 5′ 10.
Fouke: Between 35 – 45 years old.
Bryan: Didn’t see his face, he wore a hood. He sounded young though.
The descriptions of the man given by each is almost identical. The only thing Don could comment on, that Bryan couldn’t, was what he looked like and his approx age. Everything else is almost identical. ouke seems to be tellng the truth here because he describeds what the man was wearing in great detal, and the general description sound very similar, the clothes Fouke described matched the clothes that Bryan described Z wearing, so if he seems to be extremely accurate here (using Bryan’s description as a comparison), with both Fouke and Hartnell appearing to be describing the same man, wearing the same clothes, one never saw his face as he was masked, the other got a very good look at him (great amount of detail in the description), and so because Fouke appears to be consistant and very accurate with his observation of the mans cloths, so i see no reason to think that he is accurate in very good detail with the clothing and body and height, but is mistaken regarding age range, and that there is obviously no question that these witness who are, 13, 14, and 16 (One of whom was on the phone to 911) respectively are more likely to be accurate because they just saw him from across the street at night and after they had worked with the police sketch artist, they were obviosuly really confident and sure that it was accurate….is that why they went back 3 days later to create a second composite with ammendments made? Fouke may have been on a street at night like the kids, but Z was heading straight toward and into the beams of Foukes approaching cruizer.
Fouke also said he was wearing engineering type boots.
The footprints found that had been made by the man who attacked Bryan, were found to have come from a Wing-Walker Military Boot.
So, i would say there would be no real basis for me to argue that Fouke did see this man for longer than he is saying, and at a lot closer range than ‘Patrol car in street to suspect on sidewalk’, unless Foukes description of clothes seems to describe the man at Berryessa with a high degree of accurecy.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:47 pm
So how do you reconcile the memo prepared by Fouke much closer to when the incident occurred?
http://www.zodiackiller.com/FoukeReport.html
Drew, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:13 pm
That last statement by Fouke in the report is interesting — "I do not know if he (Zelms) observed this subject or not." Why wouldn’t Officer Zelms have seen him? They were looking for anyone suspicious in the neighborhood. It also sounds like Officer Fouke wrote this up without seeking Zelms’ input at all.
QueenOfClews, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:32 pm
Sorry, a little late with this comment, which may seem a bit off topic….
I also thought the Ferrin/Mageau murder was drug related. Perhaps Mike and Darlene were privy to information that made them dangerous. The fact that Mageau was wearing the layers of clothing in July has always seemed a little fishy to me. It has execution style killing characteristics. I always think of serial killers as being more intimate with their victims.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:58 pm
So how do you reconcile the memo prepared by Fouke much closer to when the incident occurred?
All i know is Foukes always been confident as to an age range, while the kids created a reconstruction of what he looked like, then 3 days later they were back to make changed and ammendments to it, so after 3 days theu have decided its not accurate and try a second composite which, to me, doesn’t look any different from the first one anyway.
Anyway, about the age range. It’s not just because Fouke said ‘He was between 35-45 years of age’ that i decided ‘Well if Fouke says it, it is true’. The fact Fouke put the age in that area just seemed to confirm what i though his likely age was roughly anyway. Fouke appears to get credibility from describing a man that is wearing the same clothes as Bryan described at Berryessa.
I mean if you go by what the statistics say about known serial killers, then if he was conforming to the usual procees that almost all SK’s go through, then Zodiac should commit his first homicide at age 29 (Lets be fair and allow a year either side), no matter what, i will be wrong according to the stats, and by the looks, also quite a few of you here lol. So, i’ll just list a couple of reasons why i think he is not in his 20’s or early 30’s, and why i am certain this man isat least 35, i’d say more the 40 mark.
Firsly, how many Male twenty somethings do you know that just can’t get enough of thursday nights, because Thursday is Opera Night? How Many of you here, truthfullly now, had even heard the word ‘Mikado’, and if you had, could describe the plot? Lol.
Secondly, if i asked every Male member here between 25-35 "Theres your sewing maching by there, take the green cotton out please, then re-thread it with white and see that black cloth, i want a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol about 4/5 inches" How many would know how to thead the cotton through the machine? We all know, every Male member that is between 25-35, so it includes me, that the answer is going to be Zero.
And other reasons that i’m too tired to type lol. But as always, i may be wrong, hope we’ll know for sure one day, but for now, for me anyway, He’s at least 35, more 38-42 range if i had to guess. This man is too confident and calm to be a SK who’s not long started out and in his mid to late twenties.
Any mistakes/typos plz exuse them, but i’m knackered lol. TTFN.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:15 am
Sorry, a little late with this comment, which may seem a bit off topic….
I also thought the Ferrin/Mageau murder was drug related. Perhaps Mike and Darlene were privy to information that made them dangerous. The fact that Mageau was wearing the layers of clothing in July has always seemed a little fishy to me. It has execution style killing characteristics. I always think of serial killers as being more intimate with their victims.
Yeah, Darlene’s fondness for the boys in blue also and used to always be talking to this cop or that one. If she really did know about a murder, this is high risk for them. So, they send someone to keep an eye on her and who she is talking to etc, and may have even been given a big sum of cash in order to buy her silence because apparantly she paid the rest of her mortage house payments off in one go with cash. But, her unwillingess to stop hanging around police officers got to be 2 much of a risk and so, (It was David Farraday that had claimed to have unwillingly discovered a plan for a big drug deal that was to happen soon and was heard to have said, or known to have said while having an argument he was going to inform the authorities). And the same night and around the same time that they were on Lake Herman, the police were carrying out a drug bust just down the road from where they were.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:31 am
Darlene did not pay off her mortgage. She and Dean had purchased the home May 19, 1969. Darlene was killed July 4, 1969, there was only enough time to have made one payment on her new home from the time she and Dean bought it until the time she died. Please review the deeds here-
http://zodiackillersite.forummotion.com … ean-s-home
entropy, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:56 am
So how do you reconcile the memo prepared by Fouke much closer to when the incident occurred?
All i know is Foukes always been confident as to an age range, while the kids created a reconstruction of what he looked like, then 3 days later they were back to make changed and ammendments to it, so after 3 days theu have decided its not accurate and try a second composite which, to me, doesn’t look any different from the first one anyway.
Anyway, about the age range. It’s not just because Fouke said ‘He was between 35-45 years of age’ that i decided ‘Well if Fouke says it, it is true’. The fact Fouke put the age in that area just seemed to confirm what i though his likely age was roughly anyway. Fouke appears to get credibility from describing a man that is wearing the same clothes as Bryan described at Berryessa.
I mean if you go by what the statistics say about known serial killers, then if he was conforming to the usual procees that almost all SK’s go through, then Zodiac should commit his first homicide at age 29 (Lets be fair and allow a year either side), no matter what, i will be wrong according to the stats, and by the looks, also quite a few of you here lol. So, i’ll just list a couple of reasons why i think he is not in his 20’s or early 30’s, and why i am certain this man isat least 35, i’d say more the 40 mark.
Firsly, how many Male twenty somethings do you know that just can’t get enough of thursday nights, because Thursday is Opera Night? How Many of you here, truthfullly now, had even heard the word ‘Mikado’, and if you had, could describe the plot? Lol.
Secondly, if i asked every Male member here between 25-35 "Theres your sewing maching by there, take the green cotton out please, then re-thread it with white and see that black cloth, i want a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol about 4/5 inches" How many would know how to thead the cotton through the machine? We all know, every Male member that is between 25-35, so it includes me, that the answer is going to be Zero.
And other reasons that i’m too tired to type lol. But as always, i may be wrong, hope we’ll know for sure one day, but for now, for me anyway, He’s at least 35, more 38-42 range if i had to guess. This man is too confident and calm to be a SK who’s not long started out and in his mid to late twenties.
Any mistakes/typos plz exuse them, but i’m knackered lol. TTFN.
FWIW, I agree with your points here, WC, although I agree with morf about not excluding anyone from 20-45 in 1969. I’m not sure calling Z’s approach to killing and communicating "mature" sounds right- he could be very immature at times- but there really seems like an awful lot of pre-planning and rather "sophisticated" taunting for lack of a better word. He references adult popular culture and movies, refers to his victims as kids, boys and girls, developed his own killer identity, developed fairly sophisticated ciphers (even if you believe everything after the 408 is garbage), chose symbols with multiple meanings and utilized them in fairly sophisticated ways etc. etc. etc.
Compare his letters to some of the more obvious hoaxes that appear really adolescent in comparison. Compare his communications and style of taunting to BTK’s adolescent emulation. BTK was almost 29 at the time of his first murder and in his late 50’s while creating most of his communications. And… the individual who had the best eyewitness opportunity (albeit brief and even if there was not actual dialogue) gave an unequivocal older estimate. There are good arguments to made for both sides and too many unknowns but if I was forced to narrow down an age range estimate to ten years, I’d probably have to go with 30-40.
WC, I’d be interested to hear your input on the "BTK and Zodiaphile" if you haven’t read it before. :study:
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:20 am
So how do you reconcile the memo prepared by Fouke much closer to when the incident occurred?
Firsly, how many Male twenty somethings do you know that just can’t get enough of thursday nights, because Thursday is Opera Night? How Many of you here, truthfullly now, had even heard the word ‘Mikado’, and if you had, could describe the plot? Lol.
Secondly, if i asked every Male member here between 25-35 "Theres your sewing maching by there, take the green cotton out please, then re-thread it with white and see that black cloth, i want a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol about 4/5 inches" How many would know how to thead the cotton through the machine? We all know, every Male member that is between 25-35, so it includes me, that the answer is going to be Zero.
And other reasons that i’m too tired to type lol. But as always, i may be wrong, hope we’ll know for sure one day, but for now, for me anyway, He’s at least 35, more 38-42 range if i had to guess. This man is too confident and calm to be a SK who’s not long started out and in his mid to late twenties.
Any mistakes/typos plz exuse them, but i’m knackered lol. TTFN.
I do mostly agree with the assessment of your reasoning regarding Fouke and the statistics about the age of when serial killer begin. It’s the other two points that I have a little trouble with! You are looking at some things without the benefit of having been around at the time of the crimes before there were computers, video game and other distractions.
The Mikado was often preformed in schools and local theater companies. The copyright on Gilbert and Sullivan’s works expired in 1962 and it opened the door for anyone and everyone to do whatever they wanted with producing the play. There was a resurgence of interest in their works. There were just four channels on television, movies and the theater were popular outlets for entertainment.
Your second point about the sewing machines cracked me up. I’m guessing that even females between the ages of 25-35 today could not thread a sewing machine either! It’s a dying craft. Back in the day they used to have tailors, they were men and very good at their craft.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:35 am
Heck, the Mikado was on NBC in the 60’s…..Groucho.
In regards to Fouke & Bryan’s description, I don’t know if you can say the fact the both wore pleated pants as
any sort of a match. If you were’t in jeans your pants were probably pleated and most jackets zip.
smithy, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:45 am
Trying to form a 1960’s appreciation of opera and sewing by the standards of today is a litte too difficult to do.
Where does it say that the symbol Bryan saw on his attackers clothes was "a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol" – or done on a machine – btw?
Naaaa, I don’t think so.
entropy, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:05 am
Trying to form a 1960’s appreciation of opera and sewing by the standards of today is a litte too difficult to do.
Where does it say that the symbol Bryan saw on his attackers clothes was "a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol" – or done on a machine – btw?
Naaaa, I don’t think so.
I’m not sure how much can be read into that either, smithy, but Hartnell did refer to Z’s costume as "ingeniously devised" (or something to that effort…) despite describing him as rather sloppy. I suppose he could have just aced Home Economics in high school as well but it at least speaks to some rather meticulous planning whether or not it speaks to his level of maturity. I’d be curious to get everyone to commit to a most likely age (single year and removed from any suspect preconceptions).
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:20 pm
This is a little off topic but many moons ago someone, on some forum, in some thread suggested that maybe the hood was adapted from a duffle bag or canvas bag. I kind of liked the idea. Take an already made bag and rework it to suit the purpose. As for the crosshair symbol on the front, I’m 50/50 on whether or not it was sewn or painted. It could have been painted but perhaps looked sewn because the material it was on woven of thick material like canvas.
Sandy has a point about Bryan being able to say that he saw the collar on Zodiac’s shirt. While I don’t believe that the hood was two piece I do wonder whether or not the thing had both a front and back bib. If there was only the bib in front then the collar could be seen. The way that Graysmith has illustrated the hood leaves no possibility that a collar could be seen by Bryan.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:24 pm
I remember that Seagull!
I think Sandy’s example was done with glue. (not 100%), but I saw it in person. It looked embroidered.
It does say somewhere in that report…"painted".
Boyscouts and military men were taught to sew.
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:39 pm
I remember that Seagull!
I think Sandy’s example was done with glue. (not 100%), but I saw it in person. It looked embroidered.
It does say somewhere in that report…"painted".
Boyscouts and military men were taught to sew.
Thats what I dont understand….I remember the report reading that it was ‘painted’, but Hartnell definitely mentioned that it was sewn or stitched,nit just scrawled on there or painted. He mentions this in the Fincher DVD documentary
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:49 pm
Yes, he does. I just wonder if he could have simply been mistaken. Like I mentioned, the one Sandy had…you wouldn’t know the difference.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:38 pm
Another thing I wonder about is whether or not Bryan had his glasses on the whole time. He admittedly can not see well without the glasses. It would not be outrageous to think that Bryan may have taken the glasses off in his amorous pursuits. If he did, did he put the glasses back on? Did his glasses get knocked off during the attack? Bryan did not have his glasses at the hospital days after the attack when he was interviewed. Was that because the glasses were in evidence, broken or what?
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:57 pm
Another thing I wonder about is whether or not Bryan had his glasses on the whole time. He admittedly can not see well without the glasses. It would not be outrageous to think that Bryan may have taken the glasses off in his amorous pursuits. If he did, did he put the glasses back on? Did his glasses get knocked off during the attack? Bryan did not have his glasses at the hospital days after the attack when he was interviewed. Was that because the glasses were in evidence, broken or what?
Interesting point Seagull. Although, there are photos of him in the hospital bed with glasses on. Were they his original ones though? Hmmm
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:03 pm
Somewhere long ago I think I read that Bryan’s folks brought or sent him his old glasses, that didn’t have as strong of a prescription, after the attack. The memory is not clear enough to state that for certain though.
onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:12 pm
I wonder if Zodiac took Bryan’s eyeglasses with him and that’s what he was wearing the night of the Paul Stine murder.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:42 pm
OWK I just read through the LB police report…. again. Bryan’s glasses were taken into evidence. He apparently had them when he was admitted to the emergency room and the glasses along with Hartnell’s clothing and Cecelia’s clothing were turned over to Officers Brambink and Monk at the hospital to be logged as evidence.
http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport18.html
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
morf13, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:50 pm
OWK I just read through the LB police report…. again. Bryan’s glasses were taken into evidence. He apparently had them when he was admitted to the emergency room and the glasses along with Hartnell’s clothing and Cecelia’s clothing were turned over to Officers Brambink and Monk at the hospital to be logged as evidence.
Besides that, didnt Bryan and Celia state that Z’s glasses were the little flip up ones that were attached to glasses underneath?
Jem, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:59 am
I’d be curious to get everyone to commit to a most likely age (single year and removed from any suspect preconceptions).
Before the mid 1950s, there really was not much of a youth culture in America. Teenagers wore the same clothes worn by young adults, they listened to the same music, they shared similar values. Then, in the mid 50s, television advertisers realized they could market to teens, because many teens had jobs and money to spend. And that’s how youth culture began.
This is something that interests me a lot, since reading a short book review or something like that about 15 years ago. I’ve tried to research the subject on the web and can’t find very much at all. So most of what I know comes from talking to people old enough to have lived through the transitional period between the early 50s, when teens didn’t have their own culture, and at some point in the 60s, when the new youth culture was pervasive in the U.S.
My thoughts are that Zodiac did not experience teen culture. Fred M., for example was already 20 in 1955, so he missed out. Ted K., born in 1942, was just 13 in 1955, but he never participated in teen culture, partly because he was kind of geeky and antisocial, but more importantly because teen culture was still in its infancy, not yet a standard fixture of American culture extended to all socio-economic classes. Just my guess, of course.
So if I had to guess, I’d say Z was old enough to have missed out on "Happy Days" type stuff or the hippie generation, but still young enough to feel unhappy about having missed out. What age that would be, I don’t know.
Quagmire, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:44 am
That’s a sound theory Jem. I’ve always felt Zodiac was around the 28-32 age group so that just about fits.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:59 am
Trying to form a 1960’s appreciation of opera and sewing by the standards of today is a litte too difficult to do.
Where does it say that the symbol Bryan saw on his attackers clothes was "a perfectly stiched cross-hair symbol" – or done on a machine – btw?
Naaaa, I don’t think so.
Bryan states in the documentary ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’ "And on the front was about a 4 inch white crossed circle, with cross hairs, and it looked like it had been made with some machine or with some type of care, it wasn’t just scrawled on".
Thats the reason i always used to dismiss Kaufman’s ‘hood’ because the one he produced had a huge red cross hairs on it that was clearly scrawled on it.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:09 am
WC, I’d be interested to hear your input on the "BTK and Zodiaphile" if you haven’t read it before. :study:
I’m aware of the BTK (Dennis Rader) case, and always thought that it was very similar to the Zodiac case. But not aware of BTK and Zodiphile? What is it? If you supply me a link i’ll gladly have a look.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:26 am
The Zodiac crimes have the air of someone wanting to be a comic-book supervillain. Ciphers, taunting letters, a bizarre costume emblazoned with a symbol. My guess is that he hit on the name after deciding he needed a catchier moniker than ‘the murderer’. Then again, he was signing his letters with a ‘Z’ as far back as 1967 (yeah, I’m a firm proponent that those ‘Bates Had to Die’ letters were his).
If any of the victims knew the killer, my money is on Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards, or perhaps Cheri Bates. Certainly not Darlene Ferrin.
Nach, i had always tought that Z’s costume at Berryessa may have been inspired by a fictional super-hero such as ‘SuperMan’. Superman has the Giant S symbol on his chest to identify himself, so i thought Z’s may have come from that idea. But recently i’ve been thinking about Z’s apparant love for ‘The Mikado’ and specifically ‘Ko-Ko’. Ko-Ko in the play is said to be ‘The Lord High Executioner of Titipu – The highest rank A Citizen can obtain’
We know Zodiac’s costume & hood resembled that of which executioners wore thoughout history. So i’m now of the opinion that Zodiac was taking on the role of Ko-Ko here, given that he writes quoting Ko-Ko’s ‘Little List’ in a later letter, as well as quoting Ko Ko with his ‘tit-willow tit-willow tit-willow’ reference.
And then we have the anonymous letter that was written that gave the very accurate ‘Key’ to the first of Zodiac’s ccipher’s that was signed ‘Concerned Citizen’. Ko-Ko was, as stated about, the ‘Lord High Executioner of Titipu – The Highest Rank A Citizen Can Obtain’
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:56 am
Does an older author leap to mind after reading the Zodiac letters? Absolutely.
1 – He refers to his victims on the phone as ‘Kids in a brown car’.
2 – He states ‘the boy’ was shot in the knee’.
3 – He writes he is the murderer of ‘the teenagers last christmas’.He does this over and over. As Dr David Van Nuys correctly points out, to refer to them as kids, its to suggest he himself in an adult.
And yes, Fouke may be the only one to put Zodiac’s age range at 35-45, but Fouke is the only one, i believe, who got to look him square in the face and right in the eye from a few feet away, not across a street somewhere, and Fouke is trained to observe and remember things about people that distinguish them because thats part of his job.
Older than the victims? Oh, absolutely. A middle-aged man, though? I don’t think so, and neither did Mike Kelleher or David Van Nuys. I’ve read their book; take another look at the likely age they ultimately conclude Zodiac to be, based on the words and phrases he uses.
Yes i know. In the book’s section entitled ‘Building the Profile, Kelleher states "It is likely that Zodiac was over the age of 25 when he attacked his Vallejo victims. In fact, he may have been as much as 10 years older, despite some later reports that characterized his voice as ‘Young’. Not only is this indicated by his reference to victims as ‘Boys’ and ‘Girls’ but also by the nature of his assaults. His likely age was between 25 & 35 years".
I disagree with Kelleher & Van Nuys, and will admit that Van Nuys is far more qualified than myself to make educated guesses in this field. But Van Nuys himself says that when he was given the Zodiac letters, he knew nothing of the case or even that they were Zodiac letters untill halfway through when the first letter came that opened with ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’. He even admitted himself that some of his early analysis regarding the letter writer was way off, when in later letters he discovered that what he had speculated on was actually known and he had been way off.
I do think that he makes a valid point regarding the killer using terms such as ‘Kids’ ‘Teenagers’ ‘Boys & Girls’ that this suggests the Zodiac is older than them, as it suggests he see’s himself as an adult. I just think he’s ever so slightly older than Van Nuy’s top estimate of 35 years. But again, Dr Van Nuys opinion is one that hold’s far more weight than any opinion of mine, i willingly accept that.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:12 pm
I do think that he makes a valid point regarding the killer using terms such as ‘Kids’ ‘Teenagers’ ‘Boys & Girls’ that this suggests the Zodiac is older than them, as it suggests he see’s himself as an adult.
I wasn’t as much of a fan of that book as others.
Go back to being a teenager in high school. What would you have said? Think about it.
"There’s a kid in my class at school"……"This girl in my class likes this boy"
Just as easily something a young person would say.
I mean, it’s what they were….kids and teenagers….boys and girls.
How about "getting rocks off".
No way…not an older dude of 40+….
entropy, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:24 pm
WC, I’d be interested to hear your input on the "BTK and Zodiaphile" if you haven’t read it before. :study:
I’m aware of the BTK (Dennis Rader) case, and always thought that it was very similar to the Zodiac case. But not aware of BTK and Zodiphile? What is it? If you supply me a link i’ll gladly have a look.
Here ya go:
http://zodiackillersite.forummotion.com … zodiaphile
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:42 pm
Fair point Tahoe. But i could argue that Z’s use of terms such as ‘Negro Male’ suggests an older man as in the late 60’s it was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.
http://www.nea.gov/research/Notes/82.pdf
smithy, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:12 pm
How about "getting rocks off".
No way…not an older dude of 40+….
T., I agree!
But I’m sure that at one point that whole sentence was redacted by LE, since they thought it gave them a big clew as to the writer’s age…. and they thought it made him older.
Go figure!
No sorry, I can’t cite my source. Can’t find it. 
I still agree with you mind you. FWIW. 
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:52 pm
How about "getting rocks off".
No way…not an older dude of 40+….T., I agree!
But I’m sure that at one point that whole sentence was redacted by LE, since they thought it gave them a big clew as to the writer’s age…. and they thought it made him older.
Go figure!
No sorry, I can’t cite my source. Can’t find it.
I still agree with you mind you. FWIW.
They did hide that he wrote that. NOT in the newspaper at the time. He still wrote it though.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:59 pm
Fair point Tahoe. But i could argue that Z’s use of terms such as ‘Negro Male’ suggests an older man as in the late 60’s it was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.
The Negro Male could also be cop talk.
I don’t think Zodiac was necessarily an Opera going artsy type of man.
NBC (America’s largerst television network) played the Mikado on TV. Groucho Marx was the Lord High Executioner. Could be he just got a kick out of some of the lyrics. Zodiac obviously went by hearing it—not by knowing it from reading the lyrics. His parents or grandparents could have played the album while he was growing up. I think we are all affected by lingo our parents, etc. use.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:29 pm
Speaking of the Mikado, i was flipping through the TV channels last night and The Mikado was on. Apparantly The Mikado was running ‘Down Under’ in Australia in mid 2011. Apparantly, when the Ozzy’s aren’t beating England in Cricket, they have a genuine love for G&S. (And no, i am not insinuating Zodiac was Australian, just saying it to point out the play and its writers iare still as popular as ever in some parts.)
Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:34 pm
Fair point Tahoe. But i could argue that Z’s use of terms such as ‘Negro Male’ suggests an older man as in the late 60’s it was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.
Prior to the black power movement starting in the mid-sixties, practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard.
As for apparent love of opera, age has nothing to do with it. I know a number of young people who like opera – most tend to be the geekier sort, which some are apparently in favour of Zodiac being.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:28 pm
Fair point Tahoe. But i could argue that Z’s use of terms such as ‘Negro Male’ suggests an older man as in the late 60’s it was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.Prior to the black power movement starting in the mid-sixties, practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard.
As for apparent love of opera, age has nothing to do with it. I know a number of young people who like opera – most tend to be the geekier sort, which some are apparently in favour of Zodiac being.
Opera for Whom?: A Study on Opera and Audience in the United States
"Although opera witnessed a tremendous growth in the 1970s and 1980s, total attendance has been decreasing. Among the statistics available from the NEA’s 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts studies, we know that one-third of the opera audience was at least 55 years of age or older, making the opera audience among the oldest of any of the performing arts."
Ok Nach, age has nothing to do with it.
And also regarding "practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard".
That may very well be the case. But Zodiac wasn’t opperating in South Carolina, he was opperating in Northern San francisco on California’s West Coast. I’m quite sure Bryan Hartnell would have mentioned if Zodiac had approached and said "Ya’ll need to stay calm, i’m fixing to get to Mexico but need to tie ya’ll up."
"The use of the word Negro seems as odd choice as opposed to the colloquial term ‘Black’, which was popular at the time. Prior to the late 60’s, American’s in the North often used the term ‘Colored’, while in the south the term ‘Negro’ was more common. Does the use of this term support the theory that Zodiac was an older man?" D. Van Nuys.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:49 pm
The majority of opera fans may tend to skew older buts its not absolute. Ted was an opera buff in his twenties. IMO the problem is you rely soley on the statement of Fouke and totally disregard the other 12 or so visual and voice witnesses who put Zodiac in his twenties or 25 – 35.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:48 pm
Fair point Tahoe. But i could argue that Z’s use of terms such as ‘Negro Male’ suggests an older man as in the late 60’s it was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.Prior to the black power movement starting in the mid-sixties, practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard.
As for apparent love of opera, age has nothing to do with it. I know a number of young people who like opera – most tend to be the geekier sort, which some are apparently in favour of Zodiac being.
Opera for Whom?: A Study on Opera and Audience in the United States
"Although opera witnessed a tremendous growth in the 1970s and 1980s, total attendance has been decreasing. Among the statistics available from the NEA’s 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts studies, we know that one-third of the opera audience was at least 55 years of age or older, making the opera audience among the oldest of any of the performing arts."
Ok Nach, age has nothing to do with it.
And also regarding "practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard".
That may very well be the case. But Zodiac wasn’t opperating in South Carolina, he was opperating in Northern San francisco on California’s West Coast. I’m quite sure Bryan Hartnell would have mentioned if Zodiac had approached and said "Ya’ll need to stay calm, i’m fixing to get to Mexico but need to tie ya’ll up."
"The use of the word Negro seems as odd choice as opposed to the colloquial term ‘Black’, which was popular at the time. Prior to the late 60’s, American’s in the North often used the term ‘Colored’, while in the south the term ‘Negro’ was more common. Does the use of this term support the theory that Zodiac was an older man?" D. Van Nuys.
Well, Fouke used the term Negro in the report he made Nov. 12, 1969. There was a transition from using Negro to Black but it took some time, the Black movement had not been active for that long in 1969. Being politically correct was not a priority for most.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:38 pm
The majority of opera fand may tend to skew older buts its not absolute. Ted was an opera buff in his twenties. IMO the problem is you rely the staement of Fouke and totally disregard the other 12 or so visual and voice witnesses who put Zodiac in his twenties or 25 – 35.
AK i’ve explained why i think Fouke’s ID is, IMO, likely to be the more accurate. I believe Fouke did stop and speak to Zodiac, and possibly even called him over as Z suggested in his letter. Fouke remembers a fantastic amount of detail as to what Z was wearing (The pleated trousers, rust colored. The Derby, 3 quarter waist length jacket (zipped up halfway) with flap down collar that elastic at the cuffs and waist. The ‘Engineering’ type boots, low cut shoe, 3 quarters of the way in length and tan in color). All that detail in a sighting that lasted "Five to Ten" seconds at night while driving past. So, because i believe Fouke did call over to him, Zodiac would have had to ackwnoledge Don Fouke’s voice and in doing so, turn and look directly at him while talking to him and even if Zodiac didn’t ‘go over’ to the patrol car, then Fouke and Zealms would have still been looking directly at him as he looked directly at them, from a distance of about 3 yards away. Who else has been up close and looked directly square into Zodiac’s face like that? The only other one who got within yards of Zodiac was Hartnell, and in that instance he had the hood over his head.
I see your point AK about many saying Zodiac ‘Sounded Young’, but the range & tone of a males voice doesn’t always reflect his age accurately. And for me, and just my opinion, when it comes to Z’s age range and i have a choice of, A) Close up sighting of the mans unobsecured face by a man who’s trained to recall such things as height, weight, age and what suspect is wearing as part of his job and says based on his facial features he estimates the man to be 35-45, or B) 5, 10, 12, 15, or even 20 other people that heard him speaking for 10-20 seconds over the phone (With the exceptional of Hartnell) and based on how his voice sounded, he was 25-35… then there really isn’t a hard decision to make.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:52 pm
The majority of opera fand may tend to skew older buts its not absolute. Ted was an opera buff in his twenties. IMO the problem is you rely the staement of Fouke and totally disregard the other 12 or so visual and voice witnesses who put Zodiac in his twenties or 25 – 35.
Very true AK, and i totally agree with you on that. I ment that statisticallly, at least, if Zodiac was a fan of Opera as his Mikado references seems to suggest he was, then he is likely, statistically at least, to be around the age of 45. Now i can’t make that fit Lawrence, he was 45 when the Zodiac crimes occured, and the average of males that attended opera was 45. But as you rightly said, it does not mean that Z couldn’t have been 25/30/35, not by a long shot. And even if it is likely that Zodiac was around 40/45, this again doesn’t prove anything regarding Kane
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:05 pm
t was far more common for young people to refer to Negor men as either Black or Coloured. I could also point to his apparant love of opera and this official survey that states…
"Like the adult population as a whole, arts attenders grew older between 1992 and 2002.
For example, the median age of adults visiting art museums increased by 5 years to reach
45, and the median age for those attending opera in 2002 was 48, up from 45 in 1992.With a median age of 49, classical music attenders were the oldest participants. Jazz concertgoers, whose median age increased by 6 years between 1992 and 2002, were still
the youngest arts attenders, typically 43 in 2002.
Prior to the black power movement starting in the mid-sixties, practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard.
As for apparent love of opera, age has nothing to do with it. I know a number of young people who like opera – most tend to be the geekier sort, which some are apparently in favour of Zodiac being.
Opera for Whom?: A Study on Opera and Audience in the United States
"Although opera witnessed a tremendous growth in the 1970s and 1980s, total attendance has been decreasing. Among the statistics available from the NEA’s 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts studies, we know that one-third of the opera audience was at least 55 years of age or older, making the opera audience among the oldest of any of the performing arts."
Ok Nach, age has nothing to do with it.
And also regarding "practically every white person down South, old and young, black and white, referred to black people as Negroes. I’m pretty sure there were plenty of people in their twenties and thirties whose old habits died hard".
That may very well be the case. But Zodiac wasn’t opperating in South Carolina, he was opperating in Northern San francisco on California’s West Coast. I’m quite sure Bryan Hartnell would have mentioned if Zodiac had approached and said "Ya’ll need to stay calm, i’m fixing to get to Mexico but need to tie ya’ll up."
"The use of the word Negro seems as odd choice as opposed to the colloquial term ‘Black’, which was popular at the time. Prior to the late 60’s, American’s in the North often used the term ‘Colored’, while in the south the term ‘Negro’ was more common. Does the use of this term support the theory that Zodiac was an older man?" D. Van Nuys.
Well, Fouke used the term Negro in the report he made Nov. 12, 1969. There was a transition from using Negro to Black but it took some time, the Black movement had not been active for that long in 1969. Being politically correct was not a priority for most.
Seagull, Fouke may have used the term because it was standard police talk. My point is, as Michael Kelleher points out in his book "Zodiac’s use of the term ‘Negro’ only a few lines earlier seems to to conflict with youthful speech pattern of the time".
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:16 pm
Gilbert and Sullivan who wrote the Mikado and many other operas did not create heavy traditional operas. Theirs were light and or comic operas. There was a theater troupe in San Francisco who only performed Gilbert and Sullivan called The Lamplighters. They did a production of the Mikado about a week after the Stine murder.
San Mateo Times
Oct. 17, 1969
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:25 pm
WC, you are ignoring also the VISUAL witnesses who placed Zodiac as 25 to 35, like Mageau and Johns, who were within inches of him, and the SF teens and the LB girls. And I do not think it is easy for a 45 year old man to sound like a 25 year old, so I don’t dismiss the voice witnesses. Even Fouke said "early 40’s" then 35 to 45. So not only do you exclude all other visual and voice witnesses, you go to the extreme old side of what Fouke says, whereas the average of what he is saying is more like 37 to 42, NOT 45.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:36 pm
Gilbert and Sullivan who wrote the Mikado and many other operas did not create heavy traditional operas. Theirs were light and or comic operas. There was a theater troupe in San Francisco who only performed Gilbert and Sullivan called The Lamplighters. They did a production of the Mikado about a week after the Stine murder.
San Mateo Times
Oct. 17, 1969
Yeah i know their works were light and comical. The Mikado was a sort of Satricial dark comedy. I have always thought thats why Zodiac liked it, some of the dark humour in it seems to match his personality that comes across in his letters. I also think Zodiac identified with the character Ko Ko, the Lord High Executioner of Titipu – The highest rank A Citizen can obtain. Zodiac wore the executioners style hood at Berryessa. A card (almost certainlly sent by Zodiac) with the Cipher Key was signed ‘A Citizen’. (I’ve said before that could be a reference to Citizen Kane if Lawrence was the writer Zodiac) It could also be a reference to Ko Ko, Lord High Executioner, Highest Rank A Citizen can obtain.
"There was a theater troupe in San Francisco who only performed Gilbert and Sullivan". Interesting wasn’t aware of that. I know that, according to Wikipedia ‘The Mikado is especially popular with amateur and school productions." Maybe Zodiac first discovered the Opera at school, maybe even starred in it, played Ko Ko even? Who knows.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:43 pm
WC, you are ignoring also the VISUAL witnesses who placed Zodiac as 25 to 35, like Mageau and Johns, who were within inches of him, and the SF teens and the LB girls. And I do not think it is easy for a 45 year old man to sound like a 25 year old, so I don’t dismiss the voice witnesses. Even Fouke said "early 40’s" then 35 to 45. So not only do you exclude all other visual and voice witnesses, you go to the extreme old side of what Fouke says, whereas the average of what he is saying is more like 37 to 42, NOT 45.
Well Megeau was inches from him yes, but by his own admission said he couldn’t see the man’s face because he shone a bright torch into his eyes before he began shooting, and only saw him as from a side view as he was standing bk near his own car.
Kathy Johns may have described him as a younger man of 25-35, but then picked out 45 year old Lawrence Kane as the man who had abducted her.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:04 pm
And i don’t exclude everybody elses description at all. I ackwnoledge the other descriptions of him. Mike Mageau…"Young man, round face, short dark Curly hair." Mageau then picks out bald headed middle aged Arthur Allen as the man who shot him.
Kathy Johns says her abductor was a younger man, before picking out Kane as the man responsible.
The three teen witnesses in Presidio Heights all collaborated to create one sketch that they agreed was the man they saw that night and sketch is released. Three days later the three are back meeting with the sketch artist making some ammendments to the sketch so a second, older composite is released. Ect, etc & etc.
Don Fouke is, in my opinion, the only one that would have had a clear and unobstructed face to face close up encounter with Zodiac. No light being shone directly into his eyes to blind him. No hood over his face to conceal him. No distance away to distort him, just a clear face to face encounter.
AK so what your saying is, if your car was stolen tonight and teens across the road said ‘we saw him from our window across the street, he was late 20s, early/mid 30s, then another said ‘I saw him also, but i had the headlight shining at me so couldn’t see him clearly, i’d say he was a young looking thought, 25-35.’ And then a Patrol Officer said ‘I pulled up next your vehicle just as a man was exiting it after running a stop sign, i didn’t get out but called him over and told him next time, stop at a stop sign and drive more carefully. He was between 35-45 years old," You would believe the witnesses description and age in favour of the Officers?
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:07 pm
WC, you are ignoring also the VISUAL witnesses who placed Zodiac as 25 to 35, like Mageau and Johns, who were within inches of him, and the SF teens and the LB girls. And I do not think it is easy for a 45 year old man to sound like a 25 year old, so I don’t dismiss the voice witnesses. Even Fouke said "early 40’s" then 35 to 45. So not only do you exclude all other visual and voice witnesses, you go to the extreme old side of what Fouke says, whereas the average of what he is saying is more like 37 to 42, NOT 45.
Well Megeau was inches from him yes, but by his own admission said he couldn’t see the man’s face because he shone a bright torch into his eyes before he began shooting, and only saw him as from a side view as he was standing bk near his own car.
Kathy Johns may have described him as a younger man of 25-35, but then picked out 45 year old Lawrence Kane as the man who had abducted her.
WC: "And i don’t exclude everybody elses description at all. I ackwnoledge the other descriptions of him. Mike Mageau…"Young man, round face, short dark Curly hair." Mageau then picks out bald headed middle aged Arthur Allen as the man who shot him. "
AK: YEARS LATER!
WC: "Kathy Johns says her abductor was a younger man, before picking out Kane as the man responsible."
AK: YEARS LATER! FROM A MAN WITH AN AGENDA WHO CLAIMS THIS HAPPENED BUT IS THERE ACTUAL PROOF?.
AK: IMO it seems you may be cherry picking a little. Mageau said 25 to 30, light brown hair "almost blond". The FIRST statement is usually the most accurate, so I go with what Johns first said, 30 years old in 1970. Hines claims Johns picked out Kane, I have not seen actual proof that she did, and even if she did, its near worthless years after the fact and when shown probably one picture of Kane by the main proponent of him as a suspect. It is not right after the fact and in a line up of other men or pictures. No evidentiary value IMO.
Also you saying Fouke is a liar and a felon. If he did talk to Zodiac, he is guilty of filing a false police report and obstruction of justice. He says he was looking for a black male, saw the man briefly from a moving car in BAD LIGHT. You also say Fouke is super accurate with descriptions, yet while Kane is 160 pounds with black hair, Fouke said the man was 180 to 200 pounds with "light hair". Also Fouke said "early 40’s" and "35 to 45", and you are saying Zodiac was 45 with black hair and 160 pounds.
My only advice, you can take it or leave it, is to always look at the totality of witness reports. You of course can proceed with your personal investigation as you see fit and disregard the first and most accurate reports of Mageau and Johns, and the SF teens, and the LB girls and the voice witnesses, but I can’t follow you there and IMO it ultimately will not help your investigation because it is not very convincing.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:21 pm
WC, you are ignoring also the VISUAL witnesses who placed Zodiac as 25 to 35, like Mageau and Johns, who were within inches of him, and the SF teens and the LB girls. And I do not think it is easy for a 45 year old man to sound like a 25 year old, so I don’t dismiss the voice witnesses. Even Fouke said "early 40’s" then 35 to 45. So not only do you exclude all other visual and voice witnesses, you go to the extreme old side of what Fouke says, whereas the average of what he is saying is more like 37 to 42, NOT 45.
Well Megeau was inches from him yes, but by his own admission said he couldn’t see the man’s face because he shone a bright torch into his eyes before he began shooting, and only saw him as from a side view as he was standing bk near his own car.
Kathy Johns may have described him as a younger man of 25-35, but then picked out 45 year old Lawrence Kane as the man who had abducted her.
WC: "And i don’t exclude everybody elses description at all. I ackwnoledge the other descriptions of him. Mike Mageau…"Young man, round face, short dark Curly hair." Mageau then picks out bald headed middle aged Arthur Allen as the man who shot him. "
AK: YEARS LATER!
WC: "Kathy Johns says her abductor was a younger man, before picking out Kane as the man responsible."
AK: YEARS LATER! FROM A MAN WITH AN AGENDA WHO CLAIMS THIS HAPPEN BUT IS THERE ACTUAL PROOF?.
AK: IMO it seems you may be cherry picking a little. Mageau said 25 to 30, light brown hair "almost blond". The FIRST statement is usually the most accurate, so I go with what Johns first said, 30 years old in 1970. Hines claims Johns picked out Kane, I have not seen actual proof that she did, and even if she did, its near worthless years after the fact and when shown probably one picture of Kane by the main proponent of him as a suspect. It is not right after the fact and in a line up of other men or pictures. No evidentiary value IMO.
Also you saying Fouke is a liar and a felon. If he did talk to Zodiac, he is guilty of filing a false police report and obstruction of justice. He says he was looking for a black male, saw the man briefly from a moving car in BAD LIGHT. You also say Fouke is super accurate with descriptions, yet while Kane is 160 pounds with black hair, Fouke said the man was 180 to 200 pounds with "light hair". Also Fouke said "early 40’s" and "35 to 45", and you are saying Zodiac was 45 with black hair and 160 pounds.
My only advice, you can take it or leave it, is to always look at the totality of witness reports. You of course can proceed with your personal investigation as you see fit and disregard Mageau, Johns, the teens, the girls and the voice witnesses, but I can’t follow you there and IMO it ultimately will not help your investigation because it is not very convincing.
First off, where did i say "Zodiac is 45 years of age and has black hair"?
Secondly, "You also say Fouke is super accurate with descriptions, yet while Kane is 160 pounds with black hair, Fouke said the man was 180 to 200 pounds with "light hair". When did i say Lawrence Kane was the man Don Fouke saw?
Thirdly "whereas the average of what he is saying is more like 37 to 42". Would you like a link to a comment i made only days ago on this very site, in which i say "I believe he’s upwards of 35 years old. If i had to be more specific with a guess , i’d probably say 38-43"?
Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:22 pm
Chappie, I really hope you aren’t so in favour of Zodiac being an older guy just because Kane was.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:43 pm
I wasn’t trying to say the man Fouke saw was the description i believe because ‘it fits Kane’ as i think your suggesting, as my previous comments will show. I mean to be honest, Kane had so many aliases along with several different DOB’s that he may very well have been younger. April 1924 according to one of his ID’s, April 1929 another. If the Apr 29, 1929 one is correct, then he’d have been 5 years younger.
It’s not just a simple matter of ‘Oh well, Kane used a couple of aliases here and there’. Its one thing to call yourself something else, and another to rent appartments and get arrested and processed using an alias. He assumed new identities.
He manages to get arrested, booked in & processed using the name ‘Kane’ in 68, so you’d assume that would have to be his legal name. He is also named in the FBI document as Kane, living in SF.
So, how can this be if, only a year later, he shows up in South Lake Tahoe and is now Lawrence Cane? He is buried in a war memorial cemetery with an epitah ‘Lawrence Cane.’
If he served in the military in 1943 as ‘Cane’, how did he somehow then become become Kane in SF, listed as such as living there, before leaving SF for Sth Lake Thoe and becoming Cane again?
And even if his military records do show him as Cane, like his burial, then where did that name come from and when? His mothers name is Sarah Benjamin Klein (maiden name, Kane), and his fathers Morris Klein.
Most confusing.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:45 pm
Chappie, I really hope you aren’t so in favour of Zodiac being an older guy just because Kane was.
No, my webpage lists my reasons for my belief Kane was Zodiac. And as i said, a comment a made recently will state that i actually said if i had to make a fairly specific guess, i’d say 38-43.
By that i mean, in the post i recently made, i said putting aside my belief Kane is Z, that if i was asked to give my opinion of Z’s approx age, i’d have said 38-43. I was basing this on the apparant fondness of opera. His wording in the letters, ‘Kids, boy, girl, teenagers’ etc. His apparant knowledge of kneedlework in sewing his own cross hair symbol into the chest part of the hood. His knowledge and ability to create homophonic ciphers, radians, & being a seemingly above average marksman. Seeming calm, collected and confident after killing Stine to hang around at the cab to wipe away any potential prints, then calmly walk away on a public street. (I just see a younger, less experienced man panicking more, or at least seeming very anxious to get out of there. But Zodiac doesn’t, he seems like he may be familir with going into the enemy’s teritary and keeping all his wits about him while not panicking).
Anyway, thats just my opinion.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:19 am
Was he trying to be sneaky with the whole Kane/Cane thing?
I mean, if you were trying to dupe LE, the government, etc., wouldn’t you be more creative than that?
Could be he had it changed legally too.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:47 am
Was he trying to be sneaky with the whole Kane/Cane thing?
I mean, if you were trying to dupe LE, the government, etc., wouldn’t you be more creative than that?
Could be he had it changed legally too.
He could have been more creative i suppose yes, but why would bother when changing one letter of your surname is enough to hide your real identity. He doesn’t want his name changed cause he dislikes it, it’s likely to avoid LE & Government agencies in general as you said. You can do that by simply changing the K of Kane to a C for Cane.
Well i thought he may have changed it legally to Cane after he left SF, but if he did that then that wasn’t done to avoid LE & Government, cause it’s the Government who you go to for the name change and they now know who you are. So, unless he was running from something in SF (Mob maybe, although can’t see that as he goes directly to SLT and works for known Mob associate Alan Dorfman.) i really don’t know. I did wonder at one point of he was a Government informant and/or was in the witness protection programe as that would explain the aliases and how he was able to be arrested under ‘Kane’ if it wasn’t his real name, but then an FBI report mentions that if Vallejo PD could not locate his prints, they were planning to arrest him on possession of a fraudlent drivers licence and ontain his prints that way).
Thats another strange thing also, Kane couldn’t have been looked at in depth prior to 1991 because the FBI Doc saying ‘New suspect developed’ is dated ealrly 1991. And in that the Vallejo have asked 4 different Counties to supply any copies of Kanes prints for comparison, and then followed by the claim of arrest on the licence offence if none are found and supplied to the FBI. But, thats where it ends. I can’t find a document saying that they acquired prints and compared them. I read on Tom’s site earlier, in a post by Tom himself, that detectives interviewed Kane and took handwriting samples & fingerprints and that no more has been heard so, he assumes, no match obviously. Well, while he is correct that 2 detectives interviewed Kane, they didn’t under caution or arrest. In fact, they interviewed him at his residence and asked would he provide a handwriting sample, which he did, but nowhere did it mention they took his prints and eliminated him that way, only that the handwriting wasn’t a match and that he didn’t make any incriminating statements. (Said in such a way as if that was not a normal for a criminal to do lol. Also, the handwriting sample he gave them was after while they were in the process of questioning him about being suspected of the Zodiac crimes. Well if he was Zodiac, then its logical, in fact almost certain, he’d try to mask his writing).
So, while requests were made for his prints, i havn’t seen any documents to say they resolved it by finding them and in fact, the Vallejo PD in the report seem to almost hint at having difficulties locating them, as they state that they have now requested 4 different LE agencies from 4 Counties respond with any prints they hold, and then, as if sounding like they are geting fed up of trying to locate them, will just arrest him on a seperate charge.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:02 am
C/Kane was investigated by LE, Harvey Hines, though apparently Hines couldn’t get much traction from other LE agencies. When Vallejo looked at the case again in 1991 maybe they decided to take a closer look and sent what Hines had given them to the FBI.
WC, have you read this Chronicle story about Kane?
http://www.zodiackiller.com/KH1.html
Someone has typed out the whole article for Tom, I do have a copy of the article as it appeared in the paper, so it’s legit. This is the article where they refer to Kane as Krew but that is because they didn’t want to get sued for defamation as Kane was still living then.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:23 am
Thanks for that link Seagull. It’s been a while since I read it.
Funny–one guy mentioned who allegedly bought Larry’s MG was a David Wise of Stockton.
There is a David Wise around 72 who shows having lived in MODESTO and DEER LODGE, MT. 
Surely that is nothing….just weird how things pop up.
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 am
C/Kane was investigated by LE, Harvey Hines, though apparently Hines couldn’t get much traction from other LE agencies. When Vallejo looked at the case again in 1991 maybe they decided to take a closer look and sent what Hines had given them to the FBI.
WC, have you read this Chronicle story about Kane?
http://www.zodiackiller.com/KH1.html
Someone has typed out the whole article for Tom, I do have a copy of the article as it appeared in the paper, so it’s legit. This is the article where they refer to Kane as Krew but that is because they didn’t want to get sued for defamation as Kane was still living then.
Yes i think i have come across that story before, long time ago. And yeah i know Hines looked into Kane, and that Vallejo PD, acting on Hines information, sent a document to the FBI stating they had re-opened the investigation to look into New Suspect Lawrence Kane, and were requesting that the FBI compare any prints they may have for Kane, and that Vallejo PD had written to 4 seperate jurisdictions to ask them to foreward any prints for Kane that they had to the FBI for comparison. But never heard anything after that.
Like there are FBI documents that are almost identical where a Dpt. will request the FBI compare latent prints from Arthur Allen to the prints of Z, and the request doc. is there, then theres one after it saying the test was carried out with negative results. I just can’t find that with Kane, just a request. As i said, Tom claims on his site that two detectives interviewed Kane and took a sample of his handwriting, along with his fingerprints and that no further action was taken and that should tell you enough. In fact, the truth is that yes, two detectives did interview Kane, but no under arrest, but at Kane’s house. They did ask him for a handwriting sample, which he wrote for them there & then, but no fingerprints were taken because they were not in a police station and Kane was not under arrest.
The Detective who spoke with Kane said "The suspect gave us a sample of his handwriting, and it did not match. Suspect never made any incriminating statements while we were there." The Detective says this as if it’s extremely common for criminals to make statements that incriminate themselves when speaking to LE. And showing up at his home & asking him questions that make it very clear he’s suspected in the Zodiac case, then asking him for a sample of writing is not the brightest detective skills i’ve come across. I can’t say i’m shocked the writing didn’t match!
Welsh Chappie, Subject: Re: Why ‘Zodiac’? Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:23 am
It so annoying with Kane. I was in the middle of writing a FOI email for documents and files on Kane’s 1979 arrest for installing and using an illegal phone line. I know he was arrested for that as ‘Lawrence Kane’ (which seems to rule out a legal name change Tahoe thinking about it because Kane started going by Cane when he left SF to move to Tahoe in the early 70’s). So in the middle of the email i realized i had a dilema.
The FOI request asks for the details of of who or what it is you are looking for records for and if its a person, to list their name, DOB, last know place of residence, and to provide proof that the subject in question, is deceased. So, i have been given the details Kane used when he was arrested that time, and so i know what they have the crime and offender details on record as. They are Lawrence Kane. DOB: April 29, 1922. Adress: etc etc. So…
How the heck can i write a FOI request asking for details relating to ‘The 1979 arrest of Mr Lawrence Kane, DOB April 29, 1922 etc etc blah blah, then say ‘Here is proof that Mr Lawrence Kane is now deceased… And supply a link to his details on Nevada’s online death records index that show ‘Lawrence Cane. Born: April 26, 1924. Died: May 20, 2010? They would think i’m trying to get records of Lawrence Kane by claiming he’s dead by supplying records of someone who has a simillar name and that i think they won’t notice? Lol. I thought ‘Ahh, Social Security No, that should prove it is the same man’, then i realized he also had more than one SS No. Grrrr! Lol.
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
Why "Zodiac"?
The Zodiac may have been inspired by the Zodiac watch.
Here are the advertisements for the Zodiac watch which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner prior to July and August, 1969.
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to my report about it:
Project MK-ZODIAC
The Zodiac Watch Ads
Good stuff Ricardo. Glad to hear from you by the way
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
In the bottom left of the second advertisement there is a ‘Mail Orders Invited!’ box with an address of Geary Street. I google-mapped the zip code and it is the very same as the suspected Mason/Geary intersection where Stine picked up Z on that fateful journey. Pure Zynchronicity? Maybe Sidney Mobell is our man…..
Without wanting to derail this thread, I noticed something else on the map that I hadn’t appreciated before. When looking at the Geary Street area I found that Washington Street also starts as a junction off Mason Street, and Jackson also intersects it slightly further North – it is a very straight-line path we’re looking at here. Pure,wild speculation here, but if Z happened to be at 2 Geary Street (the watch shop advertised), wanted to get a cab to the Presidio, and believed the fastest route was to head up Mason and left onto Washington, then a walk to the Mason/Geary corner doesn’t look too far.
Check out my website: www.darkideas.net
In the bottom left of the second advertisement there is a ‘Mail Orders Invited!’ box with an address of Geary Street. I google-mapped the zip code and it is the very same as the suspected Mason/Geary intersection where Stine picked up Z on that fateful journey. Pure Zynchronicity? Maybe Sidney Mobell is our man…..
Without wanting to derail this thread, I noticed something else on the map that I hadn’t appreciated before. When looking at the Geary Street area I found that Washington Street also starts as a junction off Mason Street, and Jackson also intersects it slightly further North – it is a very straight-line path we’re looking at here. Pure,wild speculation here, but if Z happened to be at 2 Geary Street (the watch shop advertised), wanted to get a cab to the Presidio, and believed the fastest route was to head up Mason and left onto Washington, then a walk to the Mason/Geary corner doesn’t look too far.
That’s a good find, worth looking into.
Found this-
Name: Sidney F Mobell
Birth – Death: 1926-
Source Citation:
The ASCAP Biographical Dictionary. Third edition. New York: American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, 1966. (ASCAP 3)
ASCAP Biographical Dictionary. Fourth edition. Compiled for the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers by Jaques Cattell Press. New York: R.R. Bowker, 1980. (ASCAP 4)
Appears he was a writer,Author,artist of some sort
Here is his 1969 address in SF, it was not on Geary
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
Also, he was a jewelry designer(which makes sense selling watches) as seen here-
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg … d=25208519
Some of those z watches were selling for upwards of $100,which was a lot of money in 1969. I think he likely was a well to do or mid to upper class citizen.
Here’s the man himself too-
http://www.wwnotables.com/wp-content/up … sidney.jpg
http://www.wwnotables.com/2012/12/05/si … -articles/
Seems like an upstanding Citizen, but Maybe Mr. Mobell had an employee, or assistant,etc that may be worth looking at??
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
More on the guy. He’s pretty famous for his "jeweled art":
As I’ve posted before, on another thread, I’m a "Bates guy." I think CJB was Z’s first victim, before he adopted the Zodiac moniker. Further, I believe he attended Ramona High at least part of the time CJB was a student there.
The Ramona High Yearbook is titled, "Aries," the Zodiac symbol for Ram. I doubt many new students to RHS would know what "Aries" meant so, naturally, would ask older students or faculty what it did mean. The reply would be something like: "’Aries’ means ‘Ram’, which is Ramona High’s symbol; it’s a sign of the Zodiac."
Simple as that, folks. At least, IMO.
See also: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2648
Darlene’s address book (the address of Frank’s coffee shop), a jewelry store that sold Zodiac watches (and whose address was listed in Zodiac ads that ran around that time), and Paul Stine have connections to that area of Geary St.
See also: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2648
Darlene’s address book (the address of Frank’s coffee shop), a jewelry store that sold Zodiac watches (and whose address was listed in Zodiac ads that ran around that time), and Paul Stine have connections to that area of Geary St.
Frank’s Coffee Shop was next to Sidney Mobell’s Jewelry Store on Geary Street in San Francisco.
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to my report about it:
Project MK-ZODIAC
The Zodiac on Geary Street in San Francisco
Frank, of Frank’s Coffee shop, was Darlene’s uncle. No doubt she was at the coffee shop a lot.
Why "Zodiac"?
The Zodiac may have been inspired by the Zodiac watch.
Here are the advertisements for the Zodiac watch which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner prior to July and August, 1969.
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to my report about it:
Project MK-ZODIAC
The Zodiac Watch Ads
I swear I remember the KC star or another paper our family took had a horoscope titled -The Zodiac – and it was a dark one ( good time to get even ,be cautious around new friends ,type of thing) , my mom forbid me to read it , in the mid 60’s I looked but have not seen a copy in old papers but I recall getting in trouble for reading it anyway
First, I will say I came up with this theory under the assumption Ross Sullivan is Z. But I have repeatedly wondered regardless what created the "birth" of using "Zodiac". He didn’t use it from the beginning, so something influenced it- and I don’t believe it was astrology.
In 1968, Bret Rohmer, an artist, put out a very limited edition book called The Zodiac with only 250 hand numbered in the first edition. It had Rohmer’s artwork for each sign interspersed with poems from a wide range of authors that usually related in some way to the sign. Initially I found one poem from it on Binghamton University’s website that reminded me, in style, of the desktop poem. I could see Ross being intrigued. I went to Binghamton U’s archives to see the rest- they have copy 74, and was able to view it. I have not gone through the poems in fine detail, but most are quite odd, and sometimes graphic and violent. When I have time, I will list some highlights and the full list of poems including selections from Longfellow, Milton, and Chaucer, as well as "contemporary" poets.
Given Ross’s interest in poetry, he may have read the poetry and been inspired to use the name Zodiac. And I checked- UC Santa Cruz has copy #65 (and there are more around the Bay area).
-M
The problem when solved will be simple– Kettering
Also, the poet, John Wieners, from the poem I posted above is quite interesting, and his poems disturbing. The little I have been able to find shows he was in the Bay area (1958-60), and may have made a name for himself. The poet also was at a poetry conference at Berkeley in 1965. He and/or his books could have been brought to Ross’s attention. If Ross later stumbled upon The Zodiac book by Bret Rohmer in 1968, he took on that persona- pure speculation.
This poet was also involved with the counterculture, and that could add some cred to Gaik fans, who I think now has a Riverside link?
His poems as a whole are disturbing, though hard to find. Some are here:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/john-wieners#about
And a better bio here, with some similarities to Ross (in and out of asylums):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wieners
Just a different angle on where "Zodiac" may have come from.
-M
The problem when solved will be simple– Kettering
