About 75 realistically.

There already exists a thread about Z’s minimum age. So far ,we’ve got the following descriptions:

– Z being older than CJB
– still ‘young’ for Mike (Mike did not see him well…no sketch, only a ’round face’ description..)
– Fouke estimating him to be 35-45
– KJ estimating Z to be 30 years old (KJ had chosen the amended sketch out of two Z sketches..the age of 30 is present in two different police reports)
– the ‘mystery man’ at Lake Berryessa being described as 28-40 ( http://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-kil … -berryessa)
– Bryan Hartnell described his voice as ‘youthful’ in one of his interviews.

Also found some description from Mike Mageau:

‘After five shots were fired, the man walked slowly back to his car. Mageau screamed in pain, at which point the man returned and fired two more shots into each victim. It was at this point that Mageau got a look at him. The man was white, 5’8" to 5’9", late 20s to early 30s, stocky build, round face and brown hair.’

And in another article, Z was described by Mike as 25-30 years old.
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop … =43&t=1209

As Mike’s, KJ’s and the ‘mystery man’ description do not exclude an age of less than 30, the minimum age of Z could very well be 25-28 years during these crimes. That would make him 22-25 in 1966 (CJB). His year of birth would then be around 1941 to 1944.

Taking the (average) age that Fouke had reported, 40, in combination with the maximum age of the ‘mystery man’ (40) would lead to 1930 as Z’s year of birth.

Using an average in a way that we combine a ‘closest group’ of lowest values of the higher estimations with the highest values of the lower estimations would lead to such an illustration (at the time of the crimes):

Please be aware that if we remove Fouke’s comments as a statistical outlier, Z’s age would be slightly younger. If Fouke was right, an age of 35+ would be correct.

Assuming an ‘evaluated’ age of 30-33 would place his year of birth around 1937 to 1940. He would have been 26 to 29 when killing CJB. Therefore Z being a highschool ‘senior’ in 1955 to 1958. Some questions still remain..where did Z know CJB from? Having received ‘brush-offs’ over the years..? How did he get access to the RCC library seatm, if not being a student? How could he draw his Z symbol into a 1964 RH yearbook, if not being a senior in 1964? If he was a senior then, was his birth year 1943 to 1945?

I personally think that KJ had the best idea regarding Z’s age..she was about a similar age, had a close look at him for moreless 1-2 hours and was able to talk to him for a while. Mike, with 19yrs, had a bad view on Z due to the flashlight as well as the darkness of the night. Same with Fouke..he saw him only for seconds, not clear enough to even differ a reflecting light of Z’s hair from greying hair, at night as well. The girls, finally, at LB had a better chance to see him at daylight.

No matter if looking into average, median, with or without statistical outliers, as long as someone is not fully believing Fouke was right (if he saw Z at all), in 1969/1970, Zs age, most likely, was 30-32 years. Adding 49 years to that, Z most likely 79 to 82 years old.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2947&hilit=z+age&start=10

QT

There already exists a thread about Z’s minimum age. So far ,we’ve got the following descriptions:

– Z being older than CJB

That would make him 22-25 in 1966 (CJB). His year of birth would then be around 1941 to 1944.

He would have been 26 to 29 when killing CJB. Therefore Z being a highschool ‘senior’ in 1955 to 1958. Some questions still remain..where did Z know CJB from? Having received ‘brush-offs’ over the years..? How did he get access to the RCC library seatm, if not being a student? How could he draw his Z symbol into a 1964 RH yearbook, if not being a senior in 1964? If he was a senior then, was his birth year 1943 to 1945?

QT

Except there is no physical evidence connecting Zodiac to the Cheri Jo Bates murder. None. In fact, Zodiac himself suggests that he wasn’t involved.

There are four canonical crimes. Four.

The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is not a Zodiac crime – not to law enforcement and not according to the evidence.

To answer the OP…the youngest the Zodiac was described by eye witnesses was 25 years old in 1969. That would make him 75 years old now.

Chaucer, some of the things you wrote are simply not correct:

1. RPD Chief Thomas Kinkead contacted Special Agent Mel Nicolai at the California Department of Justice, who assisted the various law enforcement agencies involved in the Zodiac investigation. Kinkead shared the details regarding the Bates murder and Nicolai directed the chief to the Napa County Sheriff’s Office. Kinkead spoke to Sheriff Earl Randoll by telephone on October 17, 1969. Kinkead then sent a letter which provided the basic facts regarding the Bates murder and the written communications from someone who claimed to be the killer. Thus, there was a connection in investigation Z and CJB killer being identical.

http://zodiackillerfacts.com/main/river … mysteries/

Detectives were even searching at RCC for Z’s handwriting:

Police even ‘confirmed’ the connection:

2. Zodiac also referred to his Riverside ‘activities’ (as a killer). That was also known and understood in 1971 already:

Of course, as long as the identity of Z is not known, many questions remain unanswered. But in fact both, investigation and Z himself credited the connection as ‘positive’. Is there any opposite articles / information? If existing, please feel free to share such facts.

QT

Also, not to forget about other varios facts regarding MO, writing confession letters to newspapers (e.g. to the Enterprise), double stamps on envelopes etc.

QT

Where to begin.

First, there is no physical evidence connecting Zodiac to the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. Full stop. The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is not considered a canonical murder by Zodiac by law enforcement. The only definite murders committed by the ZK are Lake Herman, Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryess, and Presidio Heights.

Those are not opinions. Those are facts.

The only connection is one handwriting expert saying that the letters were written by the same person. That same handwriting expert’s analysis has been contradicted by others. Even in the article you cited, it states that the Zodiac didn’t commit the murder, but just wrote the letters looking for publicity.

Secondly, Zodiac only took credit for Riverside AFTER it hit the papers. He could just as easily want to take credit to throw the police off on a wild goose chase or increase his status as a killer.

In fact, he states in one letter that the Lake Herman murders that was when he "began" his collecting of slaves. Why wouldn’t he include Cheri Jo Bates as a slave in the afterlife?

Lastly, CJB’s murder doesn’t match – even closely – the MO of the ZK.

I know CJB has become an obsession with some Zodiac researchers, but the facts are that the relationship is tenuous at best.

Thanks all. I should have searched before posting…I was being lazy. I appreciate the replies.

If we stick to the canonical crimes, then we have 25 years as our youngest age. We cannot incorporate Cheri Jo Bates, as this crime cannot be linked to Zodiac, no matter what our beliefs are. Donald Fouke described the subject as graying in the rear, so this suggests to me that Zodiac was in his thirties. I believe he was between 30-35.

It would be preferable if he was GSK’s age instead of in his eighties. Even if he’s captured, dementia can get a trial thrown out.

*sigh*
Where to begin.

First, there is no physical evidence connecting Zodiac to the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. Full stop. The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is not considered a canonical murder by Zodiac by law enforcement. The only definite murders committed by the ZK are Lake Herman, Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryess, and Presidio Heights.

Those are not opinions. Those are facts.

The only connection is one handwriting expert saying that the letters were written by the same person. That same handwriting expert’s analysis has been contradicted by others. Even in the article you cited, it states that the Zodiac didn’t commit the murder, but just wrote the letters looking for publicity.

Secondly, Zodiac only took credit for Riverside AFTER it hit the papers. He could just as easily want to take credit to throw the police off on a wild goose chase or increase his status as a killer.

In fact, he states in one letter that the Lake Herman murders that was when he "began" his collecting of slaves. Why wouldn’t he include Cheri Jo Bates as a slave in the afterlife?

Lastly, CJB’s murder doesn’t match – even closely – the MO of the ZK.

I know CJB has become an obsession with some Zodiac researchers, but the facts are that the relationship is tenuous at best.

It’s easy to ‘sigh’, it’s harder to come up with some reasonable arguments. An example: You claim that he COULD have mentioned his ‘Riverside activities after it hit the papers. It’s a typical error they do at universities. If someone comes up with some different arguments, 1 Billion reasons exist why those arguments could be wrong (forgetting that the own theory has already been proven wrong).

#1 Ok, but what makes you believe that this IS a fact? There is absolutely no evidence for Z having ever read the article, none. THUS, the authentic Z letter (and yes, even if there is only one handwriting expert…there at least is ONE) refers to the Riverside activities. No opposite evidence? Thus, circumstancial evidence #1 (because Z letter had referred to it).

#2: It was police itself connecting the cases due to similarity. What is the opposite argument, that it has not been a young woman being stabbed? That no letters had followed after the homicide? That those were not sent to newspapers? All of it: circumstancial evidence #2. Opposite evidence: NONE.

#3 Four definite Z murders? Sorry, but I have to laugh. What about him claiming that he had killed a cop? Never happened? Or all in his phantasies? Five people, all writing with the same paper/handwriting/stamps? No cop died? That is so wrong, thus #3. Opposite evidence: ZERRO.

One trillion different symbols exist, but exactly a Z symbol was drawn into the yearbook, too..well.

Look, I won’t continue that discussion as some things might be easy to prove (read above), others possibly will not be proven forever (e.g. the total amount of his victims). But if you believe that Z had only committed four crimes, then you are far away from reality, that is my opinion and I agree if you will keep up with yours #sigh. Well, maybe because we have different approaches (‘life-long interested professor’ vs. ‘systemic Z hobby researcher’..read my intro as I did yours and we’ll both understand each other). OFF from this one.

QT

If we stick to the canonical crimes, then we have 25 years as our youngest age. We cannot incorporate Cheri Jo Bates, as this crime cannot be linked to Zodiac, no matter what our beliefs are. Donald Fouke described the subject as graying in the rear, so this suggests to me that Zodiac was in his thirties. I believe he was between 30-35.

While I agree with your age assessment, Fouke’s description was that he was possibly graying, but it could have been the lighting. Once again, leaving age open to interpretation…or one’s POI.

Talking about SJB is exactly what Z wanted. Spreading the investigation were it don’t need to go. I wouldn’t be surprised if Zwas younger that 25 at the time. I would profile him 21 at the youngest making him as young as 70 today.

**snicker**

It’s easy to ‘*snicker*’, it’s harder to come up with some reasonable arguments. An example: You claim that he COULD have mentioned his ‘Riverside activities after it hit the papers. It’s a typical error they do at universities. If someone comes up with some different arguments, 1 Billion reasons exist why those arguments could be wrong (forgetting that the own theory has already been proven wrong).

#1 Ok, but what makes you believe that this IS a fact? There is absolutely no evidence for Z having ever read the article, none. THUS, the authentic Z letter (and yes, even if there is only one handwriting expert…there at least is ONE) refers to the Riverside activities. No opposite evidence? Thus, circumstancial evidence #1 (because Z letter had referred to it).

#2: It was police itself connecting the cases due to similarity. What is the opposite argument, that it has not been a young woman being stabbed? That no letters had followed after the homicide? That those were not sent to newspapers? All of it: circumstancial evidence #2. Opposite evidence: NONE.

#3 Four definite Z murders? Sorry, but I have to laugh. What about him claiming that he had killed a cop? Never happened? Or all in his phantasies? Five people, all writing with the same paper/handwriting/stamps? No cop died? That is so wrong, thus #3. Opposite evidence: ZERRO.

One trillion different symbols exist, but exactly a Z symbol was drawn into the yearbook, too..well.

Look, I won’t continue that discussion as some things might be easy to prove (read above), others possibly will not be proven forever (e.g. the total amount of his victims). But if you believe that Z had only committed four crimes, then you are far away from reality, that is my opinion and I agree if you will keep up with yours #*snicker*. Well, maybe because we have different approaches (‘life-long interested professor’ vs. ‘systemic Z hobby researcher’..read my intro as I did yours and we’ll both understand each other). OFF from this one.

QT

QT,

I want to apologize.

Someone altered my original post. I never used the word "snicker". I used another word. After I posted it, someone – a mod perhaps – went and changed it. I would never use the word snicker as it is dismissive and disrespectful, and I am very angry that a moderator would go and change my post and alter my intent.

Is this something mods do on this board? If it is, I will no longer post.

But again, QT, I’m sorry.

ETA: Upon inspection, it seems that when I use the word I want, it auto-corrects to "snicker". Odd. And dumb.

I do know that you had actually written "s-i-g-h", no prob. What I worry about, too, is that someone or something had changed it to the word snicker? Any mod knowing what is going on here?

When I write s-i-g-h without dashes, it automatically changes the word to snicker…in a second, thus seems to happen automatically (now) hmm. That wasn’t before (as I was able to read your s-i-g-h previous to this conversation..

QT