This is the type of info I would provide,let me know if there are any key things missing-

Zodiac Flyer-
Do you know the identity of the Zodiac Killer? Maybe you can solve the case.
Physical description:
*Likely born between 1925 & 1948
*Was 5ft8 to 6ft2
*In 1969, was stocky, possibly overweight, perhaps weighing 200 pounds or more
*Quite possibly wore black, horned rimmed glasses
*Possibly had a very distinctive widow’s peak hairline
*Had a shoe size of approximately 10-11 inches

I would not clutter the flyer with pictures of cars he possibly drive 40 years ago(people likely will not remember)or with the paste up pics of Donna Lass mailings(they simply can not id him the way writing can, and there is no solid link between Zodiac & Lass)

This is a good idea, morf!

I look at those drawings, and damn they look so like two completely different people! And I am not one of the people that think there is more then one "Z". I just think things some how got screwed in these drawings or descriptions.
I really like the colored drawing of him. I think if they had that at the time, maybe it would of brought more information in.

This is a good idea, morf!

I look at those drawings, and damn they look so like two completely different people! And I am not one of the people that think there is more then one "Z". I just think things some how got screwed in these drawings or descriptions.
I really like the colored drawing of him. I think if they had that at the time, maybe it would of brought more information in.

I agree, they should have emplyed something just like this in 1969. Having all of the sketches together,side by side, hopefully, one of them would be close to dead on, may cause somebody to recognize z

See the temptation is to say that if your looking to a particular source or witness that is most likely, reliable and impartial to get the most accurate description of Z, then part of me says ‘No decision to make really, got to go with the trained and professional observer in Officer Fouke." But the another part of me wants to dismiss that idea and points to Fouke having been proven beyond all doubt to have lied once in the ‘North on Maple Street’ Vs ‘Turned into the entrance way of a house’ claims and so the temptation is to then treat that cop like the cops would treat you if you are found lying while being questioned as a witness and simply disregard his entire account and testimony as unreliable.

But then I think well no because I believe he is telling the truth about seeing Zodiac and now I am just doing that for which I am quick to criticise others for doing and simply picking which bits I want to fit and I try as best I can to guard against that.
I suppose it’s difficult because its usually a choice of you either believe his entire testimony, or you believe none of it. Well you cant believe all of it because he’s proven by his own mouth that he falsified at least one claim in the memo.

Having said that, and I could be completely wrong in this assumption, but I don’t simply listen to Don and Armond as they recount what happened, I watch their demeanour, their body language etc and I the impression I get, one that I could be absolutely wrong about I admit, is that if both know something they are not willing to or permitted to say publically, then…

Armond Pelissetti: 2008 Documentary see’s look straight into the camera throughout his entire interview and even smiles when he talks of trying to chase Z without getting his head blown off. Armond, if he’s lying/withholding something then he’s seems completely happy to do so and will do so looking straight at the camera and the viewer. If Armond is aware of information or events that occurred that night in P.H, I’d say he’d be happy to take it with him to the grave.

Don Fouke: Often looks down or away from directly at the camera. He comes across as someone who carries a burden that he doesn’t want on his shoulders anymore and as he’s asked to describe Zodiac he start by looking at the floor and giving a very big sigh. I cant help getting the feeling that he doesn’t want to lie anymore and has had it with this case and secret because then it’s a couple of sentences later that Don says the suspect turned into the entrance of a house.
At first, and for quite a while actually, I thought Don had slipped up and accidentally revealed this info. I don’t anymore, I think it was a conscious decision on his part. I think he knows something else also and I said ages ago that if a death bed confession is going to be forthcoming from either of the two, then my suspicion would be that it won’t be coming from the conscience of Armond Pelissetti, but Don Fouke.

I am adamant that they both know something of extreme importance because Police Officers on duty witnessing a suspect are not in the habit of lying or making up alternate version of a story just because they feel like it.
In closing I would say, based only on having watched both at length, that Armond would have tbe attitude that the it’s not his problem to concern himself with, and Fouke’s attitude seems to be one of exasperation and look like a man who doesn’t want to even be on camera in 08.

I know this opinion above will rile a few people up as they question "Who the hell does he think he is to say these things about these men or psychologically evaluate them?" To those who may want to react as such, I point to my earlier admission "Having said that, and I could be completely wrong in this assumption…"

Finally, just to show the kind of thing I mean when I say that to me Don seems as though he’s had enough of lying, or knowing something he hasn’t or isn’t permitted to state etc, the following link is for the 2008 Documentary This is Z Speaking, and skip to 1 hour, 26 minutes and 35 seconds of the video (1:26:35) and Don Fouke appears and his loud sigh and head down looking at the floor to me says a lot about the uneasiness he feels to keep giving the same standard replies which are not true because he then in a sentence or so later tells the truth about the suspect actually turning into a house.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI0jnsbZwys

Don Sighs loudly, then when recounting what he saw and the suspects description he can’t look into the camera for the majority of his statement and according to experts there are all signs of someone not being truthful and uneasy about being asked questions.

Welsh, seems you are getting off topic a bit. Let’s try not to turn this into a thread about Fouke or Palisetti,etc.

We have a sketch at the Stine murder, which HAS TO resemble Zodiac in some fashion,whether or not his jawline is off, etc,etc,it has to have some similiarity. Most people think that sketch should have a fuller face, similar to the Berryessa sketch. If you look at both sketches, they do not look like the same person, but when you give a fuller face to the SF sketch, or add glasses to the Berryessa sketch, they start to look more similar.
We are trying to make a ‘flyer’ that could show both the SF & Berryessa sketches as they were, as well as someplaces in between, with the hope that one of the sketches will match what Z really looked like.

Working on some ideas:

Morf, the lower left two are good..although, was his face made more slim? Other sketches are modified think those related to eye witnesses are actually the best. Coloration of the one sketch was a great idea.

QT

Morf, the lower left two are good..although, was his face made more slim? Other sketches are modified think those related to eye witnesses are actually the best. Coloration of the one sketch was a great idea.

QT

Just did this as an example, it can be fine tuned, maybe like a gradual progression, on one side the Berryessa sketc and on the other, the SF sketch, and then making them meet somewhere in the middle.