Interesting. Your theory would then imply that the Stine murder was planned, and not spontaneous, or prompted by Stine recognizing him, etc., as Z was in his killing disguise. I do think Stine was planned, by the way, because I think Z had his getaway planned in advance.

The PH sketch shows Z with a short crew-cut. It would seem improbable (to me at least) that someone could get a decent-looking wig with such short hair, to cover a head with a substantial amount of real hair. At PH, Z was walking around in plain sight, hailing a cab in the city. A bad rug might have been noticeable/memorable to any number of people before he entered the cab. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a crew-cut wig. Toupe maybe, covering a bald spot, but not a complete crew-cut wig covering a full head of hair.

Suppose this: Z is the stalker seen at LB. Because he’s trolling for victims in the open, in daylight, he needs a disguise – a hairy, combable wig that easily covers his crew cut. Once he’s spotted his prey, he puts on his hood, still wearing the wig, and "does his thing." He doesn’t need the wig while wearing the hood, but since he did need it before putting on the hood, it was easier to just keep it on. And, he might want to retain the wig disguise once the hood comes back off, since it is, after all, daylight.

Z was telling LE the PH sketch was worthless. I think it’s more probable that it was dead-on accurate, and a threat so severe to Z that he stopped killing, than a sincere effort by Z to help LE nab him.

When Z was killing, California had the death penalty which Z would certainly have been a prime candidate for (unless he was diagnosed insane, that is.) I think he suddenly announced he was wearing disguises only when LE had a solid description and sketch of him. Just as he suddenly said he wore glue on his fingers so as not to leave prints, right after wiping down a cab to, presumably, remove prints.

Yes Marshall I agree with most of that, I do think all the crimes were planned, in that none were spur of the moment. Maybe the mystery man at Berryessa should have been omitted from my argument for the reasons you gave, but nevertheless the hair color either changed from Berryessa to Presidio or one set of witnesses were mistaken. Fouke and the three teenagers seemed to corroborate the hair color and description as a whole, so it would mean Hartnell was likely incorrect or possibly a wig was worn underneath the disguise. However Hartnell described greasy hair, an odd observation, unless Zodiac used Brylcreem on his spare wig. The argument for a wig is certainly not conclusive, but the necessity to don a wig appears less likely at Berryessa. Either way the hair color described is different from one crime to the other.
The airplane cement he claimed he placed on his fingertips could be reconciled using trace evidence analysis, assuming the police have kept the sections of Paul Stine’s shirt (and in good condition), it would not be too difficult to determine whether this statement was true. Airplane cement is brittle and would undoubtedly have fragmented during the Zodiac’s tearing of Paul Stine’s shirt and not only deposited on the shirt, but in the undried blood on the shirt and shirt pieces and a simple modern test using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry would easily identify this claim. This would also answer the question of the gloves that were found in the taxicab. They were size 7, so likely too small to be Zodiac’s, but a simple test on the inside portion of the fingertips would easily detect any airplane cement, if these were his gloves (had he ever wore them). However if no airplane cement was found it would not prove they weren’t his gloves, as he may just have been lying in the letter or the gloves belonged to a third party.
I’m not sold on the wig hypothesis, but a close affinity to the theater would afford him access to his Berryessa material and any accompaniment of wigs and still have time to whistle The Mikado’s Little List in his bathtub.

There’s the strong possibility that he did indeed look exactly like the sketch describes and that he did not wear a disguise, but didn’t want the cops to know that they really had his real description

If one thinks LB was Zodiac, Marshall’s scenario makes the most sense. The 3 girls mentioned their guy’s hair was combed & styled. Styled with grease…like Harnell mentioned? But then yes…an odd choice for a wig unless it served some other purpose–maybe to help with the hood??

I have no doubt Bryan saw his hair—so if "Zodiac" actually wanted to be seen or knew he could be seen (daylight)–, and IF there were a wig involved, LB is the only thing that makes sense.

I think the fact Z spent so much time wiping down Stine’s cab was because he was afraid he’d left prints. Later, he tells LE not to bother looking for prints, because any they might find in the cab can’t be his.

I think Z knew he’d been seen, if not by the kids, then at least by Foulke/Zelms. Later… he tells LE not to bother with their sketch of him because it’s wrong.

Paul Stine was the last confirmed Z killing. Was that because it was so brilliantly pulled off, with no chance of fingerprints left at the scene, and a bogus (disguised) sketch and description of Z out there? Was it a "perfect" murder as Z basically claimed? Or was it such a close call, so sloppy and dangerous to Z, that he felt it necessary to attempt damage control? The latter makes much more sense.

I’ve concluded Z didn’t leave intentional "clues." What we have learned about Z has not been provided by him to assist us. The supposed "clues" Z left, and mailed, had one basic intent – they served him (feeding his ego, keeping him out of the gas chamber.) So I don’t think we can take his word at face value when he talks about what he looks like, or anything else for that matter. I’ve also become semi-convinced the Zodiac’s identity is not revealed in any of the codes or "clues" he sent. As far as useful info, his intention was to give LE nothing, period.

What makes UKSpycatcher’s post interesting though is the fact Z’s hair style and color was described very differently at LB and PH/BRS. Completely setting Z’s almost juvenile attempt at misdirection aside, that basic fact is what’s interesting. At least one WAS a disguise.

What makes UKSpycatcher’s post interesting though is the fact Z’s hair style and color was described very differently at LB and PH/BRS. Completely setting Z’s almost juvenile attempt at misdirection aside, that basic fact is what’s interesting. At least one WAS a disguise.

The issue is, Z was wearing a hood,so whatever details they saw regarding his hair, has to be taken for what it is…a possibility,not confirmed. We saw this same thing before regarding whether or not Z was wearing glasses or not under the hood. One person that spoke with Cecelia stated that she had told her Z was wearing glasses under the hood,yet there was room to debate that, so this would have to be the same procedure here in this case. It’s possible that Z may have had dark greasy hair, but not certain. Bryan & Cecelia were looking thru dark eyeholes,so any details are sketchy. It’s possible that Z had sweat, hair tonic,etc on his hair that made it appear one way or another. Also possible that Z had longer hair for the attack at Berryessa then got a crew cut prior to the Stine murder.

Paul Stine was the last confirmed Z killing. Was that because it was so brilliantly pulled off, with no chance of fingerprints left at the scene, and a bogus (disguised) sketch and description of Z out there? Was it a "perfect" murder as Z basically claimed? Or was it such a close call, so sloppy and dangerous to Z, that he felt it necessary to attempt damage control? The latter makes much more sense.

Does it though? If it was sloppy and dangerous, why write about it later at all? Why take credit for it? If Zodiac hadn’t acknowledged it, it would have gone down in history as a cabbie killing by some Joe-blow.

Since I have my doubts LB was Zodiac, I don’t find a big conundrum with the hair.

For what it’s worth, I question eye-witness descriptions. Anyone in a live-or-die situation has a lot more on his/her mind than the color of their potential murderer’s hair. Further, the reliance given a description of hair seen through eye slits is, to me, ludicrous.

What makes UKSpycatcher’s post interesting though is the fact Z’s hair style and color was described very differently at LB and PH/BRS. Completely setting Z’s almost juvenile attempt at misdirection aside, that basic fact is what’s interesting. At least one WAS a disguise.

The issue is, Z was wearing a hood,so whatever details they saw regarding his hair, has to be taken for what it is…a possibility,not confirmed. We saw this same thing before regarding whether or not Z was wearing glasses or not under the hood. One person that spoke with Cecelia stated that she had told her Z was wearing glasses under the hood,yet there was room to debate that, so this would have to be the same procedure here in this case. It’s possible that Z may have had dark greasy hair, but not certain. Bryan & Cecelia were looking thru dark eyeholes,so any details are sketchy. It’s possible that Z had sweat, hair tonic,etc on his hair that made it appear one way or another. Also possible that Z had longer hair for the attack at Berryessa then got a crew cut prior to the Stine murder.

This was the report, written in 1969, and relaying the statement of a woman who spoke with Cecelia while aiding her. In the bottom paragraph,She stated that Cecelia did say that Z had glasses on under the hood. What’s frustrating is, Cecelia also likely saw Z before he put his hood on, but there is no discussion of his hair, which stinks, because Cecelia could have relayed valuable info

For what it’s worth, I question eye-witness descriptions. Anyone in a live-or-die situation has a lot more on his/her mind than the color of their potential murderer’s hair. Further, the reliance given a description of hair seen through eye slits is, to me, ludicrous.

Bryan was very descriptive and had ample time to assess the situation–which he did. Why would he make it up?

Paul Stine was the last confirmed Z killing. Was that because it was so brilliantly pulled off, with no chance of fingerprints left at the scene, and a bogus (disguised) sketch and description of Z out there? Was it a "perfect" murder as Z basically claimed? Or was it such a close call, so sloppy and dangerous to Z, that he felt it necessary to attempt damage control? The latter makes much more sense.

Does it though? If it was sloppy and dangerous, why write about it later at all? Why take credit for it? If Zodiac hadn’t acknowledged it, it would have gone down in history as a cabbie killing by some Joe-blow.

I’ll ask the opposite question: Why stop killing as Z?

What I meant was, it was sloppy and dangerous at the crime scene. Prints that had to be wiped away, necessitating Z hanging around the cab in view of witnesses, being (at minimum) spotted by police, and so on. Once he had gotten out of there he was basically safe, and he laid low.

I do understand your point though. If he thought the sketch was dangerous to him, why elevate the scrutiny (and circulation of the sketch) by identifying it as Z? My thoughts are thus: First, Z loved the attention, and killing Paul and not claiming him would’ve been a complete waste – a total failure. Sort of like a guy who goes to work for a month and then doesn’t bother to pick up his pay check. Second, as we’ve learned ourselves, there are ten thousand guys who fit that description and basically match that sketch. That, by itself, outside the context of another violent crime being committed, wouldn’t be enough to nail him. Maybe he got a big kick out of seeing his likeness all over the newspapers. Even better than seeing "Zodiac buttons" around town.

LHR (timing, with all the people/cars around at the same approximate time), LB (daytime, in the open) and PH (right in the city) were all dangerous. But Z didn’t come close to being caught, or well-described, until PH. He claimed credit, but then he stopped killing. In my opinion, PH was a game-changer to Z, likely because of the witnesses and that sketch.

Tahoe: Please re-read my post. I didn’t infer that Hartnell "made up" his description of Z. What I said was, that people threatened by imminent danger can’t be expected to give an accurate description of those threatening them. Plus, I don’t care how much time he had to eyeball Z, it is simply ludicrous to expect he can detail the color and texture of his hair, and whether he wore glasses. I’ve met Hartnell, and I can guarantee he doesn’t have X-Ray vision.

Tahoe: Please re-read my post. I didn’t infer that Hartnell "made up" his description of Z. What I said was, that people threatened by imminent danger can’t be expected to give an accurate description of those threatening them. Plus, I don’t care how much time he had to eyeball Z, it is simply ludicrous to expect he can detail the color and texture of his hair, and whether he wore glasses. I’ve met Hartnell, and I can guarantee he doesn’t have X-Ray vision.

He clearly explains how and why he was able to come to his (very detailed) conclusions. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

For a little while, Bryan didn’t seem to think anything violent was going to happen–he even had quite the conversation. If you don’t think he made it up, do you think he was simply delusional? –Asking genuinely.

And if you met him, did you tell him you thought he was (more than likely in your mind) incorrectly describing his attacker?

Tahoe: Please re-read my post. I didn’t infer that Hartnell "made up" his description of Z. What I said was, that people threatened by imminent danger can’t be expected to give an accurate description of those threatening them. Plus, I don’t care how much time he had to eyeball Z, it is simply ludicrous to expect he can detail the color and texture of his hair, and whether he wore glasses. I’ve met Hartnell, and I can guarantee he doesn’t have X-Ray vision.

He clearly explains how and why he was able to come to his (very detailed) conclusions. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

For a little while, Bryan didn’t seem to think anything violent was going to happen–he even had quite the conversation. If you don’t think he made it up, do you think he was simply delusional? –Asking genuinely.

And if you met him, did you tell him you thought he was (more than likely in your mind) incorrectly describing his attacker?

I tend to agree Tahoe. Typically the most vital information taken from a victim is right after the crime and before they fall into any sort of state of mind that would hinder their memory of the event. People are well
Aware of the trauma they have just endured. I think we need to take their word for it. The first account, in cases like this, seems to often be the most valuable. The longer time passes by the more likelihood there is for the victim’s to recall things incorrectly regarding the nature of events. They may lose info due to trauma or begin to incorrectly recall the events in accordance with whatever helps them psychologically handle what happened to them.