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.

Might also add that details such as the sketch and the prints (the results of his sloppiness) weren’t known to him at the time when he took credit. He did that immediately/very shortly after the murder (some have even theorized that he posted the letter before killing Stine). * His ridiculous attempt at discrediting said details follows as a response to what had been made public in the meantime, in the form of a follow-up letter on his part. So, in terms of just laying low, not taking credit – that ship had already sailed.

* For the record, I’m not a proponent of that theory myself. The point here is simple: Z wrote/sent the letter very shortly after the murder. He didn’t know the extent of the evidence (prints, eyewitness descriptions) he had left behind at the time of writing. When the latter was made known (in the papers) he retorted with what looks like a juvenile and desperate attempt at discrediting said evidence.

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

Exactly what I have always thought. And I have never seen a wig that had a widows peak.

-glurk

Yes it is, credit, or the infamous Z was disguised in some way, wigs etc., or else it would be a second (or perhaps even a third person)
Another SPECULATION my !!!
But as I said, taking five young people sadly dead, what is fact, all the rest is speculation, and should be speculated.
Marcelo.

Pelissetti’s report said "reddish-blond" hair, but "reddish brown" is what SFPD slapped on the wanted poster. Where this confusion arises from, I have no clue.

"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"

Well poor Cecelia was dying at the time. Best give her some credit for being talkative and lucid enough to have provided the valuable details that she did.

I really doubt the wig theory. Zodiac was described as a big, solid guy. He was already wearing a bag over his head. To suggest he also had a wig on seems a bit extravagant in my honest opinion. He could have had his hair dyed or it might have been stained from whatever he had used to colorize the bag. He may have looked "greasy" because of this as well as perspiration.

In my opinion, the wig theory is a bit like the "skinny guy wearing stuffing" theory.

Incidentally, the reasoning behind the stuffed coat theory is based on something Bryan Hartnell said which has been taken out of context by some people. Hartnell was trying to explain that in his original statement he did not intend to imply that the guy was an obese walrus. He made the observation that thin people sometimes wear similar kinds of coats to give them a bit of extra padding to make themselves look a bit bigger. He only stated this observation as an example of how clothing can conceal some subtle details. Hartnell was still saying his attacker was large and solid, but he just wanted to make it clear that he was not a hugely obese fellow. Of course now some amateur sleuths have run away with the idea that Hartnell said his attacker was thin. He never did say any such thing. But such misreporting and misrepresenting of the facts has become alive and well on some blogs and places like YouTube.

Michael Mageau described Zodiac’s hair as short and curly. Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard described hair that "hung down across his forehead and was showing through the eye-holes." Hair doesn’t grow that fast in less than 3 months. Either he wore a wig or they are two separate people and I don’t believe the latter.

Well he may have wore a wig on some occasions but I have trouble with the idea of him wearing a wig under a bag.

Believe it or not, back in the 70s I knew guys who would put their hair in those plastic curlers to curl their hair. This may seem preposterous, but one was a big, tough, macho guy. He never told anyone and only family and close friends knew. People just assumed his hair was naturally curly and I’m sure if anyone had suggested he wore his grandmother’s curlers he would have flattened them.

I agree, it seems obvious that the Zodiac would have tried to change his appearance after each crime.

As for what he meant when he said he only looks that way when he does his thing, well that could be put down to the rantings of a mad man. A lot of the stuff the Zodiac went on about was just rubbish really.

Wearing a wig under the hood does seem like it would not be necessary and he would be over doing it but you must remember that he walked a fair distance from his car to the attack site. He may have worn a wig to disguise himself to walk that distance and then thrown the hood over the wig for the attack.

I’m not a huge fan of the multiple wig theory mainly because good wigs in those days were quite expensive. The cheap wigs were made of unrealistic synthetics which could be spotted from across a room and not one of the possible witnesses has hinted that he looked like he was wearing a wig.

Their attacker wouldn’t only have to worry about a wig staying in place, he would have to worry about the hood too.

Would one put hair grease on a wig? It wouldn’t be perspiration if it were a wig.

I’m not a fan of the wig theory either, but the different hair lengths have to be challenged. I can buy his hair appearing short, but swept back on top using hair brylcreem and on placing on the hood it pushed the hair forward into his eyes, thereby appearing greasy, which hair brylcreem does. But then we have his hair becoming almost blond in the space of two weeks. So if it is likely Hartnell and Shepard are correct when they stated dark brown hair, and Donald Fouke and the 3 teenagers are correct when they said light brown, almost blond, then when you have eliminated the impossible that he hasn’t got two heads, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That truth being, if the witnesses are correct, is they are either two separate people or Zodiac dyed his hair.

Yeah, you must deal with the fact that the descriptions from the different crime scenes differ dramatically. How did he get from a big beefy guy at LB to a lighter guy at PH? With different hair. Yet we know it was the same guy (unless it was some kind of weird partnership.) So the evidence points toward a guy that used disguises (including padding to make him look bigger, hair dye and/or wigs, possible shoe size disguise, maybe some others.) Could be that’s why he never got caught.

The only thing that makes us "know" it’s the same guy is handwriting and I’m not even confident with that.

The only thing that makes us "know" it’s the same guy is handwriting and I’m not even confident with that.

+1. I agree entirely. Handwriting can be dangerous unless it is analyzed by someone who is a competent professional. As I showed on another thread I proved that a 13 year old relative of mine named Timmy was the Zodiac by comparing hand writing samples. I still have to cook up a clever radian theory that will clinch it. And I’m sure I see the word "Tom" in that cipher. "Tom", "Tim", anyone starting to see a resemblance there…. doo doo dah dah, doo doo dah dah. If I persist with this theory I’m sure Timmy will have the last laugh when those men in white coats come knocking on my door! LOL!

Though I lack encyclopedic knowledge, I thought the content of his letters and phone calls revealed a web of knowledge that only the attacker at all four sites would know. In other words, when he sent in the patch of Paul Stine’s shirt, he revealed something that only the attacker at one of the other sites would know.