Maybe he rehearsed them or had some sort of script

Just to note…

The call information about BRS was in the Vallejo newspaper. IF a copycat caller, he had everything he needed.

Not to mention, the LB caller corrected himself: "NO..a double murder"

Keep in mind this is the same newspaper that posted Zodiac’s handwriting (along with digits) where he signed with the "circle-cross".

Both phone calls were received within 70 minutes of the crimes themselves, both used extremely similar language, both routes from the crime scene to the payphone were on a direct route to downtown Vallejo, the second time the killer learned from his previous crime and left the receiver hanging, exhibiting learnt behavior. And unless the second caller had been scanning the police frequencies, who just happened to have copycat tendencies and had Zodiac’s first phone call script to hand, makes the whole scenario of it being anyone other than Zodiac extremely unbelievable.

I think it is quite plausible.

Similar language is easy. Everything said and done was in the Vallejo paper. Of course it would be someone with familiarity to Vallejo–they would have read the paper!

Not sure why he needed a scanner. ??

The Napa caller, whoever it was had two choices: hang up or leave it dangling. Could be the paper taught him too to leave if off the hook or he was smart enough on his own.

Look–I know the majority here favor LB being Zodiac. I am just showing it isn’t out of the realm of possibility. We all argue looks (height, weight, wigs, voice, etc), but seem to ignore the chance of it being someone else entirely.

*

I posted the article above to simply show the BRS phone call information was made public. If Zodiac both times…nothing unique there. If not, then we can justify similarities…that’s all.

At 6.55 pm William White received notification of a possible stabbing and headed to the Rancho Monticello Resort. White headed there, and met Fong, along with Archie and Elizabeth White. They headed by boat back to the crime scene to attend to the victims. Its now 7.15 pm. White radioed in to Park Headquarters to call the Sheriffs Office. Dennis Land arrived via a gated entrance and had Bryan Hartnell on board. Dave Collins responded from Napa 30 minutes later. They tended to the victims until the ambulance arrived. The writing on the car door was then observed, however the time has now exceeded 7.40 pm. So how could a copycat impersonate this as a Zodiac crime from a payphone, when nothing had gone on the airwaves about the fact it was a Zodiac crime. They didn’t know it was a Zodiac crime before the call was made. Only later after tending to the victims was the writing observed. Besides the mention of it being a Zodiac crime would not have been broadcast before 7.40 pm or likely at all. Everything was in the paper, so you are suggesting that the copycat caller just happened to phone randomly with an almost identical message to BRS, only 70 minutes after another Zodiac crime, with the correct make of car, with two people attacked by Park Headquarters. In other words the Napa Caller, without knowing it was a Zodiac crime, just happened to send a message virtually identical to BRS. The caller can read the Vallejo paper and rehearse the language, but that doesn’t help him know a crime has been committed.

I know you believe Lake Berryessa may have been a copycat killer, but the person who phoned in knew it was a Zodiac crime, before the police did, based on his wording being structured identically to the BRS phone call. So they have to be one and the same person, unless we start the ‘Team Zodiac’ scenario.

I think the attacker was the caller. No argument there.

Well, there isn’t a single unquestionable fact which connects any of the crimes to the others in the series. Hence all the Team Z and hoax theories.

For me, the question is a basic one: Is there anything here which is so different, so much of a discrepancy, that it’s necessary to presuppose a different perpetrator?

The obvious differences are at the same time the most obvious deviations from what you’d expect a copycat to do. And so you end up not with a copycat in the normal sense of the word, but an idiosyncratic, strange sort of copycat.

And the series as a whole becomes even more bizarre, even less understandable, than the “canonical” one:

Untypical serial killer/letter writer strikes twice in the Vallejo/Benicia area.

Unrelated and strange “copycat” strikes at Lake Berryessa.

Untypical serial killer/letter writer strikes in San Francisco and becomes national news/gains true infamy after continuing mailing sinister letters to the papers.

He never mentions the impostor (whose actions become part and parcel of his own legacy) beyond a brief remark which may be an actual reference: He either welcomes the other murderer’s puzzling addition to his own body of “work” (which is odd in several ways, not least because he is typically concerned with his image, and he clearly disapproves of certain comments made about him in the aftermath of the LB attack) – or he simply ignores it.

Neither the untypical serial killer/letter writer or the “copycat” is caught, and there is no indication that the latter ever appeared again (certainly not in his now infamous costume).

The thing that strikes me is if LB were done by a copycat why did he change the method of killing? If one wanted to make people believe that the attack on Celia and Bryan was a Zodiac attack wouldn’t he also copy the fact that the other two incidents were committed by gun? It did not have to be the same gun either as two different ones were used at LHR and BRS so no worries about ballistics matching. The shooting of the victims as well as the different calibers were very much in the news as was the content of the Vallejo phone call.

You can’t say that LB was a spur of the moment crime. A lot of thought and preparation went into making the hood complete with the trademark Zodiac crosshair symbol.

Zodiac was not averse to risk, but Park Headquarters was 0.7 miles away, it was 6.20 pm, he had to negotiate the journey back to his vehicle and his exit routes from the crime scene are limited. Plus he wanted to display his handiwork on Bryan Hartnell’s car door, so I guess given all that, the choice of a knife makes perfect sense, if you can ever attribute rationale to the Zodiac Killer.

My wife considers me a fathead but, big as it is, I can’t quite wrap it around the copycat scenario. Were I nutty enough to murder someone and advertize it, why would I use someone else’s moniker? I can understand someone copying a successful murderer’s MO, principally because it proved effective, and the culprit wasn’t caught. But, why then attribute it to someone else? A reasonably intelligent killer would simply keep his/her mouth shut, so to speak, to avoid detection. The only purpose in broadcasting one’s crime is to garner attention. This being the case, attributing your act of murder to someone else is self-defeating.

The thing that strikes me is if LB were done by a copycat why did he change the method of killing?

Yes, the choice of weapon is undoubtedly very odd for a copycat: It’s an obvious discrepancy (compared to what was known about Z at the time).

It’s an original idea – just like the costume and the writing on the car door are original ideas, not associated with Z prior to LB.

It would seem as though the killer used the Z persona in order to carry out an attack that was more his own making (some kind of fantasy he played out) than an attempt at actually copycatting Z: He wanted to use a knife (part of his murderous fantasy – or whatever it may have been), so he blatantly disregarded the most obvious element any “normal” copycat would make sure to get right.

And yet the above is completely at odds with what he did after the murder, which was to make sure that Zodiac was blamed. It wasn’t enough for him to play out his own fantasy, he also had to make sure his crime was attributed to Zodiac (a figure who was nowhere near as infamous as he became later on).

And then there’s the costume. He makes a costume with Z’s symbol on it – in order to emulate him, for whatever reason – but tries to convince his victims that he’s “just” an escaped convict looking for a ride to Mexico (another feature which has nothing to do with Zodiac as he was known at the time). No mention of being Zodiac, the killer he’s copycatting (to some extent) or emulating (for whatever reason).

As I’ve said before, the above is odd enough if we go with Z as the killer – but it nevertheless makes some sense: It ties in with the Mikado business (the idea of an executioner punishing transgressing couples), if nothing else.

ETA:

To make the initial point clearer: If the primary intention was to emulate Zodiac (as he was known at the time), he went about it in a very odd manner.

Strike against a young couple at night, using a gun, then call it in, then write a letter about it afterwards: That would have been the obvious thing to do.

What we have, if we presuppose that a copycat was the killer, is something very different – to the extent where one can legitimately say that simply emulating Zodiac (as he was known at the time) couldn’t have been the primary intention. Which makes the idea all the more problematic – because it would seem considerably harder to explain than a "regular" copycat.

My wife considers me a fathead but, big as it is, I can’t quite wrap it around the copycat scenario. Were I nutty enough to murder someone and advertize it, why would I use someone else’s moniker? I can understand someone copying a successful murderer’s MO, principally because it proved effective, and the culprit wasn’t caught. But, why then attribute it to someone else? A reasonably intelligent killer would simply keep his/her mouth shut, so to speak, to avoid detection. The only purpose in broadcasting one’s crime is to garner attention. This being the case, attributing your act of murder to someone else is self-defeating.

It’s a strange phenomenon. I’m not sure how many examples there are of genuine copycats in the sense we’re talking about here, but they do exist. Seda, the New York Zodiac, being one fairly high-profile example. In his case the idea of paying some sort of twisted homage to the original Zodiac played some part in it.

Others have been known to emulate the basic method of a known killer – but without actually claiming to be him. Which makes more “sense”, I suppose, for an attention seeker: Some of the original notoriety may rub off on you, so to speak – and you’re sure to grab some attention straight away.

The thing that strikes me is if LB were done by a copycat why did he change the method of killing? If one wanted to make people believe that the attack on Celia and Bryan was a Zodiac attack wouldn’t he also copy the fact that the other two incidents were committed by gun? It did not have to be the same gun either as two different ones were used at LHR and BRS so no worries about ballistics matching. The shooting of the victims as well as the different calibers were very much in the news as was the content of the Vallejo phone call.

You can’t say that LB was a spur of the moment crime. A lot of thought and preparation went into making the hood complete with the trademark Zodiac crosshair symbol.

If a "copy-cat", he was a different sort of nut-bag–one who wanted the satisfaction of killing someone by stabbing them to death.

I think, if a copy-cat, he wanted to get the attention of HIS crime and he used Zodiac and his symbol as a way to get HIS actions noticed. What he did didn’t have to be an exact match to THE Zodiac crimes….just close enough. –kind of what Norse said.

@tahoe27 My only comment is that if his goal was to get notoriety on the back of Zodiac’s reputation, why was he apparently one and done?  Why commit one murder and then quit?