Didn’t want to derail the other thread (which is about the possible motive for perpetrating a hoax), so I’m starting this one in order to make the following observation:
BRS/phone call:
At 00:10 a female calls VPD and reports that shots have been fired. * Nancy Slover (the recipient of this call) passes the info on to the RO (Radio Operator) on duty who then proceeds to contact officer Hoffman, who in his turn reports to the crime scene.
Darlene Ferrin and Mike M arrive at the hospital at 00:38. Approximately two minutes later someone calls Nancy Slover and claims to be responsible for the attack. Among the things he says to her is that the victims were shot with a 9MM Luger.
The first police report regarding the incident was written at 05:15 (by Hoffman).
Now, the obvious question is this: How did the caller know what weapon was used unless he was, in fact, the killer? Who would know about the 9MM Luger and be in a position to make the call less than half an hour after the cops arrived at the scene?
Was the 9MM detail included in a radio communication someone could have picked up? It obviously wasn’t mentioned by Slover/the RO. The only other radio communication on record is Hoffman’s call to have an ambulance sent to the crime scene.
* Actually, what this person reported (as per Slover’s report) was that "two juveniles were being shot at" (which would indicate that she didn’t simply hear the shots, but observed the attack more directly, or at least possessed some information beyond the bare fact that someone was firing at someone else).
i’ve often wondered if the killer/caller had a police scanner and the delay in making the calls was due to him waiting to hear of the incident on the scanner rather than the often presumed theory that he headed somewhere else (home?) first.
one easy way to stay in "hoax mode" is to assume the killer was the caller but not the letter writer.
Yes…it sort of works. It would seem to connect the actual murders, though – which isn’t good if we’re staying in hoax mode: The caller mentions LHR. Plus, there’s a pretty big similarity between BRS and LB in this regard: The call connects those scenes in one way or another, it would seem. And if the connection is the same killer + caller, then there isn’t much left of a proper hoax theory:
1. The same person is actually responsible for several crimes.
2. It’s much harder to accept a letter writer who takes credit for the "work" of one and the same killer (without said killer’s consent) than to accept a hoaxer who picks unrelated crimes to take credit for. Well, in my opinion anyway. The former isn’t a pure hoax, at any rate, if by that we understand an attempt to create a serial killer (where none actually exists). If the former is true, then there IS a serial killer at work.
MOVED FROM THE "MOTIVE" THREAD:
Smithy wrote:1) The letter writer got to that scene and wrote on that door. Anything else (the attacker was an expert forger even while covered in blood, hyperventilating with excitement) – seems a little stoopid, don’t it.
2) How many cars were at the scene – let’s count them. Ummm, the one the writer turned up in (presumably – unless he was in a police car or an ambulance) -the LE vehicles and Bryans. It wasn’t a Sears parking lot. Not a wide choice…. And:
3) He wrote on Bryans – the only one there that fitted the kind of car likely to be being driven by a couple of college kids. Parked very very close to the attack scene. Any aspiring detectives on this thread? Think you might have also found it? I think perhaps you would.
5) Scanner? I don’t know. Maybe. I like the human touch, personally. But there was a scanner in use at Lake Herman Road. Anyone remember?
1. We don’t know that he was hyperventilating with excitement. What we know is that Bryan perceived him as being nervous. We have no idea what exact state he was in when he got back to the car. He seemingly walked away calmly after he had finished stabbing CS.
2/3/5. Not the point. The point is that there is – as Horan correctly points out – a discrepancy between the location the rangers were sent to (as per the dispatch) and the actual crime scene. The dispatch concerned the location of the Whites, not the location of "Zodiac Island" (or the access point on the road above).
If you were listening in on the police band, you’d have no way of knowing where the victims (and Bryan’s car) actually were. You’d assume they were at Rancho Monticello (where White, the ranger, was sent to meet up with Mr. and Mrs. White, the resort…whatever they were), not at "Zodiac Island". You’d assume, in short, that if there happened to be a car around you could do some writing on *, it would be near the Rancho Monticello resort – and I don’t think the actual location of Bryan’s car fits that bill.
Now, considerably later that evening, White did radio after an ambulance (and the cops) – and THAT communication may have been picked up, certainly. But then the time frame shrinks ** and the amount of people present at the scene – and en route to the scene – increases dramatically.
* Which might be called a pure assumption indeed, by the way, because there’s no reason to believe that any car was mentioned in the dispatch. So, we’re dealing with a hoaxer/prankster who sits around listening to the emergency frequency and who springs into action, having learned that a young couple have been attacked, and heads for what he believes is the crime scene (but it isn’t) in order to write a message on a car which he presumes will be there (but he can’t possibly know that).
** The call from the car wash was made at 19:40. That has to be taken into account unless one proposes that the caller and the writer were two different people.
Some thoughts on the time line here:
Ranger White received the dispatch at around seven (1900 hrs). He then went to Rancho Monticello where he met up with the other Whites (no relation, as the report specifies!) and Fong. They then proceeded to the crime scene in a boat.
* How long did all this take?
When they arrived they checked on CS, then Land arrived by car, having picked up BH. Then White radioed for an ambulance.
* When exactly or approximately did he get on the radio?
They then continued to take care of the victims as best they could – and then, finally, the ambulance arrived.
* When exactly or approximately did the ambulance arrive (at the crime scene)? And when (ex. or appr.) did it leave again?
The ambulance arrived at Queen Valley hospital at 20:50 (definite).
Somewhere in the middle of all this the call was placed from the car wash – at 19:40 (definite).
Furthermore:
Narlow and Lonergan were contacted at 20:20. They did not go to the crime scene but to the hospital. At 20:35 Narlow was informed that a call had been made from the car wash. He dispatched Hal Snook to this location.
Narlow and Lonergan arrived at the crime scene at 23:54. At this point said scene was guarded by uniformed officers, supervised by Ray Land and David Collins.
It is stated explicitly that the investigating officers looked at Bryan’s car and that they were awaiting the arrival of Sgt Butler (the photographer) and Hal Snook.
Alright. So far so good.
I don’t have much to add that I haven’t said before, but I think it’s amusing that we have gone from "There is no Zodiac killer" to "There is a serial killer who calls himself Zodiac, makes phone calls, writes letters…but some of the letters might be from someone else." That is pretty much back at square one, right?
But really this doesn’t discount the whole idea, if you are willing to consider only the possible instead of the known and let imagination fill in all the details, which it generally does that.
I think we can say that it is in the realm of possibility for someone who was not the killer, but was at the crime scene, to have observed the nine mm. ammo.
Unlikely since that is not usually how it is done and it’s not in the police reports, but possible. The idea that it went out over the radio seems unlikely because again, it’s not in the report.
The paramedics could have this knowledge, but they couldn’t have made the phone call. Not permitted in the timeline.
That leaves either the police, or some unmentioned bypasser/ newspaper reporter, etc. that was told about it, with the possible knowledge of the ammo and the means to place the phone call.
I don’t have much to add that I haven’t said before, but I think it’s amusing that we have gone from "There is no Zodiac killer" to "There is a serial killer who calls himself Zodiac, makes phone calls, writes letters…but some of the letters might be from someone else." That is pretty much back at square one, right?
pretty much, but it was still a good exercise in looking at things from a different perspective.
Agree with all of that.
And I’m not a proponent of the hoax theory, if there should be any doubt about that. I’m more interested in debunking it than anything. But, as masootz suggests, I think it’s a good way to look at the facts from a different perspective.
LB does seem to prove more of a problem. Unless you want to count Land in on it. I don’t see how the timeline can work out for a person to come up and write on the car who wasn’t present for the attack. Is this guy supposed to have showed up before White?
With BRS it seems like it would have to be a person who had a reason to be there, not so much here. A reporter showing up before police would certainly be viewed with suspicion.
If you want to put it on Snook, the idea is that the writing was never on there until after he got there, but I don’t know how believable that is.
Hi-
The weak thing about the hoax theory is that the power-assertive profile of Zodiac not only explains the crimes and the manner in which they were committed but also the killer’s need to boast about them through phone calls and letters. So the letters and crimes make sense when viewed as a single entity committed by a power-assertive killer. The profile captures both sides of the case.
Mike
Mike Rodelli
Author, The Hunt for Zodiac; 3.9 stars on Amazon and
In The Shadow of Mt. Diablo: The Shocking True Identity of the Zodiac Killer, a second edition in print format. 4.3 Amazon stars and great Editorial reviews. Twitter:@mikerodelli
Who would know about the 9MM Luger and be in a position to make the call less than half an hour after the cops arrived at the scene?
If the gun was not recovered, how was it determined that it was a Luger? Was it purely based on the phone call reveal. Seems I had read somewhere that there was some doubt about the weapon being a Luger, due to the fact concerning the number of shells found at the scene vs the number of bullets the Luger holds.
Also, I can recall police scanners in the late 60s. Extremely popular and constantly listened to by the general public as well as newspaper reporters, photographers, etc. Police would give out a lot more info over the air than they do now.
Any one know the name of the dentist and the age of the son. When I used the search function on this site I was surprised by the amount of hits dentist had.
Cherrs 
Who would know about the 9MM Luger and be in a position to make the call less than half an hour after the cops arrived at the scene?
If the gun was not recovered, how was it determined that it was a Luger?
It was not determined to factually be a Luger, although one of the police reports does say it is. There is no way to determine that, but since that is what the phone call said, I assume that they just assumed it to be correct, since nothing shows to the contrary.
The Luger could hold 8 rounds in the clip and one more in the chamber. The DOJ reports nine shells and 8 slugs recovered, which is confirmed in the VPD evidence log, and nine wounds on the victims, which fits if he fired a fully loaded Luger until empty and didn’t miss.
In Graysmith he lists the gun as a Browning. I don’t know how he figured that, but that is one of the guns that was checked out from a suspect. That’s probably where he got that from. He notes that it holds 13 rounds, which fits with his version of the story that has Darlene getting shot nine times, "two bullets..in the right arm, and two in the left arm. five bullets hit her in the right side of her back." and then has her shot two more times, and two more for Mike, which if you keep his real total of 4, that adds up to his 13 bullets.
discussion moved from zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=1441&start=867 thread
Found this interesting paper written by somebody mentioning Ross, just skimmed thru it:
Well that was certainly an interesting read, though a LOT of his info and pics are seriously flawed. Kudos to that guy for trying though……
Yes, it was entertaining alright. I think it’s worthy of an appearance in the hoax thread, since that’s what it pertains to, overall.
So I’ll move my comments over there
A lot of names in there and plausible military background linkage.
Not sure how many flaws and assumptions are made but it deserves some deconstruction, I feel.
The possible folly of this arises after searching for commentary about the papers author and
finding a fairly generous helping of mistrust and ill review on the internet about him
along the lines of conjecture, presumption, and superiority complex.
He does seem quite accomplished though, intellectually, and indeed a kind of polymath – not too unlike some of the actual suspects in these cases.
Although how is the reader expected to know what’s right and what’s wrong in this without following up and checking the names.
The only z case I’ve had time to really study so far is the LHR one, and there seems to be a lot of dismissal/alteration of facts and simplification from his perspective.
eg. Why would a ranchers wife travel at night alone down a dark road and not hear the shots next door he writes.
As much as I’d understood from the PR, Stella Borges drove with 2 others; mother/mother in law? and other daughter to pick up her son who was at a show.
This was not that late, a Friday, start of school holidays, and with the excitement and anticipation that a fast approaching Christmas can bring, specially on a crisp night. I can just see them loading up for a casual jaunt down the road. A ladies outing, of sorts. Not odd, given those considerations, as far as I can see.
Secondly, it was their road. They lived on it. If it was dark, then that’s how it was. They had no choice, and why would they have cause for suspicion anyway. Living there, they would’ve travelled along that road hundreds of times without incident. It does seem a more innocent and trusting time. Lots of folks didn’t lock their doors, left their car windows down, etc.
What is interesting (and I know this is getting into a new area but) if Stella was the victims discoverer, which we are lead to believe, and she was with 2 others at the time, why weren’t they (or at least the 1 other adult) questioned and their statement(s) in the PR too? Another gap in police work?
Lastly, they lived nearly three miles away from the CS, across undulating hills. Not exactly next door. And with hunters often about, and ones that apparently pulled into the property next door to them, if they did hear an occasional crack on the wind, why wouldn’t they chalk it up to business as usual. Or teenagers doing something, as they seemed to often frequent the lake area for whatever reason too.
It’s this sort of re-writing of history that makes me sceptical about anything else there.
Who knows, maybe the truth doesn’t require some of the superfluous facts that the event generated, and his presentation simply weeds out that ‘noise’.
Of course, to accept his overall argument, puts you into the tricky area of conspiracy, and I’m not sure that’s where we need to go.
Then it becomes something like JFK, alien autopsies, and so forth.
He seems to have a conflicting take on the government, from other things I’ve read.
And let’s not even start on his ‘Pi equals 4’ paper.
But not a CIA fan, to say the least.
The military background connection he pushes does make a plausible scenario though so not total madness.
Just an immense task to debunk.
Talon wrote:
Who would know about the 9MM Luger and be in a position to make the call less than half an hour after the cops arrived at the scene?If the gun was not recovered, how was it determined that it was a Luger?
I’ve always assumed that the caller/killer/writer was referring to the ammunition used in the shootings, not the brand of firearm! I guess most people that aren’t familiar with handguns won’t realize this but there are 2 different types of 9MM ammo. One type is a 9MM Luger and the other type is 9MM Makarov. They are very similar but you can’t fire a 9MM Luger thru a gun designed to shoot 9MM Makarov rounds and vice versa. A 9MM Luger is 9×19 mm and fires a .355" diameter bullet. The 9MM Markarov is 9x18mm and fires a .366" diameter bullet.
So, what i’ve always thought is that whenever Z mentioned a 9MM Luger he was indeed specifying the exact type of ammo used. He used a 9MM Luger and not a 9MM Makarov. I hope this isn’t difficult to understand and helps clear up some misconceptions about why Z stated 9MM Luger and not just 9MM!
