I think he might have stashed it away in a very safe place, but since he thought he was invincible, he wouldn’t get rid of it.

His black hood reminds me of an executioner and it is part of his ritual. These rituals many times involve an element of fantastical thinking patterns, so for me personally I believe Z wore the hood because in his ritual he saw himself as the Executioner much like the executioner The Mikado is based around…BUT it also serves an actual function in hiding his face and keeping him anonymous. It would help obscure his identity should any of his victims survive. He mentions changing the way he looks so he won’t be recognized. Perhaps after Bryan saw his get up he decided to change his "costume" so as to not give himself away Before he attacked more victims. He possibly knew that with trying to subdue/overpower and stab 2 people at once the likelihood of one surviving was greater and took precautions by veiling his face more.

With Stine he didn’t veil his face. This may be because Paul Stine’s murder was not planned long before it occured (unlike the victims before him). Did Z know Stine and have a personal grievence that suddenly blew out of control during that ride? Did Stine confront him about something? I don’t think Z specifically requested Stine to pick him up, so this was a random killing – yet maybe they recognized each other after Z got in the car and something went down on the drive?

The ritualistic aspect was not fulfilled when he killed Stine and I believe Zodiac had to fulfill his ritualistic need AFTER the crime (sending in Stine’s shirt to take credit bc perhaps he didn’t have a chance to perform his ritual at the time of the unplanned crime). Perhaps he wanted the crime to definitely look like the work of Z and not someone who knew Paul, does that make sense? Stine’s shirt definitely was a way to prove his presence at the scene, which is a BIG part of his ritual – claiming victims AT the scene of the crime, not necessarily after (unless forced to like he did with Stine). I think Stine was a sudden crime of passion that Z had to make look more like his rituals and a random act of violence by a stranger. Jmo.

IMO

I don’t think it’s absurd at all, but that’s just me.

Zodiac wasn’t big on "Zodiac" yet. But if Zodiac wore the costume, why wouldn’t HE say he was Zodiac? Even with the phone call? If it was to keep them calm, why put a circle-cross on it at all?

I’m surprised anyone could stay calm with that crazy get up, but whoever it was apparently wanted to keep them calm and would have a need to if they wanted to tie them up.

A big part of it for me personally is that (and I know this will sound weird) Zodiac seems like a man who was more cowardly and shot people because he didn’t enjoy the kill as he claimed. I think that was all bs. He wasn’t some super comic book villain with a psychotic need to viciously stab someone and make freaky costumes. To me, this guy thought he was mimicking Zodiac–but he had his own way he wanted to kill.

I know most won’t see it my way. LB was the freakiest of all Zodiac crimes and isn’t easily dismissed–and I’m not saying it should be, but I wouldn’t rule out some other nut job because they were locked up when Stine, etc. were killed.

You always use the fact that the CJB killer can’t be Z since the boot print is different from the LB print (by 1/2 size). So Z is a copycat of the Riverside killer? And the man in the costume at the lake is a copycat of Z?

I don’t think it’s absurd at all, but that’s just me.

Zodiac wasn’t big on "Zodiac" yet. But if Zodiac wore the costume, why wouldn’t HE say he was Zodiac? Even with the phone call? If it was to keep them calm, why put a circle-cross on it at all?

I’m surprised anyone could stay calm with that crazy get up, but whoever it was apparently wanted to keep them calm and would have a need to if they wanted to tie them up.

A big part of it for me personally is that (and I know this will sound weird) Zodiac seems like a man who was more cowardly and shot people because he didn’t enjoy the kill as he claimed. I think that was all bs. He wasn’t some super comic book villain with a psychotic need to viciously stab someone and make freaky costumes. To me, this guy thought he was mimicking Zodiac–but he had his own way he wanted to kill.

I know most won’t see it my way. LB was the freakiest of all Zodiac crimes and isn’t easily dismissed–and I’m not saying it should be, but I wouldn’t rule out some other nut job because they were locked up when Stine, etc. were killed.

You always use the fact that the CJB killer can’t be Z since the boot print is different from the LB print (by 1/2 size). So Z is a copycat of the Riverside killer? And the man in the costume at the lake is a copycat of Z?

I don’t think the guy at Lake B was the guy who killed Cheri. No. Zodiac aside.

But if Zodiac wore the costume, why wouldn’t HE say he was Zodiac? Even with the phone call? If it was to keep them calm, why put a circle-cross on it at all?

I don’t know. He didn’t identify himself as "Zodiac" in the post BRS call either. I doubt he told Stine he was Zodiac, for that matter. He just used it, the name, for the letters. For whatever reason. The point is that this makes some sort of twisted sense – for him, for the canonical Zodiac. He wasn’t absolutely uniform in his approach to anything.

What you propose is that a copycat who wasn’t very particular about copying the actual, known details which were known at the time – was responsible for LB.

What I propose is that Z, who later identified with an executioner persona in his letters, decided to don an executioner style costume at LB.

Neither proposition makes perfect sense. But your problem is that you’re adding something which isn’t required to the equation. There isn’t anything about LB which makes it necessary to question whether it was actually Z. It can be questioned, certainly, but it is not necessary. In my opinion.

I’m just assuming it was the same guy – and I claim that is the likelier explanation, based on the known facts.

Sometimes, (most times)the most logical, and likely answer is the right one.

Neither proposition makes perfect sense. But your problem is that you’re adding something which isn’t required to the equation. There isn’t anything about LB which makes it necessary to question whether it was actually Z. It can be questioned, certainly, but it is not necessary. In my opinion.

I hear ya Norse. Personally, I question what appears to be a man of a much larger size, different hair (wigs, quick hair growth, die and grease aside), and a different voice, no letter claim, and MO my reason for questioning it.

Sometimes, (most times)the most logical, and likely answer is the right one.

With this case, I think we have the exact opposite of what is logical or Zodiac would have been captured a long time ago.

Sometimes, (most times)the most logical, and likely answer is the right one.

With this case, I think we have the exact opposite of what is logical or Zodiac would have been captured a long time ago.

I think the right combo of luck and mistakes, allowed Z to remain at large

No comment on the hoax angle, but I would like to add something to the Berryessa discussion.

To me, the costume was just a natural extension of the persona the killer was growing into. He never used the name Zodiac until a letter at the end of July 1969, if my memory is correct, and this was his first attack after coining the name. So, even before then, he was just evolving into whatever he was going to become. All of the case history, from the timing between his attacks to the more out in the open each of them was, points to a fairly immature murderer seeking his identity. Whether or not anyone lived to tell the tale, the costume was something he needed to perform as Zodiac at Berryessa, or so I believe.

It could also just as easily be that he wanted to cloak his identity because it wasn’t dark, but I think that’s ancillary to the main point, which was his own development. A ski mask would have accomplished quick anonymity if that’s what he was after. He put an awful lot of effort into developing an identity, maybe more than he put into the killings. But it’s all a guess, right?

Paul Stine, I’ve always felt, was an anomaly. Whether or not it was an intentional anomaly, we’ll probably never know. You could make either case:

If I’m following my own logic about his maturation as a killer, then Stine is anomalous because the killer hails a cab, takes it to an urban area with no direct getaway, and achieves an even riskier attack. He’s forced to evade capture on foot, and if you believe that evading capture was or became one of the prime motivators for the killer, then Stine earns him bonus points.

If it’s totally random and he’s just packing heat on the extreme off-chance he’s recognized or compromised, then as a crime it’s distinct in that way, too. But I think it’s more likely the killer holding his hand closer to the flame.

Aside from taking Stine’s shirt, I think his murder was the weakest of them all. He cowardly shot a cab driver on a dark street in a ritzy neighborhood where no one was around. Nothing grandiose about that, imo.

If I’m following my own logic about his maturation as a killer, then Stine is anomalous because the killer hails a cab, takes it to an urban area with no direct getaway, and achieves an even riskier attack. He’s forced to evade capture on foot, and if you believe that evading capture was or became one of the prime motivators for the killer, then Stine earns him bonus points.

he took a cab to a location a block or two away from a giant park that borders on two major highways. i don’t know that he didn’t have a direct gateway, i think something didn’t go as planned and messed up his intended escape route. i’ve said it before, but he’s just riding in a cab until he pulls the gun. if he felt dodgy about the timing or if there were too many people around he could have just completed his ride, paid his cab fare, and continued on. something between pulling the gun and escaping on foot happened to slow him down or change his escape route. maybe stine fought back, maybe the gun jammed, maybe the situation was messier than he planned, maybe the cab rolled away (as many have speculated, myself included). you’re right that hailing a cab is different than stalking couples who are making out in a remote area, but we only have a small pool of crimes to work with, so any change is going to seem anomalous – at lb he wore a mask which is different than the other three. in two of the cases (50% of the canonical ones) he didn’t make a phone call after the crime although almost everyone considers making phone calls part of his m.o..

you’re right that hailing a cab is different than stalking couples who are making out in a remote area, but we only have a small pool of crimes to work with, so any change is going to seem anomalous – at lb he wore a mask which is different than the other three. in two of the cases (50% of the canonical ones) he didn’t make a phone call after the crime although almost everyone considers making phone calls part of his m.o..

We don’t know what he did or didn’t wear at LHR, do we?

you’re right that hailing a cab is different than stalking couples who are making out in a remote area, but we only have a small pool of crimes to work with, so any change is going to seem anomalous – at lb he wore a mask which is different than the other three. in two of the cases (50% of the canonical ones) he didn’t make a phone call after the crime although almost everyone considers making phone calls part of his m.o..

We don’t know what he did or didn’t wear at LHR, do we?

we have no reason to believe he work a mask or disguise at lhr. the point is that you have a small sample population, so anything that happens twice gets lumped into "habits", "tendencies", or "m.o." but there’s not really a way to know if that’s truly the case. i’m coming from a personal belief that some of the things that are included or discluded because of "habit" may not be valid. just my 2 cents.

you’re right that hailing a cab is different than stalking couples who are making out in a remote area, but we only have a small pool of crimes to work with, so any change is going to seem anomalous – at lb he wore a mask which is different than the other three. in two of the cases (50% of the canonical ones) he didn’t make a phone call after the crime although almost everyone considers making phone calls part of his m.o..

We don’t know what he did or didn’t wear at LHR, do we?

we have no reason to believe he work a mask or disguise at lhr. the point is that you have a small sample population, so anything that happens twice gets lumped into "habits", "tendencies", or "m.o." but there’s not really a way to know if that’s truly the case. i’m coming from a personal belief that some of the things that are included or discluded because of "habit" may not be valid. just my 2 cents.

We’d have no reason to believe he wore the costume at Lake Berryassa had the victims been killed as planned, so I don’t think we can make any assumptions about what he wore at LHR.