Let’s not forget that wonderful hood and Mr Hartnell surviving to not only provide the details from which Z had his portrait done but also the events and narrative of the day partly re-told on television. I don’t think he had the chance to get around to milking it. As to how he felt about that is anyone’s guess. You could speculate that he was secretly pleased it worked out that way and I’m sure part of him was but he could equally have been annoyed for not having direct control over the ‘marketing’ aspect. Perhaps that might have played a part in his decisions on the timing and actions of the Stine murder.

Anyway back to the question in hand. Obviously I don’t know. I’ve tried to think clever thoughts and come up with a clever reason but I can’t do it. The reason I think that is, is because I get half to three quarters through an idea and I just think … nah, f**king wise up this is philosophical or at best creative disrespect. Don’t get me wrong, as an idea to explore it’s certainly interesting but that’s what it is, exploration and not investigation. It’s like trying to solve the 340 by deciding on the content then attempting to work a solution that fits it and you would probably get some mileage out of it depending on how creative you are willing to be.

I suppose if you really wanted to be impartial in this approach you should at least look at all other unsolved famous crimes and decide if they too were hoaxes and on that basis do they have more or less indicators suggesting that’s the case than in … err, this case? There’s a reason why we have the judicial systems that we have. It’s because if we’re left to our own devices who knows what weird shit we’ll come up with. We all like a good twist and sometimes twists do happen but to start out looking for one … well, you’ll probably find it or think you have.

My answer would have to simply be what morf said, they were sick and if they were sick enough to perpetrate a hoax like that creative for that long then they were sick enough to have committed the crimes anyway IMHO.

But who knows? Maybe no murder has ever been solved because true killers are master hypnotists who manipulate others to incriminate themselves permanently.

I should have taken the blue pill.

What is a scary fact is that there were hundreds of fake/hoaxed Zodiac letters. There were people who stated they were Zodiac. These people were sickos who got some sort of nutty satisfaction out of this.

Why would someone do this? You’d have to ask them I suppose. If their letters got published as "Zodiac’s", surely they get some sort of thrill out of it. They pulled one over on everyone.

***
This takes me back to Agatha Christie’s ABC Murders. A sick and twisted game to hide the one true intended victim. Quite a brilliant storyline, imo.

Norse – your ideas seem a bit more related to "normal view of the Zodiac" and not related to the topsy-turvy "he didn’t exist" nature of the world in this thread, if you don’t mind me saying so….
If writing these letters is a an amusing diversion and a sick hobby – not the compulsion of a murderer boasting about what he’s done – how’s about the idea that he just went on vacation? Took an extended work trip to Los Angeles, applying for a job. Huh? Back to being "a citizen" for just a short while? Suddenly, lots of reasons for no letter after Berryessa seem feasible. Well, at least to me. I’m topsy turvy.

Trav. *Gulp!*

I suppose if you really wanted to be impartial in this approach you should at least look at all other unsolved famous crimes and decide if they too were hoaxes and on that basis do they have more or less indicators suggesting that’s the case than in … err, this case?

I Do Now! ……and?

Hey, if ya want an indicator that it’s a hoax beyond the fact that the letters are damn dodgy and increasingly all over the place, no physical evidence or descriptions match each other, the MO’s are different, yadda yadda), then how’s about the fact that the Mikado is a comic play about an executioner who never killed anyone….? I like that one best.
Aren’t the blue pills for…….? (I’ve been using mine wrong?)

What is a scary fact is that there were hundreds of fake/hoaxed Zodiac letters. There were people who stated they were Zodiac. These people were sickos who got some sort of nutty satisfaction out of this.

Isn’t it amazing how many people do think it’s fun eh? Marvellous. That just one of them also might have brains, some access and be a good researcher – and thus be highly successful at it, after a false start (one we know of – there Will Be More – at Riverside, ho ho ho), does that sound OK to you ….?

Why would someone do this? You’d have to ask them I suppose. If their letters got published as "Zodiac’s", surely they get some sort of thrill out of it. They pulled one over on everyone.

Yessum. The guy who wrote the letters in the Yorkshire Ripper case wasn’t particularly coherent about why he did it, mind you.
I guess some of ’em’s just c-c-c-crazy is all! [Best read out loud and in a shrieky voice, that last sentence.]

This takes me back to Agatha Christie’s ABC Murders. A sick and twisted game to hide the one true intended victim. Quite a brilliant storyline, imo.

A brilliant storyline borrowed and re-used by my friend Evan Hunter (writing as Ed McBain) in one of his novels too.
The nice thing about it is we can imagine the scenario working here – for Berryessa maybe – and the logic’s pleasing. We’re here to find an explanation and restore some mental order (if you will) after all. And ABC kind of allows that.
The trouble is, I really don’t see how Berryessa – which is the most physical, ruthless and flat-out pschizophrenic crime – is the one the others are there to "hide". Or the Stine murder either. If you’re going to shoot a cab driver, just shoot him. His job alone is enough to protect your "real" motive… never mind the fact that cabbies are being attacked all the time and indeed there’s been a spate of attacks "lately".
Nope. Not an Agatha Christie story – some nutjob with a pen. (Ha ha – Entirely different things!)

T. we have unfinished business with our friend Dave Smith, btw. I think that observation you made about the writing style of the confession letter and that one news article of his was an especially keen one and needs following up. Apropos of nothing at all in particular, you understand.

Ducky – what does LB have? The fact that he got close enough to write on the door? Appeared within 2 1/2 hours of the crime?
I don’t see that as insurmountable.

If you believe Bryan’s testimony to be correct, and also believe that there was no Zodiac killer, then the LB attacker has to be a copycat for a nonexistant killer, and in proximity to the hoaxer that inspired him in the first place, who then claims the now real Zodiac killer to be the work of his fictional Zodiac. I find that implausible, and it works better if the two are actually connected. But again, if they are connected then they might as well be one.

I’ve brought up that problem to Horan. I think it was you Smithy to disputed it by saying that we don’t need to assume the LB attacker was actually a Zodiac copycat, or real Zodiac for that matter, but only that Bryan merely THOUGHT that he was, by way of coincidence. Is that right? If so, I think that stretches believability.

Ducky – what does LB have? The fact that he got close enough to write on the door? Appeared within 2 1/2 hours of the crime?
I don’t see that as insurmountable.

If you believe Bryan’s testimony to be correct, and also believe that there was no Zodiac killer, then the LB attacker has to be a copycat for a nonexistant killer, and in proximity to the hoaxer that inspired him in the first place, who then claims the now real Zodiac killer to be the work of his fictional Zodiac. I find that implausible, and it works better if the two are actually connected. But again, if they are connected then they might as well be one.

I’ve brought up that problem to Horan. I think it was you Smithy [who] disputed it by saying that we don’t need to assume the LB attacker was actually a Zodiac copycat, or real Zodiac for that matter, but only that Bryan merely THOUGHT that he was, by way of coincidence. Is that right? If so, I think that stretches believability.

D., dammit – this has to be a looong answer. I’m sorry.
I’m not sure which bit of Bryan’s testimony you mean, but I think probably the symbol on the guy’s hood? I certainly believe Bryan’s testimony in pretty much all respects but I do question whether that symbol was there, yes. It may have been. Now! Proceeding slowly!

If the letter writer wrote on the door, that takes down the level of copycatting a notch or two.
I believe that’s what happened. Mr Horan and I disagree on that. (I keep hitting him over the head with the colons on the door, as on the envelope at Riverside and in the first letter and he disagrees with me. He and I have also not discussed the seminal work on handwriting disguise by my friend JJ Harris which talks about nice open circles as a technique. He lets me hit him with these things and doesn’t willingly respond, Mr Horan. Let’s hope he gets well soon, btw.)

I question the symbols existence on that hood; but perhaps it WAS there, indeed.
If it was there, then Berryessa was undertaken by a nutcase who borrowed the symbol, and maybe even the telephone call text, to make that call.
(I think not. I think the writer made that call. Opinion.)
The writer didn’t write on the door though – unless he’s the ABC murderer that Tahoe and I talked about. And I don’t think he was, nope.
Did stranger things happen in hepped-up-with-drugs late-60’s Northern California, than a knife attacker borrowing (very very loosely) a cartoon-villain MO from his local newspaper? Yes, I think stranger things probably happened.
Helter Skelter happened, after all.

Our psycho attacker at the lake doesn’t lend himself easily to analysis of motive, for me, I admit. I always admit that. He was whacko. Cogent enough to make up the ciphers, compose the letters, hang on from 1966 undetected until Berryessa, untreated and unsuspected….? Nope.
Was he perhaps the hooded attacker who shut his victims in a car boot, as reported in the press around that time? Maybe.

Now! To the nitty gritty!
Was it extraordinarily useful to our letter writer, being able to get to the site to write on the door and cash in? It was!
HE was at the site near the time when someone claiming to be HIS fictional attacker got to work, yes. This bothers you, this coincidence? Yes.
Is it a massive coincidence? Well…….

The attack happened in the area where the press was buzzing with the story of the Zodiac – where the letter writer seemed to be concentrating his interests in writing the letters in the first place. The letter writer was a murder hobbyist or a professional connected with crime – and there can’t be much doubt about that (his lexicon, the thread on Gregg, his research abilities, his knowledge base….). Again, if he writes letters and doesn’t kill people, he had some reason or excuse to be around Northern California crime sites. If it had happened near a lake in North Carolina it would be a coincidence that beggars belief but no, it happened in Napa.
Geographically? Not that much of a coincidence, then, that he was there "on the job" or could get there quickly.

How many other crime scenes was the writer near that were of no use to him? That he could not cash in on? We don’t know, but I bet – since I think we need to reduce the coincidence level – that it was quite a few. I believe he had to have attended lots of crime scenes in that area – and that the possibility existed for him to choose one that fit his Zodiac profile. One with an assailant who fit a general MO and look. (This guy didn’t fit the time of day, the weapon, the general description from BRS in terms of weight and size but YEY! he was wearing a hood. Yippee!) Last – he needed to choose a crime and crime scene where he had at least some idea that the assailant would escape. (When did he get to the site to write on the door? An hour later? More? Yes, he could believe the guy would not be caught leaving the area.) Last – so what if he chose this crime scene in his escalating game of cat and mouse with the dirty coppers – and the perp got caught. So Flippin’ What? It would mean a premature end to the little game, but hey, all good things come to an end.

Altogether though? The perfection of an attacker in a hood who can’t be recognised (our writer CHOSE him), the fact that said attacker hijacked the symbol, (bonus, coincidence, call it what you will), the fact that Bryan survived to furnish that description…. ALL this is indeed mana from heaven, yes.

Berryessa was the perfect opportunity – and had to have been for us to be chewing on it 40 years later.

If the letter writer claimed Berryessa and the knife-wielding nut job who tanked Cecilia had been pulled over in a car driving back through Vallejo at 9:30 that night covered in blood, we wouldn’t be here.

I’m sure this inverse logic is VERY annoying to read. I know the feeling.

Re: "if they are connected then they might as well be one" – well no, no no and no. Just no!

smithy et al – why couldn’t lb (stabbing, hood, writing, AND phone call) have been the work of a copycat who was mimicking what he read about zodiac in the papers?

july 4 1969 – brs – zodiac makes a phone call. he takes ownership of lhr ("12-20-68") and brs ("7-4-69")
july 31 and aug 4 1969 – four letters in total sent to newspapers and published in which the zodiac symbol appeared. he further takes ownership of lhr ("12-20-68") and brs ("7-4-69")
sep 27 1969, 6:30pm – lb stabbing

basically anyone paying attention to the events of the past three months would have known there was a serial killer named zodiac who used a cross/circle symbol who claimed a killing on 12-20-68 and 7-4-69 and who made a phone call to the police after the 7-4-69 killing. everything written on the car door was common knowledge.

a copycat would explain all of the differences in lb compared to the others – the unnecessary hood with the symbol, the writing on the door, a lot of uncharacteristic chit-chat, plus the fact that zodiac never takes much credit for lb. only in the oct 13 1969 stine letter does he even make a reference by saying "i am the same man who did in the people in the north bay area". he also claimed a lot of other things that he didn’t do, so the idea that he was opportunistic about this one doesn’t bother me at all.

just my 2 cents.

Mas – once again I think you’ve spent your two cents wisely (and you don’t piddle on for load of useless paragraphs like me.)
I see no reason why you can’t be right about LB – in fact I think you probably are – except we need to make sure of when the name "Zodiac" hit the press….

I still think that’s the letter writer’s handwriting on the door, though.
Call him Zodiac if you like and hold to the opinion that he killed all the others then too, if you must, but that’s his handwriting, I think.

Mas – once again I think you’ve spent your two cents wisely (and you don’t piddle on for load of useless paragraphs like me.)
I see no reason why you can’t be right about LB – in fact I think you probably are – except we need to make sure of when the name "Zodiac" hit the press….

I still think that’s the letter writer’s handwriting on the door, though.
Call him Zodiac if you like and hold to the opinion that he killed all the others then too, if you must, but that’s his handwriting, I think.

"zodiac" = debut of zodiac letter, aug 4 1969 – "this is the zodiac speaking". nearly two months prior to lb. all of the pieces are there for a hoaxer.

the biggest "wtf" about lb for me is the elaborate hood question – why wear an elaborate hood if you’re going to kill the only two people to see it? it makes sense if you’re pretending to be another killer.

Norse – your ideas seem a bit more related to "normal view of the Zodiac" and not related to the topsy-turvy "he didn’t exist" nature of the world in this thread, if you don’t mind me saying so….

Not at all, smithy – I’m a bit of wet blanket, I realize that –

But I was commenting specifically on the "why no bragging in the papers about Berryessa?" question – and the point was brought up.

In the topsy-turvy context – does that question need to be asked? In the boring "Z was real" context it’s a major problem (or so many would say). I suppose that if one presumes that the letter writer was one man (who wrote on the car door, thus claiming Berryessa for "Z"), the question would still remain: Why didn’t he jot down something and send it to the papers? Seems like an obvious thing to do – both for Z and "Z".

I’m almost inclined to think it would have been even more obvious for "Z", the letter writer/hoaxer. His game was purely about generating press – right? The "real" Z is arguably more complex – at least in the sense that there might be a more…seriously pathologic cause behind the whole campaign, perhaps even something to do with astrology and slaves in the afterlife and whatnot. The letter writer is clearly just pretending to be THAT loony – so sheer lunacy in one form or another won’t do as an explantion in his case.

Z = Crazy in a way we don’t fully understand. Craziness possible explanation for silence after Berryessa.

"Z" = Not exactly a model of sane behavior, but not a raving madman either. Raving madness not a possible explanation for silence after Berryessa.

the biggest "wtf" about lb for me is the elaborate hood question – why wear an elaborate hood if you’re going to kill the only two people to see it? it makes sense if you’re pretending to be another killer.

Doesn’t that logic go for either scenario? The outfit doesn’t make sense for a copycat (either) unless he actually plans on being witnessed whilst wearing it.

And I doubt very much that whoever was behind the attack expected Bryan to survive.

For a copycat it suffices to write on the car door. He doesn’t need to don an elaborate costume – it’s utterly pointless for the very reason you mention above: He’s going to kill the only two people who might "appreciate" it.

Who spends time and effort creating that ridiculous thing? Embroidery! My answer would be: Most likely some kind of loon.

the biggest "wtf" about lb for me is the elaborate hood question – why wear an elaborate hood if you’re going to kill the only two people to see it? it makes sense if you’re pretending to be another killer.

Doesn’t that logic go for either scenario? The outfit doesn’t make sense for a copycat (either) unless he actually plans on being witnessed whilst wearing it.

And I doubt very much that whoever was behind the attack expected Bryan to survive.

For a copycat it suffices to write on the car door. He doesn’t need to don an elaborate costume – it’s utterly pointless for the very reason you mention above: He’s going to kill the only two people who might "appreciate" it.

Who spends time and effort creating that ridiculous thing? Embroidery! My answer would be: Most likely some kind of loon.

my thought was that the copycat was trying to "be" what he thought the zodiac was, so the costume was part of his getting into character as "the zodiac". in other words, the costume was for the killer’s personal benefit.

the biggest "wtf" about lb for me is the elaborate hood question – why wear an elaborate hood if you’re going to kill the only two people to see it? it makes sense if you’re pretending to be another killer.

Doesn’t that logic go for either scenario? The outfit doesn’t make sense for a copycat (either) unless he actually plans on being witnessed whilst wearing it.

And I doubt very much that whoever was behind the attack expected Bryan to survive.

For a copycat it suffices to write on the car door. He doesn’t need to don an elaborate costume – it’s utterly pointless for the very reason you mention above: He’s going to kill the only two people who might "appreciate" it.

Who spends time and effort creating that ridiculous thing? Embroidery! My answer would be: Most likely some kind of loon.

I would say the only reason for a costume would be if you were unsure if there would be other witnesses there. If this place was semi-frequented by people in the area and Z knew that, then there would be reason to wear a hood so anyone that happened by would not be able to ID you….that or maybe Z knew them on some level, or had met them at some point and did not want them to know it was him.

my thought was that the copycat was trying to "be" what he thought the zodiac was, so the costume was part of his getting into character as "the zodiac". in other words, the costume was for the killer’s personal benefit.

I agree – that is, I too think the costume was for HIM more than anybody else. But this angle works as well for a "real" Z as it does for a copycat.

I’ve mentioned this before, but if it was a copycat he only partly succeeded in actually copying Z. He used a knife (unprecedented), attacked in daylight (unprecedented), used a costume (unprecedented as far as a copycat would know – Z wasn’t known for any costume), wrote a message on the car door (unprecedented – Z was known to write letters, which the copycat failed to do completely). He attacked a couple (known Z style) and rang up the cops (known Z style).

That’s more elements invented than copied.

EDIT That’s not to say I scoff at your idea – I don’t. It makes sense as such – to me at least. A disturbed individual who "portrayed" Z as some sort of homage – I don’t think that’s outlandish in this context. As such.

The problem is that a copycat who is – let’s be blunt – crazy enough to go through with this ritual for his own (what to call it?) satisfaction or pleasure, all the while not actually copying Z on several obvious points…well, to me this person isn’t the most obvious candidate. If the killer was a loon who donned the costume to play out a fantasy, then I find the "canonical" Z a more likely possibility.

To me, (with LB) it’s more like someone who wanted to kill and pass the buck to Zodiac…not necessarily a typical "copycat".

Be on the lookout for Zodiac. If caught…."it couldn’t be me, I’m not Zodiac. I was in jail/institutionalized/in France at the time of the other killings."

And it could be someone who admired his creepy ways.

Was Zodiac entirely a hoax? THAT I don’t know, but I do believe some of it was faked…by someone.

(smithy—I completely understand your thoughts on Dave Smith!!)

Thanks Re: August 4th identity being published, Mas. I’ve been on both sides of that argument now and I’ve rather forgotten the timing! M’excuse.
Norse. – no you’re not a wet blanket.
A lovely expression that; you’ve been reading up on your idioms and vernacular. Highly impressive!
Tahoe – where do we get more info on Mr Smith?

Re: the outrageous costume.

Hood = for the killers personal fun, check.
Hood = a "disguise" since under that hood he doesn’t look [anything] like the description(s) of the Zodiac which have been published, check.
Hood = with a symbol on it, "so you know it’s me – the evil Zodiac". If there was a symbol. (And no it wasn’t embroidered, an urban myth.) Check.

Whichever reason you might care to choose, he’s a nutjob. No?
He’s schizophrenic and he thinks he’s on a mission from God or from The Zodiac – who has spoken to him from the pages of newspaper articles, saying "Kill slaves and join me in the afterlife".
Why else would you say "I’m going to have to have to kill you people?"
That’s the "Sorry, it’s not even a decision – it’s something I’ve been compelled to do" line.
And the fact that the Berryessa boy is so batshit changes things a bit, I think.

(We’re a long way from "If the letters are a hoax what’s the motive?" But that’s fine by me!)