So are you of the belief that someone was using the cover of The Z., like a comic book villain, at each of the attacks?

Victor, my working theory so far is pretty close to that of that guy Horan whats-his-name. Nearly. It will make your head ache. It’s:
1) The letters are all phony. "A writer" was at work. So:
2) The crimes are all seperate and distinct, thus:
3) The one appearance of "The Zodiac" in full regalia at Berryeassa (comic-book villain style) was either:
a) Someone in "copycat" gear (with that symbol on), and "being the best Zodiac he could be" – seduced by the newspaper stories… or
b) The "Zodiac killer" himself, having decided to claim some previous crimes, but actually directly and physically involved only in this one…

The implication is that:
1) To get the level of detail necessary to convince the authorities that he was a murderer, after LHR and BRS, the writer needed access to good inside information. Maybe. (Even the first two letters aren’t actually that stunning in terms of the "facts" they pretend to reveal.)
2) To write on the door at Berryessa the writer had to be there….or that door is a VERY good forgery. Which it isn’t. And:
3) The writer had to have access to the SF Coroner’s Office to lift evidence – and chose the shirt material from the Stine case. We’ll talk about that later.

Where I think we may differ at the moment, whats-his-name and I, is that I’m not quite as sure of the writer’s identity as he appears to be (but then he may have some hand-writing samples I don’t), and I’m not sure at all about the motives which would need to be in play. Not Sure At All.

Now – this convoluted theory has two major difficulties with the physical evidence in the case. The biggest problem’s Berryessa, for me. And the door.

Giving a false identity and wearing a disguise helps for no other reason whatsoever than being identified later by living victim. (Making endless assumptions trying to prove the "lone nut" theory) Assuming the attacker was just being precautious, he could have been more precautious had he skipped the obvious lie and disguise and gone for their jugulars before he left. Assuming he wasn’t experienced enough. Well, he got CJB right.

Yes, and yes, and maybe.
In the topsy-turvy world of the hoax, CJB was a claim, not a crime that the writer actually committed – see?
It’s Irrelevent. Just an early practise in letter writing, (which was good – very well written, that Confession letter – almost professional) – but still not impressive enough to interest the newspapers for any length of time, or the Riverside PD. No takers. No believers. No cipher. A damp squib.

So if this is a single attack – Berryessa – by someone who wants to establish themselves as "The Zodiac" complete with insignia, to continue the "series" of attacks – he needs to do what?
I’d suggest he needed to continue aspects of the earlier MO. He needed to be just like the guy in the newspapers, after all, so:

1) He needed to attack a couple "in a romantic situation". That’s the famous Zodiac MO ain’t it?
If we think that through with what WE know – not what was in the papers – we know that well, David and Betty weren’t exactly romancing. At 17 and 16? They were holding hands and necking. That was it. They weren’t getting it on. But that’s not the impressions from the newspaper "series" is it? From the public "face" of the evil Zodiac? Hey – and Mike and Darlene weren’t necking either – or more – since they were in that car park for a business transaction – probably. Hmm, so his actually finding a couple who were doing the wild thing by the lake at the end of the day? Attacking them? Very good.
He fulfilled the "attacks lone couples in make-out spots" part of the MO perfectly. Didn’t he.
Did he?
Funny, eh?

(The writer later chose Stine – he didn’t care about MO’s – just about staying in the newspaper. Bombs, shooting kids, you name it.
Is the logic there completely backward? Occam’s razor will come take off my head, perhaps.)

2) The attacker at Berryessa needed to look like the attacker at BRS. The description in the newspapers. Or perhaps in the police materials. Maybe.
Several facts about that attacker came out. He was described as a "young heavyset white male adult" (5th July VTH), then by Mike himself (probably) as "A stocky young white man" driving a brown car. Later still (6th July VTH). "Short and heavy-set" (8th July VTH).
By 19th August, the description had expanded (in the News Chronicle) to "Stocky build and short, about 5 feet 8 or 9, weighing about 160(???) pounds. "His face was full, he was bare-headed, and he had wavy or curly light brown hair and looked about 25(???) to 30 years old."
If you’re well over 200 pounds like the guy at Berryessa, and you’re taller than 5 foot 8 by at least four inches, what do you do?
Supposing you’re 40? 50? How about you wear a hood?
Brilliant!

3) He needs to choose the right weapon. That’s difficult. At LHR the guy used a .22 of known type. What to do? Get a .22? Maybe.
At BRS it was a 9mm, (and perhaps a .38 as well, but let’s not worry about that). So if you’re going to use a gun, what size, what type?
Hey – he didn’t use a gun. He used a knife. No ballistics. Good eh? Like it.

How about putting a symbol on this "descise" eh? That way everyone’s going to know it’s "you".

As I said – why was he wearing that disguise? Because he didn’t look too much like the description handed out about the attacker at BRS maybe? Too old? Too tall? Glasses? Yeah, I think that might be part of it.
Did he think there was a chance that someone would see him, from across the lake? At some other point? Did he think he might be interrupted? Caught? I don’t know. He wore that outfit to impress someone, that’s for sure, If it wasn’t just for his own amusement, then perhaps it was to disguise the fact that he wasn’t actually somebody else, who was shorter, stockier, not as heavy and who didn’t need glasses. Or perhaps it was just so he could be like his comic-book hero.

Problems with this theory? Still two. At least.

So are you of the belief that someone was using the cover of The Z., like a comic book villain, at each of the attacks?

Victor, my working theory so far is pretty close to that of that guy Horan whats-his-name. Nearly. It will make your head ache. It’s:
1) The letters are all phony. "A writer" was at work. So:
2) The crimes are all seperate and distinct, thus:
3) The one appearance of "The Zodiac" in full regalia at Berryeassa (comic-book villain style) was either:
a) Someone in "copycat" gear (with that symbol on), and "being the best Zodiac he could be" – seduced by the newspaper stories… or
b) The "Zodiac killer" himself, having decided to claim some previous crimes, but actually directly and physically involved only in this one…

The implication is that:
1) To get the level of detail necessary to convince the authorities that he was a murderer, after LHR and BRS, the writer needed access to good inside information. Maybe. (Even the first two letters aren’t actually that stunning in terms of the "facts" they pretend to reveal.)
2) To write on the door at Berryessa the writer had to be there….or that door is a VERY good forgery. Which it isn’t. And:
3) The writer had to have access to the SF Coroner’s Office to lift evidence – and chose the shirt material from the Stine case. We’ll talk about that later.

Where I think we may differ at the moment, whats-his-name and I, is that I’m not quite as sure of the writer’s identity as he appears to be (but then he may have some hand-writing samples I don’t), and I’m not sure at all about the motives which would need to be in play. Not Sure At All.

Now – this convoluted theory has two major difficulties with the physical evidence in the case. The biggest problem’s Berryessa, for me. And the door.

Giving a false identity and wearing a disguise helps for no other reason whatsoever than being identified later by living victim. (Making endless assumptions trying to prove the "lone nut" theory) Assuming the attacker was just being precautious, he could have been more precautious had he skipped the obvious lie and disguise and gone for their jugulars before he left. Assuming he wasn’t experienced enough. Well, he got CJB right.

Yes, and yes, and maybe.
In the topsy-turvy world of the hoax, CJB was a claim, not a crime that the writer actually committed – see?
It’s Irrelevent. Just an early practise in letter writing, (which was good – very well written, that Confession letter – almost professional) – but still not impressive enough to interest the newspapers for any length of time, or the Riverside PD. No takers. No believers. No cipher. A damp squib.

So if this is a single attack – Berryessa – by someone who wants to establish themselves as "The Zodiac" complete with insignia, to continue the "series" of attacks – he needs to do what?
I’d suggest he needed to continue aspects of the earlier MO. He needed to be just like the guy in the newspapers, after all, so:

1) He needed to attack a couple "in a romantic situation". That’s the famous Zodiac MO ain’t it?
If we think that through with what WE know – not what was in the papers – we know that well, David and Betty weren’t exactly romancing. At 17 and 16? They were holding hands and necking. That was it. They weren’t getting it on. But that’s not the impressions from the newspaper "series" is it? From the public "face" of the evil Zodiac? Hey – and Mike and Darlene weren’t necking either – or more – since they were in that car park for a business transaction – probably. Hmm, so his actually finding a couple who were doing the wild thing by the lake at the end of the day? Attacking them? Very good.
He fulfilled the "attacks lone couples in make-out spots" part of the MO perfectly. Didn’t he.
Did he?
Funny, eh?

(The writer later chose Stine – he didn’t care about MO’s – just about staying in the newspaper. Bombs, shooting kids, you name it.
Is the logic there completely backward? Occam’s razor will come take off my head, perhaps.)

2) The attacker at Berryessa needed to look like the attacker at BRS. The description in the newspapers. Or perhaps in the police materials. Maybe.
Several facts about that attacker came out. He was described as a "young heavyset white male adult" (5th July VTH), then by Mike himself (probably) as "A stocky young white man" driving a brown car. Later still (6th July VTH). "Short and heavy-set" (8th July VTH).
By 19th August, the description had expanded (in the News Chronicle) to "Stocky build and short, about 5 feet 8 or 9, weighing about 160(???) pounds. "His face was full, he was bare-headed, and he had wavy or curly light brown hair and looked about 25(???) to 30 years old."
If you’re well over 200 pounds like the guy at Berryessa, and you’re taller than 5 foot 8 by at least four inches, what do you do?
Supposing you’re 40? 50? How about you wear a hood?
Brilliant!

3) He needs to choose the right weapon. That’s difficult. At LHR the guy used a .22 of known type. What to do? Get a .22? Maybe.
At BRS it was a 9mm, (and perhaps a .38 as well, but let’s not worry about that). So if you’re going to use a gun, what size, what type?
Hey – he didn’t use a gun. He used a knife. No ballistics. Good eh? Like it.

How about putting a symbol on this "descise" eh? That way everyone’s going to know it’s "you".

As I said – why was he wearing that disguise? Because he didn’t look too much like the description handed out about the attacker at BRS maybe? Too old? Too tall? Glasses? Yeah, I think that might be part of it.
Did he think there was a chance that someone would see him, from across the lake? At some other point? Did he think he might be interrupted? Caught? I don’t know. He wore that outfit to impress someone, that’s for sure, If it wasn’t just for his own amusement, then perhaps it was to disguise the fact that he wasn’t actually somebody else, who was shorter, stockier, not as heavy and who didn’t need glasses. Or perhaps it was just so he could be like his comic-book hero.

Problems with this theory? Still two. At least.

———————————————————————————-

Thank you for replying, Smithy. I can see how this (Z. claiming LH and BRS but actually only doing LB) is possible, but not without making a few very broad assumptions like The Z. otherwise known as the LB Attacker (Assumption #1) having had, in advance, planned and reason for killing Shepard (as Hartnell was an impromptu date) LB or (Assumption #2) kill any couple at LB so he would stake out the place until the setting was perfect. So he began claiming responsibility of the crimes through letters and ciphers.
Then the SF attack happens and the same letters continue as the LB attacker wants to continue to bury his tracks and sends in a piece of shirt (Assumption #3) gotten any number of ways

And if there was somehow an uninvolved author of The Z. letters, what would be (Assumptions # 4 – 9, probably) his motive for creating and perpetuating a hoax?
(Assumptions #10-19) how did he get his information, the piece of Stine shirt, and make the calls without being discovered or turned in?

And Mr. Horan may have the answer to the biggest assumption of them all. (Assumption #20) What reason would a medic and ex-editor be would have to behind the entire Z. hoax? However, I think, his theory collapses with the existence of an actual 220 lb LB attacker and the door.
And Mr. Horan has another very big assumption (#21) "the Lake Berryessa attack was most likely the work of a newspaper-reading "copycat" slayer."

I’ve not read and understood his theory completely but I’d say there are too many assumptions and unanswered questions to be correct. If "Lake Berryessa attack was most likely the work of a newspaper-reading "copycat" slayer.", what were his motives? why weren’t there more reports of a hooded killer?

…Hmm, so his actually finding a couple who were doing the wild thing by the lake at the end of the day? Attacking them? Very good.

While that may have been Bryan’s (or their) intention, there is no proof they were having sex. The police report states there was a box of unopened condoms. It has never been mentioned by LE or Bryan they were "caught in the act".

…Hmm, so his actually finding a couple who were doing the wild thing by the lake at the end of the day? Attacking them? Very good.

While that may have been Bryan’s (or their) intention, there is no proof they were having sex. The police report states there was a box of unopened condoms. It has never been mentioned by LE or Bryan they were "caught in the act".

I think they said that the box had been opened,but I dont know that they were in the process of using them when Z walked up on them

…Hmm, so his actually finding a couple who were doing the wild thing by the lake at the end of the day? Attacking them? Very good.

While that may have been Bryan’s (or their) intention, there is no proof they were having sex. The police report states there was a box of unopened condoms. It has never been mentioned by LE or Bryan they were "caught in the act".

Wow you guys, I make a post of just over 1,000 words – some of them mildly interesting I thought – and you zero in on this?
OK, I should have been more, uh, "explicit"!

No, any potential lovemaking news wasn’t likely to make it to the police report, was it? And no, I doubt they were actually "in flagrante delicto."
Bryan and Cecilia probably had had sex earlier on that afternoon though, I’d guess. You don’t think so?
The police supressed the condom information in one report, to spare their blushes, I’d bet. No?

It’s possible Bryan was a bit calculating, you know. Go see this thread (again) and post #42 in particular.
http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/6 … ege?page=3
Even if he Bryan was being a little bit of a cad that day, I don’t think he’d be quite trashy enough to go along on a date with an opened box of condoms. Would he? That’s at best a little unromantic, don’t you think? I do.

Victor –

(Assumption #1) having had, in advance, planned and reason for killing Shepard (as Hartnell was an impromptu date)

Why assume that? Because you’d like the writer to be the killer at Berryessa? OK, if you like, but it’s a bit "made for TV" ain’t it – and I don’t think it’s much more credible than the "coincidence" theory.
Tahoe and I (and others) have called this the "ABC" murders approach, after the Agatha Christie novel, but it’s convoluted.

LB or (Assumption #2) kill any couple at LB so he would stake out the place until the setting was perfect. So he began claiming responsibility of the crimes through letters and ciphers.

Closer perhaps, I think, but still a bit like assumption number one. Why just LB? If this guy was stalking – and he was – why not other places like Hunter’s Rest and Magazine Road and so on.
You know we CAN make a case for the writer as a brooding type with dark thoughts of serial murder clanging around his head, planning stuff etc. of course, since we have Riverside. Joel Norris made a case for various "phases" in their cycle(s) and The Confession letter fits in nicely with aura, perhaps. The writer was certainly obsessed with these matters one way or another – and had been from at least 1966. Why not longer?

Then the SF attack happens and the same letters continue as the LB attacker wants to continue to bury his tracks and sends in a piece of shirt (Assumption #3) gotten any number of ways

Yes.

And if there was somehow an uninvolved author of The Z. letters, what would be (Assumptions # 4 – 9, probably) his motive for creating and perpetuating a hoax?

That’s about where the thread came in, I think. Problem. The six month interval after Riverside (no-one’s doing anything!) and the "Badlands" letter made me think that the over-all motive might be to try and get justice in each case. But that too kind of falls apart at Berryessa, doesn’t it. It might work as a mechanism to call attention to Riverside, LHR and BRS – writing these letters – but the door at Berryessa, then later all the blowing up schoolkids stuff, yadda yadda – that all seems more than a little self-serving. By that time there was fun in writing the letters and the original(?) motive had fallen by the way-side.

(Assumptions #10-19) how did he get his information, the piece of Stine shirt, and make the calls without being discovered or turned in?

Good questions. Hal Snook could have done all that and more. Did he? Well I don’t know, Sherlock, what do you think eh?
Since HE could have done it, I see no reason that someone else in a similar position or with similar access could also have done it.
(And can you make a telephone call without being discovered or turned in? Yeah. I don’t care about the calls all that much, I admit. Fingerprints on the telephone handset, maybe, but the calls? Useless.)

And Mr. Horan may have the answer to the biggest assumption of them all. (Assumption #20) What reason would a medic and ex-editor be would have to behind the entire Z. hoax? However, I think, his theory collapses with the existence of an actual 220 lb LB attacker and the door.

Maybe. I wouldn’t know. Again – that’s the reason for this thread, although it’s good to have that question asked again in a different form.

And Mr. Horan has another very big assumption (#21) "the Lake Berryessa attack was most likely the work of a newspaper-reading "copycat" slayer."

Yes. Since there seems to be no better reason at present, then I think that’s something to place-hold with. A big fat coincidence. The biggest and fattest, indeed (220lb). In musing about this, as I was, I came up with that mess no-one read (they were counting condoms) above. Items 1-4. That an attacker who was "trying to use the published Zodiac MO" would have:

1) Needed to attack a couple "in a romantic situation".
2) Needed to look like the attacker at BRS. (Or WEAR A DISGUISE perhaps.)
3) Needed to use a weapon that couldn’t be rebutted with ballistics.
– and since you like them, I’ll add this one:
4) Needed to make a telephone call admitting to the crime, from a local payphone.

Any comments on that? I quite like it.

If Hal Snook was the letter writer and made his way to the lake that day to write on the door, I bet when the details aboout the attacker started to emerge (the symbol, the telephone call) if he wasn’t aware of them already, he’d have absolutely "had a cow" as they say in the Valley. I bet any writer who was blind-sided by the sudden appearance of someone fulfilling the MO – bringing the cartoon Zodiac to life FOR REAL – would never mention Berryessa again. Would pretend it never happened. Would have to have a re-think about the whole "search for justice" campaign they were on. Would they not?

I’ve not read and understood his theory completely but I’d say there are too many assumptions and unanswered questions to be correct. If "Lake Berryessa attack was most likely the work of a newspaper-reading "copycat" slayer.", what were his motives? why weren’t there more reports of a hooded killer?

Problems, same problems. That’s the point of discussion. Unless, of course, we’d like to go back to the "One serial killer who looked completely different on several occasions, had bigger feet at Berryessa than at Riverside, changed his weight and height at will – and his hair style, and his walk, and his need for glasses" theory – as productive as that’s been – then discussing something new’s good, I think.

Did the "Napa Institution" attacker at Berryessa get arrested – obviously suffering from paranoid schizophrenia – in a downtown mall shortly after? Did he drop the MO of "The Zodiac Killer" and come up with one of his own, killing hitchhikers on the Santa Rosa freeway maybe? Becoming the Sacramento Vampire? Could be. I think the Berryessa attacker was as nutty as a fruit bat, personally.
I don’t think he went off to do crotchet after that attack. If he really did want to be the living embodiment of someone else’s fantasy killer (Hal Snook’s? I don’t know), then I rather hope he was put away shortly afterward. Since no-one else WAS reported striding around Northern California in a hood, then perhaps he was, eh?

Don’t forget the Dirty joke book, or adult joke book let’s call it. Playboy issued I think, is that right? Anywho.

I was reading your post Smithy and the points laid out, then the ‘alternatives’ for Berryessa in the context of the the letters being phony and the crimes being separate events. Thinking about, as you are, how these things would work or could have worked and I’m thinking it’s not impossible that if we consider ‘The Zodiac’ as nothing more than a construct on paper then it’s not inconceivable that those actions (the letter writing) might have created an actual zodiac. I know you used the term copycat but if you think about it it’s not in the usual sense because the letters would have been fiction so it would have been more like someone being inspired by, as opposed to copying. Basically taking on the ready made personae and working under it’s guise.

I guess I’m trying to imagine a world where the theory is true but that the letter writer was at a distance from the crimes. Then I’m considering if Berryessa was an action inspired by these writings. I’m running into problems of my own quite quickly. Even when I come up with a way round certain problems others present themselves.

Let’s say the person who carried out the attack at LB was acting out of direct inspiration from the ‘Zodiac’ hoax. I’ve already run into a complication or rather another layer of uncertainty. How would that person know the letters were a ‘story’ or work of fiction? If we assume they didn’t then it is a copycat because they believe they are copying the work of an actual killer that exist but, under the rules of the hoax he doesn’t exist. But……if we assume that this person, for whatever reason, has figured out the letters aren’t factual then they are ‘being’ that killer as inspired by the content of the letters.

It’s the same scenario but with slightly different perspectives from the killers POV and in the context of the Zodiac in the letters not existing. That car door still causes me problems even in this context.

If it’s a copycat angle why write on the door? Maybe that’s not so tricky because they may well have thought that attempting to send in a letter about it might give him away as not being the same writer. That isn’t going to work though because he still WROTE and not only that but he did it in a style that encompassed enough subtle tells that his writing was authenticated as being the same as the person who wrote the letters. If he’s that good at copying someone else’s writing freehand on a car after repeatedly stabbing two people then I can’t see a letter written in comfort being much trouble. Still, back to my first question in this paragraph. Why write anything? If the Zodiac presented by the letters only existed in the letters then it’s quite interesting that, if we consider the attacker at LB a copycat, he choose to make sure writing in the style of the letters was part of it. That could at the very least suggest he saw some importance in that.

Staying with the copycat approach. Decent enough copying I think. That’s something to check. Copy is as copy does – if we think from the perspective of a copycat how well did he do? I mean he had to get the material to work with from the letters and newspaper reports, right? or even police reports but the point I’m trying to get to is…..in the context of the time frame of the ‘Zodiac’ information that existed was there a clear enough MO or partial MO to copy from? Did this person, in their copying, betray a level of interpretation that could have led them to guess that the letters weren’t real. Could his actions, like the door writing, betrayed so many little tells that he was no longer a random copycat but had actually, in that short time, on that day had carried out a degree of copying that meant he was actually acting as an agent that would further or bolster the hoax – add weight to it if you will by carrying out an actual killing under it’s guise.

He wouldn’t be just a random copycat if he was doing that would he? Would he have gone to that level of detail, could he have gone to that level of detail with the information available at the time? If this was just a one-time nutjob operation wouldn’t there have been more differences?

Even in the context of a hoax the lone copycat scenario throws up more questions than it answers.

He even got the right shoes and I know, different sizes, but still. And in the context of a hoax you can’t discount Riverside because the letter writer acknowledges it. So the LB copycat was not only quite thorough and perceptive in including tells and traits from a case that was still evolving (remember no bus bomb stuff has happened yet) but he also includes elements found in a crime from 3 years before in SoCal that the hoax letter writer chooses to link himself to 5 years later.

It’s just too complicated and extremely coincidental to be viable. IMHO and that’s just me trying to figure out ways that it could have worked and for just one of the crimes. ie I wasn’t looking for problems, I was trying to make it work in my head but nah, IT doesn’t want to work that way.

EDIT: Sorry forgot to add – I was also musing if any of the characters on the car door had been used before, ie did any of them NOT show up in the letters until after LB.

Don’t forget the Dirty joke book, or adult joke book let’s call it. Playboy issued I think, is that right? Anywho.

Strange thing to take along on a date for the son of a minister with his 7th day adventist date I thought. (But what do I know).

I’m thinking it’s not impossible that if we consider ‘The Zodiac’ as nothing more than a construct on paper then it’s not inconceivable that those actions (the letter writing) might have created an actual zodiac……. Basically taking on the ready made personae and working under it’s guise.

I don’t think it’s impossible either mate. I’m having a problem with "How likely" – but then I comfort myself by telling myself that it was northern Callifornia in the late 60’s and everyone was nuts.

I guess I’m trying to imagine a world where the theory is true but that the letter writer was at a distance from the crimes. Then I’m considering if Berryessa was an action inspired by these writings. I’m running into problems of my own quite quickly. Even when I come up with a way round certain problems others present themselves.

Me too. It’s pleasant to be able to talk about them.

Let’s say the person who carried out the attack at LB was acting out of direct inspiration from the ‘Zodiac’ hoax…..

I don’t think such a person would believe that the letters were a hoax. I think he believed in "the character" implicitly, and chose to borrow it. (If that’s what happened). People are (generally speaking) still completely unconvinced that the letters were a hoax NOW, so at the time – August ’69, two letters and two "lovers lane" murders into the game qnd it’s in all the newspapers and the police seem to endorse it?
I think the letters were perfectly believable to the general public. "Copycat" then. Not murdering door-writer. Possibly.

If it’s a copycat angle why write on the door?

I don’t think the copycat wrote on the door. Your analysis tells me that. You change your mind and so will I!
At the moment I think the door’s 100% real, and that’s why the coincidence of an attacker at the lake and the writer close-by bothers me so very very much. Unless the writer knew about the attacker – which bothers me even more. Ho hum.
No blood on the door though. No blood on the writer’s hands, sleeve, nothing, to end up on the door. A smear at least would have cheered me up, but no smear, so no, writer and copycat (confederate?) were two different people. Probably.

Decent enough copying I think. That’s something to check. Copy is as copy does……….. He wouldn’t be just a random copycat if he was doing that would he? Would he have gone to that level of detail, could he have gone to that level of detail with the information available at the time? If this was just a one-time nutjob operation wouldn’t there have been more differences?

How good is a nutcase copycat going to be do you think? I don’t know. The New York one wasn’t much good, and no writing I’ve seen from the dreadful fakes of Fairfield(?) ’78 or later have given me even a pause for a second look. There was a full reproduction of one of the letters in the newspaper complete with with the necessary symbol (but no "Zodiac" name, remember) in plenty of time for Berryessa.
But are you talking about differences in the writing on the door, or the MO?

Depends on which way you look at it for the MO, I think. The paper’s were saying "He’s a mad slayer of courting couples" so he got that bit right. But a knife not a gun? Daylight not midnight? In public in a HOOD?
Hold my hand Trav, while I tell you quietly I think the attacker at Berryessa was right out of his tree, in my carefully-thought-out opinion. Crackers. Loopy.
Did he get the shoes right? Not if he didn’t write on the door. He didn’t walk up there to go near the door.
And no they weren’t the right type of shoes. And no they weren’t actually "the right size" either, if you’re talking about a comparison to Riverside. (Remember Riverside hadn’t been connected yet, in the public eye. If we want to throw in Riverside and a knife MO then we have a whole new set of parameters…).

And in the context of a hoax you can’t discount Riverside because the letter writer acknowledges it.

Ah! OK then – a whole new set of parameters.
I don’t discount Riverside at all. I think the writer wrote the letters to Riverside. I don’t think he killed Cheri though – and I don’t think many people actually do. ‘Cos then he WOULD have to have had Ted-K shoes on, at least. Naaaaa.
And the writer would have acknowledged walking on the moon and being Winston Churchill if he thought he could have got away with it. "I shot a man in a parked car" – yes indeed. Riverside is an interesting pre-cursor to the main event, for my money, but OK, let’s include the MO at Riverside too, in a minute.

So the LB copycat was not only quite thorough and perceptive in including tells and traits from a case that was still evolving (remember no bus bomb stuff has happened yet) but he also includes elements found in a crime from 3 years before in SoCal that the hoax letter writer chooses to link himself to 5 years later.

That’s a leap. What elements? Why mention a bus bomb? Eh? What-dya-mean? The shoes again? Wrong size wrong type? Or the fact that Cheri was killed by someone who disabled her car (nope) outside a library (nope) by someone she walked away with (nope) a woman on her own (nope) with a knife (Yes!)

It’s just too complicated and extremely coincidental to be viable. IMHO and that’s just me trying to figure out ways that it could have worked and for just one of the crimes. ie I wasn’t looking for problems, I was trying to make it work in my head but nah, IT doesn’t want to work that way.

It’s not easy, especially when you start talking about shoes, Riverside and other things which cloud the issue me old mate.
It works everywhere you look except for Berryessa – lakeside copycat lunatic & coincidental door-writer la-la-land.
Everywhere else looks quite straight-forward!
Ah Berryessa, such a pain.

OKAY, I’LL PLAY. I know I said i wanted to stay clear from this ‘theory’, but I can’t resist shooting holes in it, and it’s easy to do.

At this link, http://zodiachoax.blogspot.com/ Horan writes:

"Girl was on her right side, feet to the west—Wrong. Betty Lou was found lying face down, her left cheek on the ground, as seen in crime scene photos published in the papers. But Zodiac seems to think that Dear Editor could confirm this "fact" with police. Why did he think that? Along with the photos of the shell casings and slugs, Snook also received copies of the crime scene sketch illustrating the locations of the shell casings where they were found. All of the sketches, including the one showing the location of all ten shell casings, if they show Betty Lou at all, show her lying face down. The one sketch that shows only nine casings (only nine casings were sent to CII for analysis) shows her on her right side, for whatever reason. THAT is the sketch Snook received along with the photos of the casings and slugs. Police made several sketches of the crime scene, including illustrations of what each witness saw. Mrs Borges stated that she saw Betty Lou "facing the road." Maybe Betty Lou managed to raise her head and look at David one last time, but the sketch labeled "Stella Borges" shows Betty Lou face down. The sketch accompanying the nine shell casings sent to CII (the one Snook would have received a copy of) inexplicably shows Betty Lou on her right side. Maybe whoever drew the sketches made a "mistake." But, the copies of the police files available in the public domain are copies sent to the FBI by California CII. Several facts in each murder were distorted by CII Special Agent Mel Nicolai in order to fit the Zodiac theory and the letters. Did he "correct" CII’s copy of the sketch according to this letter? Or did the letter writer deliberately call attention to yet another discrepancy in the police files? The discrepancies are there, all right. And the Zodiac letters point directly to them. From the viewpoint of one very, very specific person"

No Mr. Horan, actually, YOU ARE WRONG! In this statement below, Ms. Borges states that when she found the bodies, Betty was ON HER SIDE. She then went to get help, and when Pitta got back to the scene,(see his report also below) Betty was face down (as we see in the photos). My theory, and it’s a very plausible one, is that Betty was still clinging to life when Borges found her, and she was on her side. By the time Pitta got back, she had expired and fell over face first on the ground. This is further evidence, that Zodiac, WAS telling the truth,and he WAS at the crime scene to see Betty on her side, just like Borges did only moments after the attack. This proves, that Z wasnt some passerby later on that saw Betty face down, and that he didnt see the crime scene pics of her face down as Horan claims. Let’s face it, Zodiac WAS THERE at the scene, prior to Betty dying and falling down face first on the ground. He WAS her killer, he didnt only write about it later from stuff he THOUGHT he knew, but rather from stuff he DID know, and this was not simply Zodiac taking credit for somebody else’s murders. He killed them.

I suggest you go to the link of Horan’s above, and read it before Horan realizes he made a huge mistake, and edits it. You see, if I am right (which it’s pretty obvious I am)then Horan is wrong. END of story,END of hoax theory.

Another quote from Horan:
"After Voigt makes himself out to be a fraud and a liar with morf for brains on this thread, we’ll move on to discuss another suspect who suddenly needed an alibi after the FBI cleared Tommy Southern in the Shepard case"

I think Mr. Horan needs some brains. If somebody was to set out to write a book point by point, they could completely discredit Horan’s ‘theory’ and his book. Personally, I think he should offer refunds to anybody that spent money on that slop he calls a book

OKAY, I’LL PLAY. I know I said i wanted to stay clear from this ‘theory’, but I can’t resist shooting holes in it, and it’s easy to do….

I suggest you go to the link of Horan’s above, and read it before Horan realizes he made a huge mistake, and edits it. You see, if I am right (which it’s pretty obvious I am)then Horan is wrong. END of story,END of hoax theory.

———————————————————————————————

With all due respect, I believe a hoax isn’t completely far off. You can’t discount it because of minor details (i.e. her head was turned left when it was really turned right, etc…) One misses the forest for the trees.

Murder 101. What’s behind all murders? Motives. What motives could be behind a series of related murders spreading out from Vallejo bombarded with letters, uncrackable ciphers, etc…that suddenly stop? (Insert Sherlock pipe smoking smiley here)

OKAY, I’LL PLAY. I know I said i wanted to stay clear from this ‘theory’, but I can’t resist shooting holes in it, and it’s easy to do….

I suggest you go to the link of Horan’s above, and read it before Horan realizes he made a huge mistake, and edits it. You see, if I am right (which it’s pretty obvious I am)then Horan is wrong. END of story,END of hoax theory.

———————————————————————————————

With all due respect, I believe a hoax isn’t completely far off. You can’t discount it because of minor details (i.e. her head was turned left when it was really turned right, etc…) One misses the forest for the trees.

Murder 101. What’s behind all murders? Motives. What motives could be behind a series of related murders spreading out from Vallejo bombarded with letters, uncrackable ciphers, etc…that suddenly stop? (Insert Sherlock pipe smoking smiley here)

Okay, so I am to simply ignore what Stella Borges saw immediately upon arriving at the scene? Sorry, I’m not going to dismiss it simply because it does not fit the hoax theory. I’m not talking about which way her head was facing,or if her shoes were untied,etc. We are talking about a major piece of Horan’s hoax puzzle here. He states that when Zodiac wrote that she was on her side, that Zodiac was wrong, and he is wrong based on the police photos or the sketch. But Zodiac was NOT wrong, he was correct, and for him to be correct, he would have had to have been there to see Betty on her side,the way that Stella Borges did.

I know for some people, things sound alot cooler and mysterious if there’s a hoax involved,but in this instance, Horan simply is not correct. You can believe what you want, or think what you want, but the FACTS completely go against Horan. Sorry,but I’ll go with the facts & the eye witness testimony as opposed to believing Horan

If it’s a copycat angle why write on the door?

I don’t think the copycat wrote on the door. Your analysis tells me that. You change your mind and so will I!
At the moment I think the door’s 100% real, and that’s why the coincidence of an attacker at the lake and the writer close-by bothers me so very very much. Unless the writer knew about the attacker – which bothers me even more. Ho hum.
No blood on the door though. No blood on the writer’s hands, sleeve, nothing, to end up on the door. A smear at least would have cheered me up, but no smear, so no, writer and copycat (confederate?) were two different people. Probably.

I too have used the term copycat, but I think if anything, with LB (if not Z) he wanted to place the blame on Zodiac. THAT would be the reason for the car door.

This person, whoever he was, surely thought Bryan and Cecelia were dead. How would anyone know it were "Zodiac", if not for the writing on the door?

I think we have established MANY people wrote like he did. Seems to be a similar trait amongst nut-jobs.

***

–smithy, in regards to my above post…I just like to make it clear there was never any proof of a sexual encounter between the too that evening. It was daylight, boats were driving by…I think to assume they WERE and throwing that out there is jumping the gun. (bad choice of words I know) Bryan was a typical young man, surely hoping to score (another bad choice of words), but that doesn’t mean he did.

OKAY, I’LL PLAY. I know I said i wanted to stay clear from this ‘theory’, but I can’t resist shooting holes in it, and it’s easy to do….

I suggest you go to the link of Horan’s above, and read it before Horan realizes he made a huge mistake, and edits it. You see, if I am right (which it’s pretty obvious I am)then Horan is wrong. END of story,END of hoax theory.

———————————————————————————————

With all due respect, I believe a hoax isn’t completely far off. You can’t discount it because of minor details (i.e. her head was turned left when it was really turned right, etc…) One misses the forest for the trees.

Murder 101. What’s behind all murders? Motives. What motives could be behind a series of related murders spreading out from Vallejo bombarded with letters, uncrackable ciphers, etc…that suddenly stop? (Insert Sherlock pipe smoking smiley here)

Okay, so I am to simply ignore what Stella Borges saw immediately upon arriving at the scene? Sorry, I’m not going to dismiss it simply because it does not fit the hoax theory. I’m not talking about which way her head was facing,or if her shoes were untied,etc. We are talking about a major piece of Horan’s hoax puzzle here. He states that when Zodiac wrote that she was on her side, that Zodiac was wrong, and he is wrong based on the police photos or the sketch. But Zodiac was NOT wrong, he was correct, and for him to be correct, he would have had to have been there to see Betty on her side,the way that Stella Borges did.

I know for some people, things sound alot cooler and mysterious if there’s a hoax involved,but in this instance, Horan simply is not correct. You can believe what you want, or think what you want, but the FACTS completely go against Horan. Sorry,but I’ll go with the facts & the eye witness testimony as opposed to believing Horan

_________________________________________________________
I’ll not argue details as figuring the more important motive(s) lead to suspects that lead to proper evidence. That report could contain mistakes, the body could have moved, the body could have been moved, the Z. letter writer could have recollected wrong.

Missing the forest for the trees.

If it’s a copycat angle why write on the door?

I don’t think the copycat wrote on the door. Your analysis tells me that. You change your mind and so will I!
At the moment I think the door’s 100% real, and that’s why the coincidence of an attacker at the lake and the writer close-by bothers me so very very much. Unless the writer knew about the attacker – which bothers me even more. Ho hum.
No blood on the door though. No blood on the writer’s hands, sleeve, nothing, to end up on the door. A smear at least would have cheered me up, but no smear, so no, writer and copycat (confederate?) were two different people. Probably.

I too have used the term copycat, but I think if anything, with LB (if not Z) he wanted to place the blame on Zodiac. THAT would be the reason for the car door.

This person, whoever he was, surely thought Bryan and Cecelia were dead. How would anyone know it were "Zodiac", if not for the writing on the door?

I think we have established MANY people wrote like he did. Seems to be a similar trait amongst nut-jobs.

***

–smithy, in regards to my above post…I just like to make it clear there was never any proof of a sexual encounter between the too that evening. It was daylight, boats were driving by…I think to assume they WERE and throwing that out there is jumping the gun. (bad choice of words I know) Bryan was a typical young man, surely hoping to score (another bad choice of words), but that doesn’t mean he did.

_________________________________________________________

The theory that a Z. copycat did LB doesn’t entirely invalidate a "hoax" theory. Maybe the lure of possibly pulling off a murder under the guise of The Z. struck someone but there was also the high risk of getting caught, getting shot, doing life esp as The Z. However, this attacker went to considerable cover up if he really intended to kill both victims. I can only believe it was to "widen" The Z.’s territory, incite panic, and direct attention away from two related murders Vallejo.

OKAY, I’LL PLAY. I know I said i wanted to stay clear from this ‘theory’, but I can’t resist shooting holes in it, and it’s easy to do.

Damn, I missed this. Sorry! Your point’s not about Berryessa, and the problem(s) there, but what the heck, it’s very important!

"Girl was on her right side, feet to the west—Wrong. Betty Lou was found lying face down, her left cheek on the ground, as seen in crime scene photos published in the papers. But Zodiac seems to think that Dear Editor could confirm this "fact" with police. Why did he think that?"

Mr Horan’s contention is that The Zodiac Killer thinks the Editor could confirm this fact with police. Why? Because he had access to that report.
It’s a very important part of his theory – that some of the details quoted by The Zodiac Killer are in the reports, and not in the press. It’s a big deal.

(Is that report section out there in full some place, btw? Pardon my ignorance.)

Edit: Yes of course it is:
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … fullsize=1
Dated 12/24/68 huh? Working on Christmas Day is very laudable, but I do wish the statement had been taken closer to the event.