This interesting discussion started in the James Owen topic, but it was getting off that topic, but I think it is important enough so I just started a seperate topic. In general the debate usually revolves around a younger Zodiac - 25 to 30 range - or an older Zodiac - 35 to 45 range. Some suspects, like Kane, Tarrance, Mr. X, Hodell and others, would fall into the older range. Lawrence Kane was 45 years old in 1969. I think Mr. X, Tarrance and Hodell were even older than Kane. Ted Kaczynski was 27 in 1969. Arthur "Lee" Allen was 36 years old in 1969. Richard Gaikowski was 33 in 1969. The suspect of onewhoknows named Peter Plante was 20 years old in 1969.
Thanks to Quagmire, Welsh Chappie and others for contributing to this debate.
What other evidence do we have as to the age of Zodiac?QUAGMIRE:
The girls at LB said the guy they saw was about 28-30. Pretty much exactly the same as Mageau, the kids at Presdio Heights and Kathleen Johns (if indeed it was Z she encountered). Fouke's the only one that said 35-45.WELSH CHAPPIE:
Berryessa Police Report:
"Dean _____ advised that three young ladies, students at the college, might possibly have information as to a suspect in the Lake B. attack. The young ladies were Miss Joanne ____, Miss Linda ___ and Miss Linda ____. Dean ____ advised that the girls had been in the Lake B. area from about 3:00 to 4:30pm the previous Saturday. They had observed a lone male subject in a late model, silver blue Chevrolet. Dean ____ advised that the girls told him that they were observed out of the car by the suspect while they were sunbathing on the beach. They described the subject as approx. 40 years old, 6 ft tall, and dressed in dark clothing."
That's the collective statement, and if memory serves me, in their individual statements they subsequently gave, one girl estimated his age to be approx. 28, another estimated it to be 40, and I can't remember the third.QUAGMIRE:
I can't remember what each of the ages given were but definitely remember that they didn't decide on the suspect being in his 40s. I seemed to remember the girls saying 28,30 and 40 & that police agreed that probably about 28-30 was the higher probability but my memory might be letting me down here!QUAGMIRE:
After a bit more digging, here's the second witness who put the suspect as about 30:http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport10.htmlWELSH CHAPPIE: "I can't remember what each of the ages given were but definitely remember that they didn't decide on the suspect being in his 40s."
Well they definitely did say he was in his 40's because it is recorded in the official police report. "I seemed to remember the girls saying 28,30 and 40 & that police agreed that probably about 28-30 was the higher probability."
Where does It say that the police agreed with the late 20's age range? I have never seen that.
Anyway, his age is, like his identity, a matter of opinion. But the basis for my being of the opinion that Zodiac was in his late 30's/early to mid 40's is, above all else, Don Fouke's witness description. As I have previously stated, the man Don saw on Jackson St was almost certainly the Zodiac because he was wearing pleated trousers, a navy blue derby type jacket with flap down collar and wearing engineering type boots, which is an identical clothing description given by Bryan Hartnell of Zodiac's attire at Berryessa. Don Fouke is a trained observer, it's essential as part of the job he does and he stated that the White Male he saw that night on Jackson St was between the ages of 35 and 45. Don even made a point of telling Dave Toschi that the sketch released of the offender is similar to the man he saw, but that the man was older and heavier than he appears in the sketch.AK WILKS:
The LB girls did NOT collectively say he was in his 40's. The man "Dean ____ " told police that is what the girls told him, but it is not what the girls actually said. It was second hand hearsay information. Either Dean heard them wrong, and/or the policeman heard Dean wrong. We know what the girls actually said because it is in the other report. Always rely on first hand descriptions when you can, not second person hearsay. There is a reason hearsay is generally not admissable in court. Witness descriptions in general are often wrong, and can vary depending on light, angle, distance and other factors. Police reports are full of mistakes. But when you get into hearsay you introduce another factor to lead to mistakes, misinterpretations and variances.
Quag points out that one LB witness says 28 years old, another 30 years old. In the book Zodiac Unmasked, Graysmith interviews a LB witness who says "mid-thirties", though she rejected a picture of Allen in his thirties and instead picked out a photo of a young and trim Allen as looking somewhat like the man she saw. [Maybe it was this picture from 1949 when Allen was just 16: http://www.zodiackiller.com/SwimTeam.html
or this one from 1950 http://www.zodiackiller.com/AllenGraduation.html
And the police operater said the man's voice was "young, early twenties".
Add to that Mageau stating 25 to 30 and Johns stating 30. And the SF kids saying 25 to 35.
The outlier here is Fouke saying 35 to 45. And while he is a trained observor, he states he was looking for a black male and only saw this man briefly from a moving car. WC you or anyone else can rely on Fouke and exclude everything else if you wish. You say its a matter of opinion, but the majority of eye and ear witnesses to Zodiac place him as significantly younger. I look at ALL the reports and devise a consensus - about 23 to 33 IMO generally, and more specifically I would look to 25 to 30 as being the most accurate range.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.