Zodiackillersite.com

Trav , I agree.
Tahoe, Probably because it could have been out of the view of at least some that drove past ? I find it interesting and very important to me, that Owen rememberd the other car didn't have any chrome.
If anyone wants to look at a very old post of mine telling about the car I was followed by in the "winter of 68"in Vallejo. I said that car didn't have any chrome either, so for me it could be the same car, which was a golden brown Mercury Comet. The one with the bucket seats and a center console, like what K. Johns discribed.
The lack of chrome stood out , because most cars driven by teens and young adults back then , had lots of shiny chrome and fancy hub caps.

Sorry about posting my (just now) thoughts on this here but it's relevant to things I said in my previous posts. We can always move it later if need be.

Regarding being on foot. Is there an even mix? Ok, I know I'm including CJB and KJ in this but it's relevant to the 'pattern' if you can call it that.

CJB - On foot, car (allegedly parked elsewhere)
BLJ & DF - ??
BRS - In car
LB - most likely in car, probably at scene
PH - On foot, car (possibly parked elsewhere)
KJ - In car

My 'feeling' is that there might be a pattern here because it's either, use own car at scene or have it (possibly nearby). I can't explain the comfortableness I feel from some things but this doesn't feel uncomfortable. I think it's basically because between all of these crimes there's only one variation, an either or. And the dispersion looks to me like "I did that last time but I need to remain random", kind of approach?

Traveller - You said "I was pitch black wasn't it?" As we know it can be almost as light as day when the moon is full and fairly light on a half moon, which really could change how we look at everything if that were the case on December 20th 1968. But if you check out the chart below you'll see that you are right it would have been "pitch" black, almost no moon.

Sorry, if this is old news.

traveller1st wrote:My 'feeling' is that there might be a pattern here because it's either, use own car at scene or have it (possibly nearby). I can't explain the comfortableness I feel from some things but this doesn't feel uncomfortable. I think it's basically because between all of these crimes there's only one variation, an either or. And the dispersion looks to me like "I did that last time but I need to remain random", kind of approach?

To me it looks like simple necessity of each situation as the lay of the land dictates, I don't really see more to it than that. LB and KJ are two good examples when he really had no choice but to use his car, PH dictated that he use a taxi.
What would maybe be useful to know is how easy it would have been to use one of the small side roads off LHR to park up and walk to the crime scene, in particular a route that goes unnoticed by the hunters.

Interesting that, if the timeline I've just checked to refresh my memory is correct, James Owen is the only person to see a second car - with no evidence of tyre tracks or anyone else reporting this second vehicle to back him up. Considering the anomalies in his account I'm surprised more people aren't wondering if Z was on foot from another part of the area and the car never existed.
Another interesting point in the timeline is that the Yours state that David put his hands on the wheel when they went past - having been a teenager in a car in a dark, remote area myself in days long gone I can fully see how he might be a bit jumpy when another vehicle suddenly turns up, so not only does Z have a tight window to operate in he probably had to act extremely quickly when he pulled in to catch DF before he could get his own car on the move.

All things considered it's actually starting to sound more likely that Z attacked from the bushes on foot than via car. It is an easy solution that clears up a few questions and has only one problem ...... the statement of James Owen.

Well, Zodiac was technically on foot when he attacked at Lake Berryessa too, so this wouldn't seem far fetched and it fits with the idea
of Zodiac being a hunter, as he himself claims. Whoever killed these young kids at Lake Herman Road seems to be the same man who
committed the other murders, allowing us to eliminate Stella, the Yours, the Sheepherder, and who else. The police gave the Hunters
plenty of time to cover their tracks, not interviewing them until after the Yours came forward. James Owen didn't need to come forward,
but he did voluntarily, and he may have just been mistaken about another car being there, especially without being able to give any
description at all. Bottom line, some innocent kids were brutally murdered that night by someone who was there. And it seems to have happened
around 11:15pm when several parties report being present. A lot of action for a cold lonely road in Solano County. And why did the killings have to
continue?

How can Owen be 'mistaken' about a car being there??? He saw 2 cars, or so he claims. Did he imagine the 2nd one? This 'Zodiac in the bushes' is sounding more like the shooter in the grassy knoll.

Assuming for one second, Owen is not Z,and he is being honest. He drove by,he saw a car, 30 seconds later, he heard a shot. The car,had to contain a person,or persons, that did the shooting. It's that simple.

Look at the possibilities regarding Owen,they are cut & dry:

1- Owen was Zodiac, and he lied about the 2nd car and the only other car there was his

2- Owen was telling the truth about the 2nd car, and there was a car there

3- Owen imagined a 2nd car there.

4- Owen didnt see any cars there, but just wanted to get himself involved in the case for some reason, and completely lied

Don't 1&2 seem more likely than number 3 or 4? If Z was on foot, then Z may as well have been Bingo Wesher,he was tending sheep there. That is an out of the way location,somebody wouldnt be walking all the way out there on foot,they needed a car to get there, and all the cars seem to be accounted for

If Owen is innocent of any crime or lie then obviously the most probable option is that there was a second car.
There is one other possible option and that is that Owen drove past the turnout, noticed the rambler and pulled off further down the road to make his way back on foot.
I'm starting to sound like an Owen-as-Z and 'on foot' fan, which I'm not particularly ( in fact I doubt there's much to be gained by finding out Z was on foot or in a car other than as a tick against Owen's story) but there is the glaring problem that the only person to see the second car was apparently Owen and there's no physical evidence to back it up.
I know the official story is that there were no tyre tracks - however I'm fairly certain that the police did report light footprints around the rambler which suggested Z's attack route around the car. How can a man leave faint footprints but a car not leave even faint tyre tracks?

jamesmsv wrote:I know the official story is that there were no tyre tracks - however I'm fairly certain that the police did report light footprints around the rambler which suggested Z's attack route around the car. How can a man leave faint footprints but a car not leave even faint tyre tracks?

I remember reading that about the "partial" foot print somewhere as well, which of course raises question about not having car tire tracks.

Craigfitzer wrote:

jamesmsv wrote:I know the official story is that there were no tyre tracks - however I'm fairly certain that the police did report light footprints around the rambler which suggested Z's attack route around the car. How can a man leave faint footprints but a car not leave even faint tyre tracks?

Because he is on foot.

Craigfitzer wrote:

jamesmsv wrote:I know the official story is that there were no tyre tracks - however I'm fairly certain that the police did report light footprints around the rambler which suggested Z's attack route around the car. How can a man leave faint footprints but a car not leave even faint tyre tracks?

I remember reading that about the "partial" foot print somewhere as well, which of course raises question about not having car tire tracks.

I don't think there was mention of footprints around the car. ?

There was a footprint elsewhere behind a shack or something, but there was no way of knowing when it was left.