by Wolf 49 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:19 pm
WARNING: I can ramble when I'm just thinking aloud at the keyboard. Apologies all around, in advance.....
This crime scene and the timeline defy all belief... or else we just haven't put the puzzle pieces together correctly. Either someone is lying--and I know Owen has become a popular candidate for the Pants On Fire award-- or someone got their statement horribly wrong or Zodiac got insanely, cosmically lucky on this first effort. (That last possibility might be the reason he ducked and hid for seven months afterward. Maybe the guy really did have his balls out in the wind and just barely managed to slip away, sufficiently scaring him enough for him to shutter his act for a while.)
Think about the randomness of it, and then try to marry that to the insanely lucky timeline/escape.... If we accept hat he just got lucky and happened upon a parked car that fit what he wanted--a young couple alone on a country road in dark of night--then look at what had to happen for it to be just that random and successful: 1) He had to be on the right road at exactly the right time (late night, no moonlight on Dec. 20, 1968, etc.) in order to avoid detection by random eyewitnesses, in a vast public place that made it impossible for him to control for isolation (as opposed to murdering someone in the bathroom of your basement apartment, where you can control for isolation); 2) He had to pull into that parking area at the precise interval--and we mean PRECISE--between exiting witnesses and arriving witnesses, managing to COMPLETELY escape detection by ANY of them; 3) He had to arrive undetected, assess the situation, carry out the (incredibly efficient) double assault, and exit, all in the span of about what, 3-5 minutes, generously?; 4) He had to be away from the scene sufficiently far enough that none of the approaching vehicles got even a whiff of his presence anywhere on that road--which, again, was a pitch-black road that would have been illuminated by his headlights.
There is luck, guys and gals, and then there is impossible luck. What are the odds that he pulled off that crime under those circumstances? One in ten thousand? It doesn't make an ounce of sense (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, I know. One in ten thousand is still one in ten thousand. There is that 'one' ....) But let's take the "what is more likely?" approach. What is more likely, that a) a killer gets impossibly lucky on his first time out (at least in the Bay Area for all we know) and happens to randomly come across his ideal set of victims, or b) what we've outlined is all wrong, and we need to look for a different scenario...?
Doesn't it seem as if he had to have scoured that road for hours, or something near that length of time, driving back and forth looking at cars parked there, waiting until exactly the right car with the right couple showed up? You might guess he followed them from town, but that doesn't seem likely, since the Rambler was seen there all by its lonesome, apparently. (Or he could have followed them, passed them by once they parked, and then he parked in a field nearby, scouting the place and waiting until the coast seemed clearest.) Zodiac's track record shows too much organization and pre-planning to allow for the inference that he just happened upon these unfortunate kids. You ask yourself: How many weekend nights did he spend cruising that stretch of road waiting for the right car to park there? Then you ask, wouldn't that just frustrate a guy who is anxious to start "collecting slaves for the after-life"? Or, did he just pick Dec. 20, 1968 because it was a moonless Friday night, park in a field, sit int he bushes, and reconnoiter that one spot, hoping a fly got tangled in the web?
Again, I ramble.....
"All he said was life is bullshit, and it is, so what are you screaming about?"