Zodiackillersite.com

Talon wrote:
Perhaps the caller gave the phone number or a phone number to the operator when he dialed 0.

Perhaps he didn't mind telling - could have been part of the thrill for him. After all, there was no pressing need for him to call at all. The victims were in a parking lot and would have been found soon enough anyway.

As for 1ESS switching and so forth, I take your point: Seems that wasn't properly spreading until just around the time we're talking about, so it's very possible they didn't have that. Then again we can't say for sure that they didn't.

Norse wrote:Alright, let's try it again:

If the police were trying to cover up the fact that this phone call was not traced (in order to achieve what? protect the shabbly dressed witness?), why did they put the bogus story in the police report?

Give it to the press, sure - that's what you do. But why put it in the report? They presumably didn't count on that report being made public decades after the fact. And, again, omitting what actually happened from said report seems excessive to say the least (not to mention irregular or even a violation of protocol) if the intention was to shield the witness - unless we presume that Z was in the habit of reading police reports...which some admittedly claim that he WAS, but that's a slightly different story.

Yes Norse I fully take on board what you are saying, but what I reckon is when the report states 'traced', they should have said found out, because they couldn't trace calls that quickly in 1969. The alternative is that the negro informed them of the payphone location and they didn't bother to highlight this in the report, just condensing it to 'traced'. There were also different versions of this phone call transcript, notably released in the papers before the Nancy Slover version, one on July 5th and the other on the 7th. One said "I shot them. I used a 9mm Luger automatic". The other said "I shot them. I used a 9mm automatic". Only then came the Nancy Slover version, so my question is who gave the papers this version if only the police knew. (police reports were supposedly free from prying eyes as you suggested). But clearly the papers had hold of certain information only privy to the police and the only other person to have heard the Zodiac speak on the phone that night other than Nancy Slover was the negro. These shortened versions of the phone call in these two papers I believe had to have originated from his recollections.
Nancy Slover gave her version that tallied with the extended third version.
In summation; If the police released the first versions to the press, as they were supposedly the only ones privy to the call, why would they withhold the proper and full version, only to release it 2 days later. The only noticeable difference between the versions are the directions and the reference to Lake Herman Road. Why not be transparent in the first place, as they certainly weren't after the Presidio Heights episode. No wonder people question their motives.

UKS: I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, just to make that clear - I'm genuinely slow witted:

What you suggest is that the witness (the shabbly dressed one) was the source of the initial reports in the press? The press talked to him?

Here's what it looks like to me:

Nancy Slover's report follows, chronologically, a version of the same events printed in the papers. That's clear enough. But what happened (that the call was "traced", whatever this actually means) was surely known by the detectives (by the police as such) before Nancy Slover typed up her report? The latter is a matter of form, so to speak, it has to be done at some point - but exactly when it's done, isn't all that relevant.

1: Slover takes the call.
2: Slover informs whoever is in charge of what happened.
3: The police brief the press/the press get information from the police.
4: The press prints a version of what happened (worded so and so but based on info from the police).
5. Slover types up her report.

Isn't that quite plausible?

What could also be noted here is that if there was a witness, who overheard Z, then the police report doesn't simply omit this fact as such - but also, one has to assume, a description of the caller: If the shabbly dressed negro heard what Z said, it's reasonable to presume that he was close enough to get a visual on him.

Almost totally plausible (does that sound right.. never mind).
Apart from number 4.The press prints a version of what happened.
I don't know of any press in the world given the whole meaty version by police of "I wish to report a double murder. If you will go one mile east on Columbus Parkway to a public park, you will find the kids in a brown car. They have been shot by a 9 mm Luger. I also killed those kids last year.... Good-bye.", would then print the watered down version of 'I shot them. I used a 9mm Luger automatic,' not including the Lake Herman Road connection. The press are voracious animals who squeeze every last ounce out of a story and wouldn't just leave this out. This is the biggest news story in Vallejo in it's entire history. So I am guessing what you are saying is the police gave the press the condensed watered down version.
If so we'll call a truce...till next time

If Z saw the negro, then the negro saw Z. What has the Zodiac to gain by inventing a black man walking by. It serves no purpose. And I don't want to go off on a tangent but the Stine Report omitted about 40 pages, the police in 69 were less than thorough.

UKSpycatcher wrote:If so we'll call a truce...till next time

No way! It's war from now on!

But...yes: You're right, what I meant was something like that, i.e. the police gave them a version (for whatever reason) which they then printed more or less verbatim.

As for our shabbly dressed friend and the Stine report: Yes, there could be parts of the BRS report we don't know about. That's always a possibility.

On a general note: The police in '69 were less than thorough, I agree 100%.

The papers in '69 were less than thorough too, which makes our task all the more pesky in 2015.

Now we agree totally ...let battle commerce

UKSpycatcher wrote:If Z saw the negro, then the negro saw Z. What has the Zodiac to gain by inventing a black man walking by. It serves no purpose. And I don't want to go off on a tangent but the Stine Report omitted about 40 pages, the police in 69 were less than thorough.

Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. Unless I am reading into this wrong.

Tahoe27 wrote:

UKSpycatcher wrote:If Z saw the negro, then the negro saw Z. What has the Zodiac to gain by inventing a black man walking by. It serves no purpose. And I don't want to go off on a tangent but the Stine Report omitted about 40 pages, the police in 69 were less than thorough.

Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. Unless I am reading into this wrong.

Your bang on they could exist, but they seemed to have no problem rolling out page after page on the other three crimes, it just seems a little off that in Presidio Heights they could only muster 2 lonely pages, yet on this occasion threw numerous photographs at us, that they never managed with the other three crimes combined.