The 3 Girls - I Think Saw Who Attacked Bryan & Cecelia

[Norse]

Since I think the guy the doc/dentist and his son saw was their attacker, I don't think he was parked behind Bryan's car when he attacked them. No footprints to or from his car to Bryan's or the path either.

I can buy that. The attacker was parked somewhere further down the road.

But I don't think the doc/son guy was the voyeur.

Doc/son guy: Appears in wooded terrain, clearly not keen on being spotted. Wears a long sleeve dark shirt with red in it.

Voyeur: Appears in the open, not overly worried about being spotted (albeit not exactly acting naturally either). Wears a dark short sleeved pullover.

If the attacker was both, he wore both a long sleeve shirt (with red in it, which clearly can't be mistaken for the baggy sort of jacket he wore during the attack) and a short sleeve pullover, possibly with a t-shirt underneath.

The doc/son guy could have been the attacker. But he was not the voyeur.

[Tahoe27]

One girl said she thought it was a "white belt"...hence, "possibly" a T-shirt. I absolutely think she had the "white belt" (clothesline) right. The belt/shirt was in back as was Bryan's description of the clothesline.

At one point their attacker had on a long sleeved garment and he also had on some sort of pullover--it wouldn't surprise me if these were just switched up somehow.

I also take into consideration this person walked down to the girls, he wasn't only watching them from above. He walked down to them in the same manner in which Bryan and Cecelia's attacker did. I can tell you, having been to Lake Berryessa, when you are down in your own little area and someone else comes down there, it is a tad uncomfortable. You kind of claim your "spot".

WHY did he watch those girls from above, then approach them so closely down at the beach (with his "white belt" and bunched up shirt--in front ) and not even acknowledge them? Earlier they said when they looked at him, he would look away (as did the guy the dentist and his son saw).

I think when he got that close, he realized he couldn't take on all three and chickened out.

One of the three girls statements via http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport10.html

[Norse]

At one point their attacker had on a long sleeved garment and he also had on some sort of pullover--it wouldn't surprise me if these were just switched up somehow.

Well, that's possible. Switched up how, though? None of the girls mention a long sleeved shirt, whereas two of them state explicitly that his shirt had short sleeves. Nor is there any mention of the shirt having red in it. And the doc/son statement is unambiguous: Long sleeved shirt with red in it. The latter detail precludes (in my opinion) the possibility of them mistaking a jacket (or rather THE jacket) for a shirt.

Based on the available evidence there are three or possibly four garments in play here: A dark jacket (observed by BH), a dark long sleeved shirt with red in it (observed by doc/son), a dark short sleeved shirt (observed by the girls) and possibly a white t-shirt (also observed by the girls).

Did all these garments belong to the same person? Sure, they could have. He could have changed from short to long sleeves, or worn a long sleeved shirt over his short sleeved one, the possibilities are practically endless. But statistically I'd say it's more common to wear either short or long sleeves - and then have a jacket ready in case it gets cold (or you decide to attack someone with a knife) - not to carry multiple shirts with you.

As for the behavior, we've been over this before - but to me the main thing to keep in mind is that the creepy guy was creeping on girls in bikinis. It's natural for someone like that to act the way he did - it's not indicative of anything beyond the very activity itself, you could say, which is a somewhat dubious activity to begin with.

The doc/son guy's reaction is clearly different to me. He acts like someone who doesn't want to be seen at all, and who has been spotted in a place where he didn't expect anyone to spot him.

That said, there are problems with the doc/son guy too:

* He was spotted at approximately 6:30.
* He was not carrying anything and he was not wearing a jacket.
* According to Narlow it is unlikely that the guy could have covered the distance between the crime scene and where he was spotted on foot (there being, as the report says, four coves of water in between).

[Norse]

The doc/son guy could have been the attacker. But he was not the voyeur.

Looking at the time line (as far as we can determine it), it seems questionable that the doc/son guy was the attacker IF the time of the encounter (as reported by the doc) is accurate:

* Ranger White was contacted by Park HQ at approx. 1855 hours. Before that, two events occured:

1. Fong discovers BH and CS, proceeds to Rancho Monticello - and 2. Mrs. White calls Park HQ.

* Doc/son encounter takes place at approx. 1830 hours.

Even if the doc/son guy was parked nearby (a possibility noted by Narlow - but he also remarks that according to the doc and son, no cars were to be seen near their own), it seems impossible that he could have made it to "Zodiac Island" in time to attack BH and CS before Fong came around in his boat.

Unless...he was seen by the doc and son after the attack. It seems unlikely at first glance: One would think that Z, after the attack, headed to his car (most likely after having done the writing on B's car door) - and that he proceeded to leave the area immedately. If the post-attack observation theory holds water, he must have headed to the car, disposed of his gear (weapons, costume and jacket), and then for reasons unknown left the car again to do...what? No, it looks like a stretch.

A couple of points I find generally interesting, though - and possibly germane to this...speculation:

* The time of the Napa call (again!). He called at 1940 hours. There is some reason to suggest that it took him longer to get to the phone booth than one should think if the time of the attack (as written on the car door) is more or less accurate.

* The footprints and the tire tracks. These don't add up perfectly. The infamous Wingwalker prints are consistent with the subject moving from Bryan's car to the crime scene (or the other way around, if you prefer). But no prints were found to indicate that the subject had gone near a second vehicle (namely his own car, which must have been parked where the tire tracks were discovered). This is arguably odd.

And to make it clear: It is possibly relevant because IF his car was NOT parked close to Bryan's, it alters the time line for obvious reasons. How much it alters the time line is impossible to tell as long as we don't know exactly where he was parked.

[Quicktrader]

Guess he had to change his clothes. There must have been smoe blood on it. Also he might had gotten rid of the mask and other stuff (Sandy's car..time?). For Z there were not many reasons to choose any phone booth far away from his home. So different the call from Tuluomne Street, this one may have happened sort of 'on his way home'. Vice versa, after LB, he could have called 'on his way home' before driving to Vallejo, too. Therefore his home could have been somewhere between these two phone booths, placing him somehow to American Canyon.

QT

[Norse]

I don't think we can infer all that much from the fact that he made the call from that particular location, to be honest. It was very likely on the way, though - I certainly agree with that. But precisely where he was headed - impossible to say. Could have been five minutes out of town, could have been Vallejo, could have been San Francisco for that matter. For me, LB is a clear outlier in more than one way: As a popular and well known recreation area, it would have been known to people all over the general (and pretty wide at that) area. Very much unlike LHR and BRS in that regard - a natural place to go for him, you could say, given his particular "interests", almost regardless of where he resided - as long as the latter was within said general area.

That said, the possible gap in the possible time line (possible being the key term), lends itself to a different kind of speculation: He could have stopped somewhere prior to making the call. A pit stop on the way from his parked location (wherever that actually was - but we can surmise that it couldn't have been miles away from the crime scene) to the phone booth.

Now, I would stress that in my opinon the time line is the only real reason why one would want to consider this possibility: In general I don't see him heading somewhere to take a shower and change clothes as being necessary at all given the circumstances. He could have easily stashed all his (bloody) gear in the trunk and just driven off. His clothes on the day would have reflected the grisly task, IMO (and they do, as per Bryan's testimony: Unshapely sort of jacket, old pants, etc. Clothes that were meant to get messy, if you will - and which he would have been able to dispose of easily (either by keeping spare clothes in his car - or by wearing something suitable underneath his "work clothes".

[EndOfTheWorld]

Wearing clothes underneath the killing clothes---yes, and this jibes with the descriptions of a heavier, bulkier guy at LB compared to PH.

[Norse]

He was described as fairly bulky elsewhere too, it has to be said.

MM's description is the most interesting one in that regard: He wasn't wearing anything baggy or unshapely at BRS, and he was still described as bulky - or beefy, to be exact.

[EndOfTheWorld]

MM's had different descriptions, didn't he? Which might be expected by somebody that got shot many times, and underwent severe trauma at the crime scene. I thought at one time he said "big face".

[Norse]

Yes, that's correct, MM did say that the attacker had a large face.

He also said this:

Subject...was real heavy set, beefy build. States subject was not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to 200, maybe even larger.

As I've said many times, MM later became a terrible witness in many ways, and for many (tragic) reasons. But he wasn't an inherently untrustworthy witness in 1969. He was a normal witness, who in a normal fashion gave his testimony, stating what he remembered and what he did not remember. *

There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that he dreamed up features that weren't there. The obvious conclusion is that the man who attacked him was beefy, just as Michael said.

* Normal under the circumstances, of course.