Zodiackillersite.com

Paul_Averly wrote:Fouke made the point he thought it was unusual.

My point is that this is very consistent with Z's outdated fashion. Horned rimmed glasses, pleated pants, crew cuts and greased hair, were all very 1950's and if you look at how people dressed in 1969, it comes off as unusual.

It's just one of the many things consistent with Z that was also was noted at LB.

Copycat / Hoax theories all come about because the people who push these theories pick one or two things they see as inconsistent. With LB, there are more things that line up with Z than do not. But when these issues are pointed out, the Hoax theory people only get defensive and never seem to address those issues.

Fouke also made the point he thought Allen was a hundred pounds or so heavier than the guy he saw. Allen was a big guy. I'm not picking and choosing inconsistencies.

Thing is, I have addressed "those" issues.

Crew cut, horned rim glasses (no proof of either at LB...especially if you believe the girls saw Zodiac--and not at BRS) were very much the fashion. That is why we have a ton of guys who fit the bill. Just look at any Zodiac message board or open up a yearbook.

Personally, I believe there are more differences and I think most people realize, it is those with POI's who become defensive.

Paul not everyone was a hippie wearing bellbottoms or Levi's. There were a lot of "squares" that had to dress in slacks for work and pleated slacks were worn. My own father had pleated slacks! Heck, they were on sale at Penneys in that ad I posted. How can you say they were very unusual?

Crew cuts too, there were a good 10 military bases in the Bay Area back then and all of the soldiers had crew cuts. Lots of crew cuts around. And horn rimmed glasses, sheesh, I can look through my 1969 Napa HS senior yearbook and the most common style of men's glasses are the horned rimmed.

We don't know whether or not Zodiac's hair, under the hood, was greasy or perhaps sweaty.

And, I do not agree with Tahoe about LB being a copycat. I personally think that the killer was Zodiac. Tahoe has a right to her opinion, she has posted well thought out reasons for her belief. There are almost 700 members at this forum maybe 10, and probably less, believe that LB might be a copycat.

I think it's you that's being unnecessarily defensive.

Who said anything about a POI?

There are major flaws in the Hoax / Copycat narrative even without a POI.

I do not have a firm opinion on this either way but I was thinking that the writing on the door at LB could be the sign of a copycat just for the fact this was not Z's calling card in the other incidents. Just a thought. Not all crime scenes had pieces of shirt ripped apart either, though, as in Stine.

bmichelle wrote:I do not have a firm opinion on this either way but I was thinking that the writing on the door at LB could be the sign of a copycat just for the fact this was not Z's calling card in the other incidents. Just a thought. Not all crime scenes had pieces of shirt ripped apart either, though, as in Stine.

Good point. There was a car door available at all the Z crime scenes. He took a lot of time to wipe down Paul's cab but he didn't "sign" the door, and he didn't write on the door at LHR or BRS either. He claimed these crimes by writing letters only.

The car door at LB claimed his victims by listing the dates, but omitted August, which was claimed by letter-writer Z. Letter-writer Z claimed the Bay Area killings, but not LB. It's been re-hashed dozens of times but your point about Z not writing on car doors, before or after LB, is something I hadn't heard before, or thought of, and I think it's a very valid point.

Seagull wrote:Paul not everyone was a hippie wearing bellbottoms or Levi's. There were a lot of "squares" that had to dress in slacks for work and pleated slacks were worn. My own father had pleated slacks! Heck, they were on sale at Penneys in that ad I posted. How can you say they were very unusual?

Crew cuts too, there were a good 10 military bases in the Bay Area back then and all of the soldiers had crew cuts. Lots of crew cuts around. And horn rimmed glasses, sheesh, I can look through my 1969 Napa HS senior yearbook and the most common style of men's glasses are the horned rimmed.

We don't know whether or not Zodiac's hair, under the hood, was greasy or perhaps sweaty.

And, I do not agree with Tahoe about LB being a copycat. I personally think that the killer was Zodiac. Tahoe has a right to her opinion, she has posted well thought out reasons for her belief. There are almost 700 members at this forum maybe 10, and probably less, believe that LB might be a copycat.

I think it's you that's being unnecessarily defensive.

Seagull is correct, we don't know what Zodiac looked like under his hood. We don't know what hairstyle he had. We know he was bulky,or overweight. We know from the report he was wearing glasses under the hood. Besides that who knows. He could have had long hair that was cut by the night of the Stine murder. I know one thing, I think most of us would agree that the mystery guy seen at Lake Berryessa watching the girls, and the guy seen leaving the Stine scene, don't look much alike.

If we simply change the hairstyle of the Berryessa sketch (middle), or change one facial feature like the lips (right), the difference between the two images are vastly reduced. But that is the nature of rudimentary sketches, they are a guide.



Here is an example of the suspect sketch in the murder of Betsy Aardama, and the Berryessa sketch. After the attack on Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard on September 27th 1969, a sketch of a suspicious character was generated from the testimony of three women in the preceding hours to the crime. The possible suspect drawing in the Betsy Aarsma case has closed eyes, so in the following comparison I have added the eyes from the Berryessa sketch to compare the likeness.



It seems odd that in one version of the Berryessa sketch, and in the Aardsma sketch, the artist separately in both cases adds a strand or lock of hair in the upper right forehead as we look at both sketches. What is the chance this was something else, a scar, facial mark etc. It seems a strange feature to add to a rudimentary sketch.

When I think of the girls description, I am reminded of the composite in the Nancy Bennallack case. To me, this looks more like their description than the composite their artist generated.

Regardless, we have "dark brown/black hair"...from "light brown/almost blond/curly" at BRS...in July. Whatever the reason for that, they are different. SF fits BRS.

But the BRS hair description is different than the PH hair description. This logic would conclude that PH was a different person as well.

All the crimes have inconsistencies. Twisted logic would conclude they were all different people.

PH-Z had reddish-brown hair, BRS had curly light brown hair. = different person
PH-Z wore glasses, BRS wore no glasses = different person
PH-Z had no car, BRS had a brown car = different person
PH-Z was in one report 40 years old, BRS he was 30 = different person

Yes, what you wrote is twisted logic.