Zodiackillersite.com

Norse wrote:Re: descise

If you actually look entirle different (or even slightly different) when you do your thing – why admit it?

Because narcissists such as the Zodiac can't help but boast their brilliance and illustrate how the other person is totally, spectacularly wrong.

The whole letter was basically "you're so dumb, I'm so smart, nyah-nyah-boo-boo!".



Very childish, which indicates a stunted maturity and probably an absent father.

Norse wrote:

morf13 wrote:
To block sun

Well...yes!

But the question is why attach your shades to the fabric (which is what Z did – Bryan noticed this, he made special note of it) and not to your glasses? If he had glasses, why not attach the shades to the glasses? Seems like a simpler solution.

On the other hand, if he didn't have any glasses – then he had to attach his shades to the fabric.

Kind of hard to connect them to your glasses with a hood separating the clip-ons & glasses underneath the hood. Think of it this way, you put clip-ons over your glasses, then place the hood over your head. Maybe the eye holes would be hard to line up, with the actual lenses, awkward,etc. Maybe the clip-ons guaranteed a clear eye hole opening?

Norse wrote:
But the question is why attach your shades to the fabric (which is what Z did – Bryan noticed this, he made special note of it) and not to your glasses? If he had glasses, why not attach the shades to the glasses? Seems like a simpler solution.

If you were wearing glasses, under a hood like that, while trying to hide your identity and maintain an executioner's wall between you and your victims, you would not want to clip your sunglasses to your eyeglasses. Why? Because the hood is not going to remain situated as snug to your head as a motorcycle helmet, which means if you turn your head, the hood would not maintain its proper alignment. You'd be looking at the inside of the hood while wearing sunglasses, which would be even more uncomfortable and disorienting. You would also expose more of your identity to the outside world than you would likely desire. In addition, you'd make a mess of the entire costume as the eyeglasses and attached sunglasses would snag on the hood. Certainly an irritating, distracting mess.

I'm sure the Zodiac experimented with this getup before LB. I'm sure he tried it on, stood in the mirror, took a good look at himself to determine not only what configuration presented the most disconcerting and well-constructed image, but also what configuration was the most functional for the man inside the suit.

Attaching the sunglasses to the eyeglasses just wouldn't have worked as well as the alternative.



Remember: the glasses would be part of your vision, the sunglasses part of your disguise. You would want to keep them as separate as possible.



Seriously, people here should try the experiment. Get some glasses, some clip-ons, make a little cloth hood with a square top, and see what works best for you. I'll bet you arrive at the above conclusion.

A Jroberson, I agree 100% with your conclusion, just would not be practical or comfortable to attach the clip ons to your glasses, and then put the hood over top of your head, and I fully believe Z had glasses on underneath

Well, I agree that we can agree on the first part. As for the second, it seems we have contradicting statements: Hartnell kind of says one thing, Collins claims Shepard said another.

Since none of us were there, it all comes down to which witness each of us thinks is more credible, and why.

jroberson wrote:Well, I agree that we can agree on the first part. As for the second, it seems we have contradicting statements: Hartnell kind of says one thing, Collins claims Shepard said another.

Since none of us were there, it all comes down to which witness each of us thinks is more credible, and why.

And don't forget, taking Collins out of the equation, Cecelia reported to a witness at the scene, it's in the report

Then you have to choose what you believe: the poorly documented claims of a deceased woman, or the claims of a still-living man who at the time of the crimes took considerable pains to visually document his attacker.

jroberson wrote:Then you have to choose what you believe: the poorly documented claims of a deceased woman, or the claims of a still-living man who at the time of the crimes took considerable pains to visually document his attacker.

Okay, so the reports are "poorly documented"? Let's chuck em all

That's a strawman. You know I didn't say "chuck 'em all". I said Shepard's supposed claim of seeing eyeglasses is poorly documented. Perhaps I should have added "comparatively", although I thought that would be implicitly understood.

Really, what do you have? Someone said Shepard saw eyeglasses, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of details. Did she say "eyeglasses", or did she just say "glasses"? Do we have an audio/video recording? No. Do we have transcripts? No. We have a he said she said type of thing. Official hearsay.

And then you have Collins making up stories three decades later and laughing about it when asked why he didn't document in situ his claims.

Is Shepard capable of clarifying? Verifying her alleged claims? Elaborating? Nope.



If you want to believe what someone said Shepard said and, contrarily, disbelieve the guy who took a very good look and the killer, the guy who, in his own thoroughly documented words, said he was "pretty sure" the killer wasn't wearing glasses, the guy who was closest to and most engaged with the Zodiac, that's your personal choice, of course.


Kind of a dead subject at this point, to be candid.

I think of the game "telephone" and how a story can get screwed up just from one person telling the next what the first person told them. That is what I gather from the communications with Cecelia. It's how they perceived her comments and how they relayed them for the next person to perceive them.

We know the P.D. reports were full of errors, but the reports aren't necessarily facts. We certainly wouldn't want to toss them.