Zodiackillersite.com

Zodiac DID wear glases under his hood at Berryessa! This according to Cecelia in the Berryessa report(last sentence)

Yes – but in fairness she could have been mistaken. She could have assumed that clip-ons is something you attach to your glasses.

Bryan says that he's pretty sure that Z did not wear glasses – and that the clip-ons were attached directly to “his little mask”. He makes a point of this, one may even say.

CS: Assumes the clip-ons are attached to glasses (which they normally are).

BH: Actually observes that the clip-ons are attached to the hood and that Z is not wearing glasses.

And what Cecelia states is coming from other people. We already know what happened with Ranger White...he took it upon himself to state things that never happened (as did Officer Collins). Probably not intentionally, but it's easy for people to perceive things differently.

None at BRS, maybe at LB, glasses in S.F. To me, if one NEEDS glasses, you wear them all the time and BRS and Bryan's comment leads me to him not needing them. Paul Stine needed them. Where were they? Did Zodiac touch them and it was easier to just grab them? ??

Just another thing up for debate.

Hartnell was under heavy sedation after an extremely traumatic event, the transcripts suggest even he wasn't sure, in some it says one thing, in others the contrary. If we discount Mageau's testimony on account of the blinding flashlight and unreliability issues, we have the three teenagers who describe glasses. that's the only other confirmed sighting we have, so if Berryessa was the same guy as the Presidio, it's a fair bet he wore glasses with clip-ons. It was either part of his disguise on both occasions or his eyesight was bad enough that he required them on both occasions. So if both these crimes were Zodiac then he likely for the above two reasons wore them at Berryessa.

Part of the problem.

It's too easy to say Michael didn't get a good view--was in shock, Bryan was under sedation, etc., etc. We can pick and choose what we want to believe if we dismiss the validity of statements by the victims.

Fact is, Mike M. was specifically asked about glasses, as was Bryan. If people choose to dismiss that, I have to question why.

I don't dismiss what Mageau said, any more than Kathleen Johns, however I tend to take what either say with a pinch of salt due to their ever changing statements and therefore took the statements of three teenagers and Hartnell, who tend to be a little more consistent.

Yes - MM is what he is. Or rather he now is what he became.

But back then he stated very clearly that the attacker did not wear glasses. Explicit statement on his part. He may have had a flashlight on him but a flashlight doesn't obliterate a pair of glasses. If he didn't see anything, then presumably that's what he would have said: I don't know whether he had glasses or not, couldn't see his face at all.

That's not what he says, though. He says the guy didn't have glasses - plainly and clearly.

Michael stated "subject stepped up to Michael's side of the car, which is the right side, shining a flashlight on them. Subject did not say anything to them, nor did they say anything to him. Michael started to reach for his wallet".
He also stated he only ever saw the attacker side on, in profile, he never got a front view. So I am assuming the Zodiac shone the torch into the car while still facing away, side-on.

Tahoe27 wrote:And what Cecelia states is coming from other people. We already know what happened with Ranger White...he took it upon himself to state things that never happened (as did Officer Collins). Probably not intentionally, but it's easy for people to perceive things differently.

None at BRS, maybe at LB, glasses in S.F. To me, if one NEEDS glasses, you wear them all the time and BRS and Bryan's comment leads me to him not needing them. Paul Stine needed them. Where were they? Did Zodiac touch them and it was easier to just grab them? ??

Just another thing up for debate.

Somebody on scene that got the info from Cecelia as she told it to them, it's part of the report. She saw him before he put the hood on, Bryan did not. The next time he was seen, he was also wearing glasses. It is what it is.

UKSpycatcher wrote:Michael stated "subject stepped up to Michael's side of the car, which is the right side, shining a flashlight on them. Subject did not say anything to them, nor did they say anything to him. Michael started to reach for his wallet".
He also stated he only ever saw the attacker side on, in profile, he never got a front view. So I am assuming the Zodiac shone the torch into the car while still facing away, side-on.

Yes, fair enough. But all that means is that he didn't see the guy very well. It doesn't mean he wasn't able to determine whether he had glasses or not. And he said - explicitly - that he did not:

States theres was nothing unusual about his face, other than it appeared to be large. Michael stated the subject did not have a mustache, nor was he wearing glasses or anything.

This is as specific as we can hope for given the circumstances. There is no reason to believe he had glasses - none whatsoever, in my opinion.

With LB it's different. Bryan doesn't state that he definitely did not have glasses, only that he doesn't think so. The compelling bit with his statement, however, is that he remarks - explicitly - that the clip-ons were attached to the hood.

To me it seems as though he notices two details at the same time: 1. The clip-ons are not attached to a pair of glasses, but rather to the fabric of the hood. 2. That the man does not have regular glasses on underneath.

One could argue that if he DID have glasses on underneath, Bryan would have noticed this - given that he paid particular attention to the clip-ons and the way in which they were attached. He also noticed how the man's hair appeared, through the eye slit - again, if he had been wearing glasses, this would have been noticeable. But Bryan clearly did not notice glasses - and states, on the contrary, that he doesn't think the guy wore any.

CS states, through a third person (or two, actually) that he wore a hood with clip-on sunglasses, or glasses with clip-ons. Paired with Bryan's account this indicates, to me, that she assumed the clip-ons were attached to a pair of regular glasses (which clip-ons normally are) and failed to notice what Bryan did, viz. that the clip-ons were attached directly to the fabric.

I'd sum it up like so:

BRS: Did not wear glasses by all accounts. Concrete and explicit testimony to the contrary.

LB: Strong indication that he did not wear glasses.