Zodiackillersite.com

I think that is what makes handwriting so subjective. I think it was Tom (sorry if I'm mistaken Tom) who once mentioned how we are (generally) taught the same way how to write in school. --Then, of course, you will have some that add their own flair. This is proven by the many suspects whose handwriting has been compared to Zodiac.

I believe our minds jump at Zodiac handwriting, primarily because we see that symbol. The rest...similarities. Zodiac or not, the handwriting varies--with similarities, which in MY opinion isn't proof positive, but it certainly doesn't seal the deal as an impostor either.

I'm happy to be wrong and hopefully soon, we'll know and y'all can say "I told you so".

That said, I am now taking requests for my youtube soundtrack. j/k

Richard Grinell wrote:If the phone call wasn't made, Bryan Hartnell hadn't survived and documented the costume and the car door writing didn't exist, but the killer had written a lengthy communication instead, in similar handwriting to the July 31st letters, would that be more compelling evidence than the other three combined[/b].

I would say, yes.

The voice on the phone call was very different than the voice described on the other (BRS) phone call. To me, the voice points away from LB being a Z crime.

Bryan's description of the guy, as well as the ridiculous outfit, are distinct from the witnesses at BRS (Mike Mageau himself) and the kids at PH. Again, to me, these are reasons I think this wasn't Z at LB.

The car door writing looks a bit similar to some of the Z letters, but please let's keep in mind, that car door only has 18 letters on it! That's the equivalent of one short sentence. Could handwriting experts confirm a Z letter if it was that short? There are also 17 numbers but as you point out, the numbers on the car are rather different between themselves. So, frankly are the 3 letter "e" examples. Oddly, discounting the double "l" in Vallejo, that was the only letter duplicated. So to say it looks like Z's letter "e", my reply would be, first choose which of the 3 does, and I will then point out that the other 2 don't.

The writing on the door looks like maybe Z. Maybe Manalli. Maybe TK, or Ross, or some of the halfway decent unconfirmed letters, some of which are probably hoaxes. Those 18 letters on that car door are the best thing tying Z to LB, and they are very, very weak.

Handwriting is essentially not evidence.

The strongest pieces tying Z to LB are the Z symbol and the words "by knife" on the car door. The Halloween card was sent exactly 13 months after LB. But there are still a number of possibilities, all of which are fairly equally likely.

1) Perhaps all 4 attacks and all the letters are the work of Z.
2) Perhaps only some of the attacks and some of the letters are by Z.
3) Perhaps all or some of the attacks but none of the letters are by Z.
4) Or perhaps even none of the attacks and all of the letters are by "Z".

It is morelikely that the Stine murder and the Stine letters are the work of the same individual, but even that is absolutely not certain.

I think we simply don't have the evidence to discriminate between these possibilities right now. We know there were a bunch of attacks, and we know there were a bunch of phone calls and letters related to them. That's pretty much all we know.

TheMist wrote:Handwriting is essentially not evidence.

The strongest pieces tying Z to LB are the Z symbol and the words "by knife" on the car door. The Halloween card was sent exactly 13 months after LB. But there are still a number of possibilities, all of which are fairly equally likely.

1) Perhaps all 4 attacks and all the letters are the work of Z.
2) Perhaps only some of the attacks and some of the letters are by Z.
3) Perhaps all or some of the attacks but none of the letters are by Z.
4) Or perhaps even none of the attacks and all of the letters are by "Z".

It is morelikely that the Stine murder and the Stine letters are the work of the same individual, but even that is absolutely not certain.

I think we simply don't have the evidence to discriminate between these possibilities right now. We know there were a bunch of attacks, and we know there were a bunch of phone calls and letters related to them. That's pretty much all we know.

Agree, Mist. There are are not enough absolutes to definitively state who did what.

In addition to your list we could add to the canonical crimes:
1. LHR - no following letter, no immediate phone call, direct claim in later letter
2. BRS - following letter, immediate phone call
3. LB - no following letter, immediate phone call, immediate writing on car door, no direct claim in later letter (unless claimed as part of "north bay area" killings)
4. PH - following letter, no immediate phone call, physical evidence included with letter

Enough inconsistency to allow for debate, for sure. And not consistent enough that we can say definitively that commission or omission of communication or physical evidence points to the same or multiple person involvement.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
Confucius

I guess for me, it's not so much a letter, specifically about Berryessa, but it's his vagueness about it. Why? He got satisfaction boasting about his crimes. He provided further "proof". He wanted to shout from the rooftops what he had done and bask in the glory of his crimes. He offered proof via Stine's shirt, yet continued to write about his S.F. experience. Why not LB? Heck, we even get "detail" about Kathleen Johns!

If one wants to believe "north bay" meant his Lake Berryessa attack...why do all we get is "I'm also the man who did in the people in the north bay". Period. That's it.

Writing on the card door says he is Zodiac. Letters about other crimes say he is Zodiac. So why, with his most horrifying murder yet, do we not get the gory details of his attack? Some think he wrote about Cheri's breasts under his hands and how she violently shook, but with LB....[I'm the man who did it]...almost in passing.

I agree there is nothing consistent with this case, but Zodiac wasn't evolving, with Stine, he was reverting.


*
RTF: In regard to Confucius....we're all brilliant.

Tahoe27 wrote:
If one wants to believe "north bay" meant his Lake Berryessa attack...why do all we get is "I'm also the man who did in the people in the north bay". Period. That's it.

Something I noticed and have always wondered about. In this newspaper column about the Stine murder it talks about a letter sent by Zodiac. Here's how the part that is pertinent to this conversation reads...

After claiming to have murdered Stine, the letter writer went on to claim responsibility for the killings "of the people in the north Napa and Vallejo areas in Bay area".

The part I bolded and underlined is in quotation marks in the newspaper column, like it is directly from the letter. But we know the letter doesn't say that. At least not the letter we know about. Most likely the reporter writing from memory jotted it down wrong, the story says it was a letter sent Oct 13 to the Chronicle, so unless he sent two letters or there was more to the one we have seen, it was a mistake by the reporter. I've just always found it odd. The letter and what it says is printed right above the column.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/PSNA2.html

If we are talking about his canonical crimes, he never actually basked in the glory of any. The LHR and BRS crimes, he only said he was the murderer and gave details about the ammo, clothing and their position. The August 4th 1969 letter only existed because Vallejo cop Jack Stiltz asked the writer for more details to prove he was the killer. The 'Debut of Zodiac' letter would not have existed but for Jack Stiltz. The October 13th 1969 Stine letter never bragged or basked in the glory of the murder, just admitted he was the killer. The 'Bus Bomb' letter never basked in the glory of the murder, it was mailed in direct response to Chief Martin Lee, who argued Zodiac wasn't in the park. Zodiac's ire was only directed towards the police, who he roundly mocked, but never gloated on the crime itself.
Zodiac had no reason to elaborate on the stabbings at Berryessa, because not only did Bryan Hartnell recall a comprehensive account of every little detail by the lake, giving Zodiac all the publicity he could ever have wished for, but because Zodiac had never basked in the glory of any crimes to date. He provided 'facts' about LHR and BRS and nothing more. He wouldn't even have written the August 4th letter if not prompted. By the time September 27th 1969 came along, he had actually only written the July 31st 1969 letters by choice. He didn't write for 7 months after LHR - then wrote three letters together on July 31st - then nothing until October 13th. Therefore, why is it so unusual he didn't write immediately after Lake Berryessa.

I didn't mean glory in the typical sense, but he obviously wanted attention and certainly enjoyed writing about what he did and offering proof and detail of his crimes. Whether to the police, or with his demands to the show the public. He sought recognition.

I don't find it odd there was no immediate letter, I find it odd we get nothing in any letter except a vague remark that may be construed to mean something else. No snarky remarks about how he got away with it, etc.

Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

CuriousCat wrote:Maybe he felt the car door and the phone call was enough.

Could be. I don't presume to know how or why guys like that do the things they do. He didn't seem to think the BRS phone call was enough and continued on with letters...three of them, to different papers. His freakiest crime of all is sort of swept under-the-rug. I question it, that's all...certainly no understanding the mind of someone like this.