Zodiackillersite.com

Holmes201 wrote:I never went to California until a few years back. I was always reluctant because I knew the zodiac was around. They said on the news for years that the guy was still out there most likely. I read all about the zodiac murders in the early 1970s when they started bringing out books about it. We have to dig for information back then. You young people now have it easy. With these computers is very simple for you to do anything. We you slide rulers. Now everybody push a button they think they know everything.

What the hell are you babbling about? What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand?

CuriousCat wrote:

Holmes201 wrote:I never went to California until a few years back. I was always reluctant because I knew the zodiac was around. They said on the news for years that the guy was still out there most likely. I read all about the zodiac murders in the early 1970s when they started bringing out books about it. We have to dig for information back then. You young people now have it easy. With these computers is very simple for you to do anything. We you slide rulers. Now everybody push a button they think they know everything.

What the hell are you babbling about? What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand?

I've been researching the zodiac case before you were born.

I'm much more familiar with this case then 99% of the people.

Because I've been studying it for 49 years

Holmes201 wrote:
I've been researching the zodiac case before you were born.

Umm, no, you haven't, but whatever.

I'm going to re-rail the thread by asking this question:

What is your best guess as to the material used to make the hood and tunic? I've seen paper bags mentioned and even leather.

Any thoughts?

Bryan Hartnell was arguably the most educated and consistent witness throughout his statements then and now. His interaction with the costumed assailant was extensive, over many minutes in daylight. He said it was a "cloth material" - and I see no reason or counterargument to his observation, which was a prolonged one. Therefore, until such a time that a valid reason surfaces that suggests he is not a reliable witness in his own attack, I believe his testimony to be reliable.

The cloth material was probably fairly sturdy in order to maintain the "cornered" appearance it was described as - so it was likely a heavy cotton fabric. If we find it reasonable to doubt Bryan Hartnell, who was without doubt a credible eyewitness, then we may as well dismiss every eyewitness throughout the entire case and just replace their observations with our own, or what fits our own theory. There has to be sufficient reason to doubt an eyewitness' recollection of events, but with this particular observation I see none.

Richard Grinell wrote:Bryan Hartnell was arguably the most educated and consistent witness throughout his statements then and now. His interaction with the costumed assailant was extensive, over many minutes in daylight. He said it was a "cloth material" - and I see no reason or counterargument to his observation, which was a prolonged one. Therefore, until such a time that a valid reason surfaces that suggests he is not a reliable witness in his own attack, I believe his testimony to be reliable.

The cloth material was probably fairly sturdy in order to maintain the "cornered" appearance it was described as - so it was likely a heavy cotton fabric. If we find it reasonable to doubt Bryan Hartnell, who was without doubt a credible eyewitness, then we may as well dismiss every eyewitness throughout the entire case and just replace their observations with our own, or what fits our own theory. There has to be sufficient reason to doubt an eyewitness' recollection of events, but with this particular observation I see none.

Agreed. Hartnell is a very credible witness.

The four cornered mask has always confounded me. For the longest time, I thought he just cut a black pillow case halfway up the sides. However, as I have learned more, it seems as if Zodiac did something to give it that boxy, four cornered appearance. How? Was it stiff? Or just loosely sewn into a square?

I would imagine it had to be fairly rigid to maintain consistency over the eye region. The hood may very well have given the false impression to Hartnell he was taller than described by other eyewitnesses - testimony to its sturdiness.

I've already stated my complete lack of sewing skill, however due to my mother being a seamstress and having had to help her at times I know enough about material to get into trouble. Pretty much any standard material will fray or unravel at the edges unless you hem it, which requires some skill, and most is too limp to hold up on it's own. A canvas like material has some rigidity, but it's not easy to cut or sew and requires hemming usually.

In my semi-educated opinion, felt is a likely material. It has some stiffness and doesn't require hemming along the edge to prevent fraying or unravelling. It's easy to cut and sew. I have had some experience working with it using it to line desk drawers. There could well be and probably are other materials that are similar.

However even with felt or some canvas material some sort of interior frame would be required to make the hood keep it's shape and turn with his head.