Zodiackillersite.com

Chaucer wrote:The costume could have served a more practical purpose.

Well, it certainly served the practical purpose of hiding his face if someone happened along or one of the victims lived. A ski mask would have served that same purpose so it seems obvious the hood was special to him, he became the comic book supervillan by wearing it.

Chaucer wrote:The costume could have served a more practical purpose. Stabbings are usually much bloodier and messier than shootings. The costume could simply be his way of keeping blood off of his clothes to make his escape and later the phone call.

This is my point. It would be like Dexter telling someone not to worry, as he's putting up his blood-splatter shield.

Cat -

I agree with you. I think it had some kind of symbolic significance for him, but I think it also served the practical purposes of hiding his identity and keeping blood off his clothes.

Marshall-

Whether you think that's how it SHOULD have played out is irrelevant. That's not how it played out. Bryan has stated that he felt it was a robbery and that at no time did he feel his life was endangered. Cecelia, apparently felt differently, and was scared, but still cooperated.

Also, consider hindsight. Today we know what that costume means. At that time neither Bryan nor Cecelia recognized the symbol used on the front, and probably just assumed they were being robbed by a guy hiding his face.

Chaucer wrote:Cat -

I agree with you. I think it had some kind of symbolic significance for him, but I think it also served the practical purposes of hiding his identity and keeping blood off his clothes.

Marshall-

Whether you think that's how it SHOULD have played out is irrelevant. That's not how it played out. Bryan has stated that he felt it was a robbery and that at no time did he feel his life was endangered. Cecelia, apparently felt differently, and was scared, but still cooperated.

Also, consider hindsight. Today we know what that costume means. At that time neither Bryan nor Cecelia recognized the symbol used on the front, and probably just assumed they were being robbed by a guy hiding his face.

And yet a month later he shoots Paul Stine at blank point range and he does not seem to worry in the slightest about getting blood over him.

There is little reason to suggest Zodiac had much blood on him that night. If bare-handed, a little bit of back spatter would be all. He certainly didn't have Paul Stine in or over his lap as supposedly observed. Zodiac may not have been Einstein, but very few killers would shoot a person in the head causing massive bleeding, then proceed to place the victim's head in their lap, especially when they have to exit the scene on foot. The only other time (other than the initial shot) when blood may have been transferred to Zodiac's hand, was when he tore the shirt. The rest of his body had no reason to ever contact the blood at the scene. The 'blood all over his body' suggestion, unfortunately perpetuated by Armond Pelissetti in 2007, has little supporting evidence. Nevertheless, it will probably keep doing the rounds for another 50 years.

Richard Grinell wrote:There is little reason to suggest Zodiac had much blood on him that night. If bare-handed, a little bit of back spatter would be all. He certainly didn't have Paul Stine in or over his lap as supposedly observed. Zodiac may not have been Einstein, but very few killers would shoot a person in the head causing massive bleeding, then proceed to place the victim's head in their lap, especially when they have to exit the scene on foot. The only other time (other than the initial shot) when blood may have been transferred to Zodiac's hand, was when he tore the shirt. The rest of his body had no reason to ever contact the blood at the scene. The 'blood all over his body' suggestion, unfortunately perpetuated by Armond Pelissetti in 2007, has little supporting evidence. Nevertheless, it will probably keep doing the rounds for another 50 years.

Sorry the point I was trying to make was not that he was covered in blood it was the fact that he took the risk of this happening without feeling the need to wear a protective costume.He only wore the hood once and on this one occasion it was also the only time that he used a knife. I still wonder if Paul was smoke and mirrors, Let me put it this way Paul’s made it was a massive change of MO in a large number of ways, he sure as hell made sure that everybody knew that he had committed the Stine murder he almost goes too far with this confession. Was he trying to draw attention away from something else ?

Lake Berryessa he attacks then writes his message on the car door, makes his phone call and disappears believing everything is hunky-dory. He then hears that he has left a survivor, remember this is also the only attack where no known letter was sent. Then within a relatively short space of time he attacks Paul and the most populated city in the area, in the most affluent area of the city and on a target which is largely associated with this city, the yellow cab. In future letters he only slightly references the lake Berryessa attack whilst sending threats of bombs on children, more ciphers and rambling on about buttons. Again all detracting from the lake Berryessa attack.

Why ? Did make some sort of slip up, if so it could have only been either something he said or the costume.

I certainly understand the question you're probing, but the Zodiac was driven by the newspaper coverage. Zodiac wrote the Debut letter after being prompted by Jack E. Stiltz, otherwise this communication wouldn't have been written. He didn't write any communications immediately after LHR - only giving us a trinity of July 31st 1969 communications - which remained his only written contact with authorities between December 20th 1968 and October 11th 1969. So, up to this point, he had effectively only willingly contacted the newspapers once, and therefore it was no surprise he never wrote after the Berryessa attack, to which he got plenty of coverage from the recollections of Bryan Hartnell.

However, the newspapers unfortunately decided to start inflaming a four time murderer by claiming he was a sexual deviant, invoking piquerism and a sexual content to his attacks, to which there is no evidence for whatsoever. It is rather telling then, that the Zodiac Killer decided to switch his emphasis from young courting couples to a 29-year-old taxicab driver. The newspapers in 1969 were remarkably irresponsible in ridiculing this man rather than pacifying him - and thereby gambling with peoples lives. I cannot say for certain this was the catalyst for his attack on Paul Stine, but it is certainly possible, after all, the Zodiac Killer responded to the newspaper coverage he received, evidenced by his reply to Jack E. Stiltz and Chief Martin Lee, when he mailed the 'Debut' and 'Bus Bomb' letters respectively.

Other than his attack on three couples, there really is little MO to this killer. The first two attacks can be compartmentalized, but the other two attacks are totally different. Therefore, 50% of the time he deviated. I believe applying an MO to Zodiac over such a small sample size is not realistic, and his likely shift of emphasis in the Paul Stine murder was not because of any slip up, but more so a response to a loose-tongued media who decided to paint the Zodiac Killer as a sexually dysfunctional person driven by a hatred for women. The response they got was all too apparent on October 11th 1969.

Again, we are in agreement, Richard. As I stated before, most shootings are far less messy than stabbings. There was no reason to protect himself from blood spatter in the taxi cab like their was at Lake Berryessa.

Richard Grinell wrote:I certainly understand the question you're probing, but the Zodiac was driven by the newspaper coverage. Zodiac wrote the Debut letter after being prompted by Jack E. Stiltz, otherwise this communication wouldn't have been written. He didn't write any communications immediately after LHR - only giving us a trinity of July 31st 1969 communications - which remained his only written contact with authorities between December 20th 1968 and October 11th 1969. So, up to this point, he had effectively only willingly contacted the newspapers once, and therefore it was no surprise he never wrote after the Berryessa attack, to which he got plenty of coverage from the recollections of Bryan Hartnell.

However, the newspapers unfortunately decided to start inflaming a four time murderer by claiming he was a sexual deviant, invoking piquerism and a sexual content to his attacks, to which there is no evidence for whatsoever. It is rather telling then, that the Zodiac Killer decided to switch his emphasis from young courting couples to a 29-year-old taxicab driver. The newspapers in 1969 were remarkably irresponsible in ridiculing this man rather than pacifying him - and thereby gambling with peoples lives. I cannot say for certain this was the catalyst for his attack on Paul Stine, but it is certainly possible, after all, the Zodiac Killer responded to the newspaper coverage he received, evidenced by his reply to Jack E. Stiltz and Chief Martin Lee, when he mailed the 'Debut' and 'Bus Bomb' letters respectively.

Other than his attack on three couples, there really is little MO to this killer. The first two attacks can be compartmentalized, but the other two attacks are totally different. Therefore, 50% of the time he deviated. I believe applying an MO to Zodiac over such a small sample size is not realistic, and his likely shift of emphasis in the Paul Stine murder was not because of any slip up, but more so a response to a loose-tongued media who decided to paint the Zodiac Killer as a sexually dysfunctional person driven by a hatred for women. The response they got was all too apparent on October 11th 1969.

Fair Points Richard but I do not agree that he was driven by Newspaper coverage, more like the boost to his Ego that these gave him. It would have still been taking a large risk though not wearing a mask if like previously mentioned he wore it as protective layer from blood splatter. Middle of nowhere he is worried whilst in a heavily populated area takes the risk. The homosexuality issue is interesting in itself, especially if as you pertain this was perhaps the motivation for the activity after LB, but that is obviously going off topic. Also the first three attack's were all on couples, whether through choice or opportunity is open for debate.

Thinking about it logically maybe he had learnt from the two initial attacks the amount of blood that exited once an individual was shot but obviously Stine was a completely different scenario. I still maintain though that there is more to the mask than we know, it was too elaborate to be protection

Another distinction to be made about Lake Berryessa vs. Stine is one occurred in broad daylight, while the other took place at night. The costume could have provided a measure of identitification protection while out in daylight hours where seeing is easier. During the Stine murder, Zodiac may have felt more comfortable hiding his identity under the cover of darkness. Before anyone chimes in, I know that it was a lit street and not complete darkness, but seeing and describing someone at night is more difficult than during the day regardless of streetlights.

Also. consider the nature of the crimes, had Zodiac worn the costume to kill Stine, he would have then had to flee a populated urban area with a conspicuous costume on or ditching it and risk the police finding it. I think that costume meant too much to him to stuff it in a trash can as he fled along Jackson Street.