Zodiackillersite.com

T., yes, I think it's a replica, but IDK for sure. Are you going to tell me how you think they differ, door(s) and writing from '66?
It's me you're talking to remember, I don't intuit very well! (And I don't get Ford jokes. Not first time anyway.)
We don't always write the time like that over here btw, with a colon to seperate hours and minute. We often use just one dot. Maybe the US differs?

They are little circles in both places I think, rather than blobs. Door and Riverside envelope. You think that's what Hollywood thought? That they were supposed to be circles? NOT filled in? Perhaps they were right. Maybe they were good at reproducing stuff for the movie, after all. Hee hee hee.

No, I don't think the colons prove diddley squat either, except that I think they're used often and pretty instinctively. Yes. I think he mixed up his handwriting a lot and could do so pretty instinctively and had done so since 1966. Probably before then too, why not? All the techniques used later were strongly hinted at or just plain used right there in '66 on that one envelope, including the circles, "Belli" writing and cuneiform.
Right?

See, I've been thinking he researched his disguise techniques in a book just as I've been doing (probably James V.P. Conway's 1959 "Evidential Documents", it's a cracking read) - and that he was doing so in 1969 to come up with mechanisms to Fule the Blue Meanies. But he wasn't. Nope. He knew this stuff long before that. Knew it in 1966.

OK then.

An aside....
The psychologist lady on the Fincher movie "extra bit" looks at the car door and says something about the dots, I think - "They're little circles!" she probably says (I'm kidding) - and then she says something very like "Hmmm, he really cares about time, doesn't he?" and pauses, thoughtfully. And has a scratch of her big nose. And everyone stands around very reverentially, looking at this old door, thinking Detective-And-Psychologist deep insightful thoughts.

I was quite impressed by that I must say. I thought "Gee - she's going to dig up records for all the watchmakers in Northern CA who drive old cars with strange axles and mis-matched tires" when I saw it. I actually thought "and she's really going to catch help catch him, by crikey!"

Now I think she was just trying to say something that appeared smart and insightful, for the camera. Pointless.
And they probably rehearsed it.

traveller1st wrote:

smithy wrote:Eh?
How many newspapers wrote about Cecelia and Bryan being stabbed? All of them. I don't think the fact that some adolescent writer figured out that someone used a knife to do the stabbing is all that compelling....

A simple yet easily overlooked fact. That certainly would cover the 'kooks'. Where does that then leave the Halloween card on the scale I wonder. Where the actual phrasing was accurate as well ... slightly elevated?

Slightly elevated sounds about right to me. It's not a unique phrase by any stretch, so it's far from conclusive. But it's...interesting. They hold one particular phrase back - and that is the phrase used in the HC card. And, just so it's absolutely clear, they're not holding back that the killer used a knife at LB - everyone knew that he did - but the simple fact that he actually wrote "by knife" on that door. And then someone wrote "by knife" on the HC card. Facts - undeniable ones. Significant to a certain extent - but, again, far from being conclusive.

smithy wrote:
See, I've been thinking he researched his disguise techniques in a book just as I've been doing (probably James V.P. Conway's 1959 "Evidential Documents", it's a cracking read) - and that he was doing so in 1969 to come up with mechanisms to Fule the Blue Meanies.

That's what I'm thinking too.

And 1966 doesn't necessarily come into it. Colons or not. The latter is...I don't know. I'm not saying you don't have a point regarding the colons, smithy - but there aren't a million ways in which to print a colon on a page, or an envelope, or a car door.

Norse - there ain't a million ways to write anything - and that includes if you use colors and any or all of the available languages - but at some point you have to look at all these ducks and say "Quack" I think. Unless you don't want to of course - which is also fine by me.

If we're going to discuss the Halloween card here - and why wouldn't we, I suppose, there's no law against it - Re: "By knife" - yes they kept it back - and yes, they tried to keep it "a secret". I wonder if they succeeded - and I also wonder, since Tahoe found that marvellous comic with all four phrases in - if "by knife" isn't just one of those wonderful coincidences. It's on the card, it came from the comic. It's on the door - OK then.

Lastly, I'm wondering whether the guy who wrote "by knife" didn't also write the Halloween card. It's possible, I suppose. I change my mind on that, often.
Just because the envelope's wrong, the stamps are wrong and the symbol is wrong, doesn't mean he didn't write the card, I suppose. Why not?

Re: Conclusive - there ain't anything conclusive around here. The story just goes on and on. No-one's caught, no-one's indicted, no-one's guilty......

Copied from a thread started by vasa croe. (Trying to keep topics organized into pertinent threads)

vasa croe wrote:I don't think I have ever seen the reasoning behind the timeline of events on this particular question, but I would guess there is a definitive reason for it....why is it thought that Z wrote on the car door after attacking Cecelia and Bryan? I would think it more likely he would write it prior to allowing him more time to leave the scene instead of stopping to write something. Is there a reason behind this particular timeline that is not public for some reason? Or is it just an assumption that it was written after the attack?

Tahoe27 wrote:Copied from a thread started by vasa croe. (Trying to keep topics organized into pertinent threads)

vasa croe wrote:I don't think I have ever seen the reasoning behind the timeline of events on this particular question, but I would guess there is a definitive reason for it....why is it thought that Z wrote on the car door after attacking Cecelia and Bryan? I would think it more likely he would write it prior to allowing him more time to leave the scene instead of stopping to write something. Is there a reason behind this particular timeline that is not public for some reason? Or is it just an assumption that it was written after the attack?

My apologies...I should have thought there was a thread on the door already. Thanks!

So....anyone know why the timeline given suggests the writing occurred after the attack?

I'm not aware of anything which would positively indicate that he did the writing after the attack.

However, I would say it's natural to assume he only signed his "work" after it was actually done:

* Why would he do it the other way around? The writing isn't elaborate, it wouldn't have taken him long at all to do it.

* Given the location/terrain he may not have - finally - decided to attack BH and CS before he got fairly close to them, having descended from the road, having scoped out the area, having had a good look at his victims, etc. If he for one reason or another decided to, or was forced to, abandon the attack, the writing would be a complete waste.

That said, I wouldn't mind looking at some reasons why it might be the other way around.

One possible factor in this is his car. Where was he actually parked? If the infamous tracks aren't his (as many have speculated), he could have been parked anywhere within a reasonable distance from BH's car. Now, say that he was parked a fair distance from BH's car: In order for him to do the writing post-assault, he must have headed back to BH's car solely in order to do the writing - and then proceed to his own car. Which seems elaborate somehow.

Put it like this: The post-assault writing works flawlessly if he was parked right next to BH. Not so flawless if he was parked some distance off.

Even simpler, because he wrote the time down. Wasn't it 7:15 or something? Without looking it up, I think that it's simply reasoned that time makes more sense for after the attack than before.

Edit: I happen to have Yellowbook stuck under the uneven chair leg. Handy. Graysmith says the door said 6:30, they got there at 5:00, and the call came in to Napa Co. at 7:13. There you go.

Plus, the fact that he noted the time (whether it's the time of signing the door, or the time of the actual attack, doesn't really matter in this context) does indicate (to me, at least) post-assault writing. It seems very odd, at best, to write down the exact time of an attack which hasn't taken place yet - consider again the nature of the scene, the terrain, the high probability that he had been trolling the area for some time, looking for suitable targets, etc.

My reasoning for wondering this is because of the amount of time taken to write it, yet not even checking to see whether the victims were actually dead seems odd. That and the writing out of the current one with the abbreviation of the date and a very specific time. I also think the 6:30 time is odd, as if Z wanted to round it to exactly 6:30. I have often wondered if that is actually supposed to be the time reference. It seems Z was more concerned with the taunting of police than actually killing anyone. I would think that a killer would make sure the victims were dead at least....especially before claiming them.

And the above poster said the call came in at 7:13? I thought it was 7:40. Is 7:13 correct?