Zodiackillersite.com

There is this age-progressed sketch from the "MysteryQuest" show. I'll make no comment on it

http://www.forartist.com/forensic/compo ... accase.htm

-glurk

Well I think we can all agree, case solved....






I had the Director of the FBI confirm over the phone that this man above was and is the San Francisco Zodiac. Received a phone call earlier from Agent Stuart Pedro , or Stu-Ped for short, gave me this highly sensitive and classified document above. As Agent Stu-Ped pointed out, there is no doubt this man is Zodiac because he has a cross-hairs on his shoulder badge.

He said I may wish to contact the Central Intelligence Agency and ask for the Director personally and ask him do they have one Sgt. Biklo's DNA in their database. I'm on hold as we speak.....

Welsh Chappie wrote:The thing that has always bothered me about the Pacific Heights Composite is it's nothing like Mike Mageau's 'Large round faced' assailant that Mike described Zodiac as having. Hartnell also put his attacker in the 200lbs plus range, saying he could have been as much as 250. Mageau also states his attacker was real beefy, solid build and 195 - 200lbs at the very least (says it could be more). Mageau recalls the shooter had a large, rounded and full face. So should we expect the suspect in the Pacific Heights sketch to appear heavier than he does? Yes, according to Don Fouke.

Don Fouke, speaking about Dave Toschi, said "I never spoke to Toschi that I personally remember. He may have been the Inspector who came out and asked me about the composite drawing and I told him the suspect was older and heavier."

There is no way of knowing beyond all doubt if Don's recollection of Zodiac is more accurate than the three teens was but when you compare what other witnesses said of Zodiac's description, namely his weight and size, Don's observation seems to have merit and suggests that the sketch we have all become accustomed to over the years is actually very inaccurate. The man below, going by his slim, almost gaunt facial structure, doesn't look anything like the 'big, beefy guy' with a round face Mageau describes, nor the 'Bulky looking' offender described by Cecelia before she passed away.

The kids flubbed on the jaw. Fouke stressed that Zodiac's jaw was 'full and rounded'.

This would be a more accurate likeness (see below). It can pass for BOTH the Napa and SF composites.

There is something puzzling about the the Stine composite, or rather about the way it seems to have been made.

A description of the killer was printed in the Examiner on the Monday following the murder. It has the killer down as 5 '8, 150 lbs with reddish brown hair, dark jacket, dark gray pants and glasses.

The police report describes him as 5 '8, heavy-set, with reddish blond hair, dark “parka” style jacket, dark pants and glasses.

This isn't a screaming discrepancy (unlike what the proponents of a certain hoax theory claim). But it is a discrepancy nonetheless. The most striking difference is arguably the weight estimate. It's hard to reconcile “150 lbs” with “heavy”.

The question is where the Examiner got their info from. One would think that the cops, when releasing this information, would give the press a description which was in accordance with how the guy looked as far as they knew. No reason not to, surely? And how the guy looked as far as they knew must be in the report, i.e. the guy's “official” appearance/description is surely the one in the report. And yet it's evident that the description printed in the Examiner is not the official one. The latter must – so you'd think – come from a different source than Pelissetti or anyone who was citing from the report when talking to the Examiner.

This is a bit puzzling in itself. But there's something else, which is more puzzling here. As far as I know the composite sketch – both versions – was done without actually consulting Fouke. But the changes made (the suspect appears older in the second version) correspond to what Fouke writes in his memo. And the information in this memo was known, at any rate – so whether Fouke was consulted or not doesn't really matter: what matters – and is very puzzling to me – is that his height estimate does NOT accompany the composite. The height given is the “5 '8” from the report. Surely Fouke, the trained observer who saw the suspect from ground level, is more reliable when it comes to this than the teens, who observed the killer from above?

What is this? Sloppiness? Or something else? Toschi never had much faith in this sketch for one reason or another. He says so explicitly in an interview from 1978. There's no weight estimate for Z on the composite. Sloppiness again? The fact is – I think most would agree – that the face on that sketch is hard to reconcile with a “heavy-set” or “beefy” guy. That is another factor which makes the sketch problematic.

And yet – we must assume that Fouke saw the sketch! And if it didn't look anything like the guy he encountered, he surely would have let someone know. I do believe Fouke encountered Z. I even half think – sometimes, at least – that Z's claim was true and that he talked to Fouke. But anyway, the guy described by the teens (in what precise terms we do not know – and THAT is extremely annoying) and the guy Fouke encountered is one and the same – I don't really doubt that. But this guy must have been an odd one. Beefy with a decidedly lean face.

I sometimes think that the most rational conclusion to draw from all of these discrepancies is that the witness statements (including Fouke's) aren't any good. They describe a fairly generic white male with glasses. He wasn't remarkably tall, nor remarkably short. He is never described as lean (only the Examiner's 150 lbs estimate could possibly be interpreted in that direction and we don't even know where they got their info from – it could be a typo for all we know), so it's fair to say that he was either (to an extent) husky, beefy or heavy-set OR wearing clothes which created this impression. The reason for this generic appearance is simply that none of them got a good enough look at him to describe him in any detail. I don't trust the teens to have observed facial features from that distance, in that light. I think it's more than likely that they saw that he was white, had short hair and that he was wearing glasses. And that anything beyond this was quite vague.

If the latter is the case it would explain why Toschi never put much stock in the sketch.

What I can't reconcile is the lean face of the composite compared to the large, round face described by Mageau. That was the one thing that Mike seemed certain about, even to the point where he believed he could identify that face if he saw it again in profile.

In the California DOJ's “special report” (from...1972? Not sure exactly when it's from but it's later than '71 at least) the Stine suspect is described as follows: 35-45 years, 5 '10, 190 lbs, crew cut, reddish blonde hair, eye glasses w/ plastic frames, parka type jacket, navy blue or black, dark baggy trousers and paunchy stomach.

Compare this with the LB suspect (as per the same special report):

20-30 years, 5 '10 – 6 '2, 220 lbs, brown hair (visible through eye slots in hood), wearing black hood, lightweight windbreaker, dark blue or black, baggy pleated slacks, very sloppily dressed with protruding stomach.

What's striking about the Stine description is the phrase “dark baggy trousers”. This is not mentioned in the original police report, nor in Fouke's memo nor in any newspaper report I can recall having seen. And it echoes the LB description: “baggy pleated slacks”. (Fouke mentions the fact that the Stine suspect's pants were “pleated” but this is not mentioned in the special report.) The second striking phrase is “...and paunchy stomach.” This is not mentioned anywhere else either. The original police report describes the suspect as “heavy”, Fouke says he's “barrel-chested”. There's no explicit mention of his “paunchy stomach” but the latter is, of course, in perfect line with the LB description of a man with “protruding stomach”.

My point? Well, I'm not sure there is one. But as far as I can tell these characteristics, “baggy trousers” and “paunchy stomach”, are not mentioned in any other report or other source pertaining to Stine's murder. They only appear in this special report.

Report here (on T. Voigt's site):

http://www.zodiackiller.com/SR1.html

Not fond of that report. It's like a mish-mash of semi-facts.

Tahoe27 wrote:Not fond of that report. It's like a mish-mash of semi-facts.

Yes. I know what you mean. I'm almost tempted to ask whether the "baggy pants" and the "paunchy stomach" are just carried over from the LB description, rather than being based on actual statements from either Fouke or the teen witnesses. It's not a pleasant thought - because if it's the case, the report is as sloppy as Z's attire at Berryessa.

To add to the confusion, there's the descriptions of the suspicious man watching girls that day in LB. He had black hair, was well built and good looking. He also doesn't resemble the sketch of Stine's murderer, but has a larger, round face.

When it comes to the varied descriptions just within the Stine reports, I'm going to go with the initial one, because I think what Norse was hinting at is correct. LE altered the description to fit the LB description.

Just a few further thoughts on the composite:

I think the person the kids witnessed looked like the composite. But that doesn't mean his facial features matched those of the composite to a great degree.

What were they able to see from fifty yards, given the lighting conditions? A white guy. Light colored (brownish or blondish) hair, likely with a reddish tint. Short hair, possibly something like a crew cut. Possibly receding hairline. Definitely glasses, thick frames, possibly plastic ones. The guy was not very tall. He was most likely “heavy”, which might mean stocky, beefy or somewhat overweight – hard to tell exactly what kind of “heavy” he was. He definitely wore dark clothes. That's pretty much it. And it is in line with both the composite(s) and Fouke's description in his memo.

Anything beyond this – I'm skeptical about. Detailed facial features? As long as we don't know precisely what the kids had to say about his appearance, we can only guess here. My guess would be that even if their view was unobstructed and the dome light in the cab lit the scene well enough, it would be hard to make out detailed features from that distance, in that light (it's the sort of light which tends to blur details rather than enhance them, a fact which has been pointed out before by sharper wits than me – and a good point in my opinion).