Zodiackillersite.com

The issue of the revised Stine composite sketch is one of many things in this stupid case that has always made me scratch my head. The initial composite sketch was completed on 10/13/69, two days after Stine's murder and, to my knowledge, was solely based on the observations of the three teens who witnessed Zodiac from about 60 feet away just after the murder. Four days later on 10/17/69, the sketch was revised and reissued, reportedly based on further input from the teens.

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

I've always found it really odd that eyewitnesses would decide that their immediate observations would need to be "corrected" nearly a week after the event. Wouldn't the eyewitnesses presumably suggest alterations to the sketch as it was being created? The idea of the teens concluding that Zodiac was actually 10-15 years older than their initial estimate or remembering very subtle new facial features from their vantage point days later just seems very unlikely. Considering the fact that the age estimate was radically changed to reflect the precise age range (35-45) that Sgt. Fouke gave in his report weeks later, I think it is reasonable to believe that the alterations in the composite sketch may, despite his apparent denials, come directly from Fouke's observations. Keep in mind that nobody knew that the subject in the first sketch was Zodiac when it was issued. It was considered to be a random cabbie murder until Zodiac mailed a letter on the same day to take credit. In the letter, he chastises police for not "searching the park", which would likely have made Fouke question whether the guy he had seen was actually Zodiac.

So how was the composite sketch revised? It would be interesting if somebody (trav?) could actually superimpose the two sketches to look at the differences but here's what I see...

- Adding a slight "widow's peak" to the hairline
- Slightly more prominent ears
- A more defined chin
- A slightly smaller nose
- Most noticeable of all, a noticeably "squinty" left eye

I've had discussions with folks who have been to the scene and the general opinion is usually that these types of subtle features would have been difficult to observe from the teens' perspective, particularly at night. Even if they could, would they likely recall these kind of features days after the event and be confident enough to warrant issuing a brand new composite sketch? Fouke, on the other hand, had a much closer look at Z (presuming that it WAS Z) and would have been more likely to contribute these types of detailed observations.

http://zodiackiller.com/FoukeReport.html

So did Z really have a slight widow's peak like the revised sketch? Did he have a squinty left eye? Were these changes contributed by second thoughts from the teens, by Fouke or are they simply random variations created by the sketch artist to perhaps make Z look older? Which sketch is more accurate?

Not sure superimposing helps. The one on the left has the original in red and the amended in black. Don't think it's a conducive approach to presenting the differences. What it does do though is create a sort of hybrid combining the features of both. Might be of some use? So the one on the right is both as black to help blend them visually.

Thanks, trav. That does kind of highlight the observations I suggested. The weird thing is that it looks like the glasses are moved up off of Z's left ear in the revised sketch which reveals more of the left eyelid. To me, the "droopy" left eyelid is the most noticeable change in the revised sketch which begs the question of whether this was an intentional change and based on someone's observation. If not, why the alteration? The lack of symmetry in the revised sketch couldn't have gone unnoticed by the sketched artist, could it?

No, I don't think it would have gone unnoticed by the artist. Problem is that in the amended sketch the right eyelid is still obscured by the glasses so I can't be 100% sure if the 'droop' is intentional or a style. IF there were no glasses would both eyes be the same? I do wonder though if the supposed droopy eye was important wouldn't it have been part of the description? Surely that would be an important piece of info.

Everything droops as we get older so my feeling is that the artist may have factored that in to ageing the sketch. He may have worked from the outside in and , when nearing completion, realised there was space to perhaps to add more ageing factors around the left eye because of where the glasses had been re-drawn and as such 'drooped' the eyelid. Maybe he felt before that, the amendments hadn't added enough age. Doesn't really help us but certainly possible from my pov as an artist. I've worked in most mediums.

Please refresh my memory but what was the competency of the artist. Was he a professional or just a member of SFPD that quite good at drawing?

EDIT:To add. for me the squaring of the chin is more important. It's simple, clean and unambiguous. There's not much you can do with a chin, it's either round or pointy or square. Eyes are complicated. It's interesting that a slight dimple was introduced to the chin.

EDIT: Do we know that the first sketch was presented to the witnesses as complete? or were they shown a rough to be worked on over the following weeks? ie was the process carried out in one sitting or did the artist need more time and then have to check back with the witnesses?

Another edit: i'ts entirely possible that the witnesses thought that what was presented to them didn't look old enough (if they were to return to view the finished sketch). The process doesn't require Fouke's input but it my clarify it?

Nicely timed post, I was thinking about this very sketch myself over the weekend, and how teenagers' interpretation of 'old' varies a lot from people who are a bit older, say mid-twenties or so when you stop feeling like a 'young' person (I'm pretty sure two cops would no longer feel like kids). I took the liberty of altering the composite to remove the glasses:

I only left lines from the glasses in place if removing them required me to make a guess at the eye shape underneath, this happened more with the right hand picture. I also noticed that in close up the right hand picture seemed to be drawn less confidently than the left, I would say the people who described the left hand picture were giving far more definite descriptions to the artist. I'm not sure removing them gives any more clue as to the left eye question.
My opinion is that the differences are simply how different people view a face, they certainly look similar enough to be the same person and I think age estimations from this kind of drawing could be wildly inaccurate, I would go with the teens general description as the most accurate as it was fresh and they haven't been suspected of bending the truth like other witnesses from that night may have done.

We had a thread here a while back someplace of all the various enhancements, adjustments,etc to the various Zodiac sketches,renderings,etc, to reflect the various looks and descriptions of Z

morf13 wrote:We had a thread here a while back someplace of all the various enhancements, adjustments,etc to the various Zodiac sketches,renderings,etc, to reflect the various looks and descriptions of Z

Here's a thread on it:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=468&p=4713&hilit=sketches#p1929

25 to 45 is a huge stretch on the age, perception as it relates to reality.
Someone decided to "fix" the composite sketch. There is absolutely no way to say the man that Foukes claims he saw,
was a suspect because he was walking along a sidewalk in San Francisco. What else do they have on this sighting to
show he was the Zodiac, so much not so, that they didn't bother to take this guy in for questioning? yet now they say it
was the Zodiac they saw? Did anyone ever go to the house they claim this guy walked up to and question anyone?
Zodiac was effectively jerking SFPD's chain, as he continues to do today. Perfect, he threw them
off the trail. They went back and revised the composite to look less like the real Zodiac. Brilliant.
I understand that ears can be as defining as fingerprints. The composite of Zodiac shows very distinctive ears.
The original sketch looked so much like Zodiac that he then went undercover with his murders.
Please try not to be like cattle and follow everyone off the track of finding the Zodiac Killer.

"Everything droops as we get older"? LOL! Good one, Trav! All these minor alterations in the artist's sketch mystify me. How could kids, at night and from sixty feet away, fine tune features like a square, dimpled chin; a widow's peak; large ears? For that matter, how could the officers, who briefly questioned a pedestrian from their squad car? As far as that goes, the suspect's glasses are, as likely as not, a disguise. Personally, I think the artist's rendition is, at best, a guessketch.

Normally I would agree with you Dag, but in this case the teens did believe they were witnessing a crime so probably paid more attention than they would normally to the guy's face (however I fully agree that the detail they saw would be hazy). And as for the cops in the car, I would hope they are trained to pay attention to things like that if they're on their way to a crime scene even if the person they encounter does not match the description they were given (considering there was no-one else around, it would be a different matter on a crowded sidewalk obviously).
So I would say, given the circumstances, that they've probably got the basics right but probably no more than that. If Fouke had sat down with the artist later the same night I'd have a lot more confidence in that kind of result.
Morf, thanks for that link to the other thread, I had a feeling the no-glasses version must have been tried before. Interesting couple of POIs shown there too, anything come of them?