Mr. X passes away

[Welsh Chappie]

The man who shot Stine definitely did not have a round face, so either someone else is responsible for attacking Mageau and Ferrin, or Mageau did not get a good enough look. It was dark, and the only light was shining directly in his eyes. I think that's enough to obscure someone's look at a face.

I'm sure this must have been brought up before, but does anyone know what size shoe kjell wore?

This point has always been a valid one IMO. I think it's often overlooked that the description of Zodiac as given at one scene (Berryessa) is vastly different from that of the Presidio Zodiac. The Zodiac Killers as opposed to singular killer theory is nothing new and has been suggested down the years by numerous people citing numerous reasons and evidence. I suppose that for anyone who believes that only one man was behind the Zodiac crimes it is easy to dismiss the sheer differences in composite sketches as 'No evidence that the man seen at Lake B, and of who the sketch is based on, was Zodiac.' Suppose that's a fair argument but that would be to ignore other seeming inconsistent descriptions such as Megeau claiming his attacker was a young guy in his early to mid 20's and Fouke describing the suspect he saw on Jackson, the suspect who seemed to match Z's description as given by the three teens, as being between 35 and 45 years old.

Is this just simply a case showing the fallibility and unreliable nature of eye witness testimony? I don't know the answer to that. One thing I do know is, if you asked me do I believe that the two composites below depict the same one individual, my answer would be 'No, certainly not, in my opinion.'

Composite side by side.jpg

[joedetective]

I hate to say it, but it would explain a lot of the inconsistencies, and not just with the descriptions of him, but also the discrepancies in MO, the fact that none of the 35 or so fingerprints match each other, different guns, cars, etc.

[Welsh Chappie]

I hate to say it, but it would explain a lot of the inconsistencies, and not just with the descriptions of him, but also the discrepancies in MO, the fact that none of the 35 or so fingerprints match each other, different guns, cars, etc.

Yes funnily enough I've suggested similar in regards to Zodiac the active Killing machine and a second, different accomplice writing the letters and my reasoning behind that is that many people believe that the Zodiacs letter are written in his natural hand and that if you find the person who wrote them by matching a sample of his writing to that of Z's, then you'll have found your killer and many people wonder how Zodiac, if he is any of the suspects investigated, wasn't discovered due to his matching printed writings. Well there is a simple answer to that really if the man 'Zodiac' who was actively out committing the killings and the author of the bragging letters were not one, but two entirely different people. Then you could have the actual Zodiac Killer be interviewed and asked to give a sample of his handwriting and he would gladly oblige and write whatever they asked and it would very quickly become evident that this man is not Zodiac as his handwriting is completely different and eliminate him not knowing or being aware of the fact that they have just 'cleared' Zodiac himself based on a false and erroneous belief that the killer and author of the killers letters are one and the same man. He did brag that:

"Police shall never catch me because I have been too clever for them"

"I was leaving fake clues for the police to run all over town with - I like needling the Blue Pigs"

[Welsh Chappie]

And having two people involved, one killing and a second communicating in letters, is highly beneficial to a killers cause and helps tremendously in avoiding prosecution because let's say they did come across a writing style and all experts agreed that there is no doubt that John Doe's letters here and the Zodiac Killers letters there are authored by the same man and this is without question. How can you prosecute that person as The Zodiac Killer? You cant simply because he isn't, he can no doubt have evidence that when Zodiac killed Betty and Dave at LHR, he can show proof positive he wasn't even in California, for example. Then when he's paraded in front of the Pacific Heights witnesses for a ID parade the teens will obviously be unable to positively identify John Doe as the man they saw and the reason they cant is because he's not the man they saw at the cab who took Pauls life, He's only the Zodiac Author, not the Zodiac Killer.

[joedetective]

Of course the problem with that, Chappie, is that the writer would have had to have been in LB that day. It's not that hard to believe that the killer and writer were both there that day. It's a hard sell to most people, I understand that, but probable enough to be investigated. It's a head scratcher for sure, but when you juxtaposed (sorry for the 10 dollar word) those two composites, it really hit home just how different they are.

[Welsh Chappie]

I have always been mindful that those seeking to find the identity of California's most elusive citizen by trying to find a matching sample of writing may simply be barking up the wrong hypothetical tree because if theres two, an author & Killer, then it quickly becomes evident that using this form of investigation to find "him" is absolutely flawed and cannot be achieved because even if you find a 100% matching sample you may find that congratulating yourself may have to be put on hold because it turns out that this isn't Zodiac at all.

So in theory it's entirely possible that many people who are using his letters and handwriting to uncover his identity are completely wasting their time going straight down a dead end street called Wasting your time avenue.

[Welsh Chappie]

Of course the problem with that, Chappie, is that the writer would have had to have been in LB that day. It's not that hard to believe that the killer and writer were both there that day. It's a hard sell to most people, I understand that, but probable enough to be investigated. It's a head scratcher for sure, but when you juxtaposed (sorry for the 10 dollar word) those two composites, it really hit home just how different they are.

It's not a hard idea to sell Joe, at least the basic concept isn't. The idea or concept of isn't the problem, its the people that have their minds made up and their mental image complete of Zodiac cemented into their belief system that Zodiac was a lone wolf, a lone figure cloaked in mystery hiding out of view in the shadows of the street and their own judgement. Judgement can and does get clouded when people start wanting to believe something. In this case I am not criticising anyone if they have an unshakable belief that Zodiac and his killing and letters came from the same hand because Zodiac did what he was extremely good at doing and simply suggests something indirectly and allows the people to pick up on his suggestion and buy into it.

What do I mean? Well some examples of Zodiac suggesting things that his audience may want to believe witout him actually directly saying it could be:

"I am the murderer of the Taxi driver over by Washington and Maple street last night." This at face value has no clear intent to lead you a specific direction or come to any conclusion about anything but what he is doing is asking the readers to come to the conclusion that the Author does not know that area well at all because he doesn't know the actual street name of 'Cherry.' Hes not going to ask straight out and directly "I am the killer of the taxi driver over by Maple, I apologise that I don't know the specific street name and that is due to the fact I am not local to that area nor have I ever been there." If he said that then everyone would clearly see what he was saying direcly and become highly suspect of such a claim.

Suggestion and misdirection are two forms of communication/interaction that are never though of in seriousness terms. I am a big fan of Darren Brown, especially his live stage shows, and he'll freely tell his audience that the effects achieved and results that are seen are the result of him using a mixture of Suggestion, psychology, Misdirection and showmanship and anyone who's seen Derren Browns evening of wonders will see just how much and to what extent you can manipulate and control another person just by using these seemingly harmless and everyday things.

We all do it without realising. Its the same as we as humans operating using assumption after assumption in everything we do without even knowing or realising we are making assumptions. Example? When you reply to this post from your living room you haven't given any concern or thought that the roof above your head could collapse and kill you at any given second? Why? No need to be conscious of that danger because your subconscious mind has already assumed for you that the roof won't fall on your head and kill you. Nobody stops at each entrance to every building because your conscious mind is demanding you firstly be assured that the building won't fall and collapse on you, but the subconscious decides for you that it wouldn't. Everything and Anything we as humans do we do based on making an assumption and if someone wants to challenge that idea, then show me a scenario where a subconscious decision or assumption is not made before or during an action.

Point I am making is that our subconscious does this constantly for us anyway in order that we may function without questioning absolutely everything specifically and because us humans are designed to do this anyway, it can be very easy for a skilled and manipulative person see this as a huge flaw in human nature, a flaw that they will be more than happy to exploit.

[joedetective]

I have always been mindful that those seeking to find the identity of California's most elusive citizen by trying to find a matching sample of writing may simply be barking up the wrong hypothetical tree because if theres two, an author & Killer, then it quickly becomes evident that using this form of investigation to find "him" is absolutely flawed and cannot be achieved because even if you find a 100% matching sample you may find that congratulating yourself may have to be put on hold because it turns out that this isn't Zodiac at all.

So in theory it's entirely possible that many people who are using his letters and handwriting to uncover his identity are completely wasting their time going straight down a dead end street called Wasting your time avenue.

I keep thinking about the Bates' murder. Though not a lot of handwriting proceeded that murder. There's only the envelopes for the Confession letter, but that letter has all the hallmarks of one of Z's. However, Riverside police seem pretty adament that Zodiac did not kill Bates. The letter provides details that were never reported. Riverside has ample DNA from the Bates' murder, so it's safe to assume the DNA doesn't match DNA extracted from the Zodiac letter stamps. This is just one instance where a solo Zodiac doesn't make sense. So, while everyone has the impression of a serial killer being a loner, evidence leads me to believe these are not the acts of a lone man.

[Bayarea60s]

Welsh Chappie Stated....

"Of course the problem with that, Chappie, is that the writer would have had to have been in LB that day. It's not that hard to believe that the killer and writer were both there that day. It's a hard sell to most people, I understand that, but probable enough to be investigated. It's a head scratcher for sure, but when you juxtaposed (sorry for the 10 dollar word) those two composites, it really hit home just how different they are.[/quote]

It's not a hard idea to sell Joe, at least the basic concept isn't. The idea or concept of isn't the problem, its the people that have their minds made up and their mental image complete of Zodiac cemented into their belief system that Zodiac was a lone wolf, a lone figure cloaked in mystery hiding out of view in the shadows of the street and their own judgement. Judgement can and does get clouded when people start wanting to believe something. In this case I am not criticising anyone if they have an unshakable belief that Zodiac and his killing and letters came from the same hand because Zodiac did what he was extremely good at doing and simply suggests something indirectly and allows the people to pick up on his suggestion and buy into it. "

The people who have their minds made up, are the people who investigated the case. Z never suggested something indirectly, he in fact was always direct. "I" was the one who killed those kids, "I" was the one who murdered the cabbie last night, "I" would like to report a double homicide. It's all about him. It's that ego. Nothing suggestive as you state above. A haircut and glasses separate the 2 composites. I lived through it and watched it happen to my father as the case unfolded.

" What do I mean? Well some examples of Zodiac suggesting things that his audience may want to believe witout him actually directly saying it could be:

"I am the murderer of the Taxi driver over by Washington and Maple street last night." This at face value has no clear intent to lead you a specific direction or come to any conclusion about anything but what he is doing is asking the readers to come to the conclusion that the Author does not know that area well at all because he doesn't know the actual street name of 'Cherry.' Hes not going to ask straight out and directly "I am the killer of the taxi driver over by Maple, I apologise that I don't know the specific street name and that is due to the fact I am not local to that area nor have I ever been there." If he said that then everyone would clearly see what he was saying direcly and become highly suspect of such a claim. "

Except for the shirt??? Who would be suspicious of what he is saying when he included the shirt?

Oh I think you miss his clear intent, Z is leading us exactly to a specific place, to the evidence, to Stine's log book. He is leaving no ambiguity. If he doesn't write it that way, then for sure we would see on the boards today, that this proves a team effort, one guy hailed the cab and then the killer jumped in and killed Stine. 2 people involved. but Z wisely states I'm the guy who killed the cabbie over by Washington and Maple. Why? Because the log book should take away any confusion. "I hailed the cab, the cabbie wrote it in his log, I watched him do it, and only I (Z) could know that". The fact that someone year's ago incorrectly saw this as a lack of geographic knowledge on Z's part, and then that false scenario ran rampant on the boards, wasn't because of Z's lack of clarity, it was the reader's lack of understanding. He's saying I'm the fare, I'm the killer, here's the shirt, what more do you want from me? And now I'm the one writing about my actions. Read the log book blue meanies. He loved to rub their noses in it.


Suggestion and misdirection are two forms of communication/interaction that are never though of in seriousness terms. I am a big fan of Darren Brown, especially his live stage shows, and he'll freely tell his audience that the effects achieved and results that are seen are the result of him using a mixture of Suggestion, psychology, Misdirection and showmanship and anyone who's seen Derren Browns evening of wonders will see just how much and to what extent you can manipulate and control another person just by using these seemingly harmless and everyday things.

We all do it without realising. Its the same as we as humans operating using assumption after assumption in everything we do without even knowing or realising we are making assumptions. Example? When you reply to this post from your living room you haven't given any concern or thought that the roof above your head could collapse and kill you at any given second? Why? No need to be conscious of that danger because your subconscious mind has already assumed for you that the roof won't fall on your head and kill you. Nobody stops at each entrance to every building because your conscious mind is demanding you firstly be assured that the building won't fall and collapse on you, but the subconscious decides for you that it wouldn't. Everything and Anything we as humans do we do based on making an assumption and if someone wants to challenge that idea, then show me a scenario where a subconscious decision or assumption is not made before or during an action.

Point I am making is that our subconscious does this constantly for us anyway in order that we may function without questioning absolutely everything specifically and because us humans are designed to do this anyway, it can be very easy for a skilled and manipulative person see this as a huge flaw in human nature, a flaw that they will be more than happy to exploit.[/quote]

[Nachtsider]

Riverside has ample DNA from the Bates' murder, so it's safe to assume the DNA doesn't match DNA extracted from the Zodiac letter stamps.

The DNA from the Bates murder is of a different type of DNA from the Zodiac DNA, so a comparison cannot be made.

In any case, you cannot assume that they even bothered to make a comparison.