Zodiackillersite.com

Welsh Chappie wrote:

Bayarea60s wrote:Trying to recall but I think it was that Z in the 5 shots he hit Betty Lou 3 or 4 out of the 5 hit vital organs, thus making one believe that Z was some sort of great marksman. It could have been he placed the first shot as a kill shot and the rest he did while she was down.

Well combining the two statements there would mean that while Zodiac has given us reason to believe he is the the best marksman in the United States of America, he failed to aim and shoot the fleeing girl in the one place that would instantly guarantee she would not get any further, that being a head shot.

BBM.
Chappie, respectfully, professional marksmen (snipers, law officers, military etc.) always shoot/aim to hit "body mass."

Welsh Chappie wrote:

traveller1st wrote:Betty lou wasn't a terror threat with a bomb strapped to her. In this instance Zodiac was the threat ....again....in his head, which was probably true at the time in his thinking....all he had to do was spray.

Trav now don't be silly, you know full well I wasn't suggesting betty Lou was a member of Al Qaeda. I was responding to your claim of: "I don't think a headshot is advisable. Aren't most 'agencies/parties' ie LE, military taught to use several shots to the central mass as a stopping method?"

I replied that using the terror suspect example to point out your above claim, while it may be partly true for certain forces, the Anti-Terror Police are trained that in how best and quickest to stop a suspect with a device and they are trained to shoot the suspect directly in the head. So point is, if Zodiac was such a fantastic shoot and was looking for the quickest way to stop any victim who's trying to escape, then a head-shot is the answer. Plus it would have saved a lot of extra gun shot reports echoing around the hills of LHR. And then lastly, when Zodiac has wanted to dispatch victims quickly with a gun such as Stine and Faraday, he did so by one single shot to the head. He even said that he walked up and aimed directly at Mike Mageau's head and half a second or so before pulling the trigger, Mageau leapt backwards and "Spoiling my aim".

I know.

I'm just wondering about this 'marksman' myth though. Has it just grown out of comments and discussions in books and papers, and on message boards over the years?

Now I say myth but that's only in the context of discussion as I've just mentioned. Truth is we don't really know what his competence level was and it's certainly still open to speculation. I just don't recall reading anything where he promoted his skill in that area.

Which is why I'm wondering if there was an ulterior motive to this flashlight deal. Would it have been considered good if he had done it in the dark? Did he and is he trying to deflect from that, just like the disguise, looking completely different, claim at the Stine murder?

Patinky....

Here is the actual statement of British Forces 'Rules of Engagement"....

"However, if Operation Kratos contingency plans are activated, an armed officer may shoot at the target's head, to kill, as a standard incapacitating shot risks detonating a bomb attached to the person. In all situations, the officer is to make the decision when to shoot. However, they are accountable in court and are asked to justify their actions in a court of law."

See, Shoot to Kill, which will instantly take out any threat the offender is posing. Head Shot's are justifiable and allowable if the officer suspects the person poses imminent danger to other members of the public and a risk of losing life is high. The body shot's are quite clearly stated to 'Incapacitate the subject', and the head shot, as stated above, is a a shoot to kill target.

The Kratos rule only applies when the target has a suicide vest strapped to their body. In all other cases, a soldier or cop always aims at the biggest, easiest-to-hit target, which is the torso.

It may surprise you, how difficult it actually is to get in a head shot. Especially when the target is moving. Far easier to fire at the torso.

But Chappie, I am in the USA and isn't your quote for anti-terrorism tactics? The probabilities of missing a head shot are far greater than a body mass shot, especially if there are other factors involved such as Zodiac shooting in the dark (other than the presumed use of the pen light).

What I am disagreeing with is the original premise that Zodiac was not a good marksman (or words to that effect) because he shot five times to the back of his target, hitting his target each time. Granted, they were not bulls-eye hits but I'd say he was an experienced shooter using protocol for the 1960s-70s.

The reason it matters is because his skills can play a part in profiling the Zodiac.

So, let me see if I understand...

What your saying is, Zodiac was in fact a very good marksman, and yet would shoot at the torso of a victim like Betty Lou in order to have a bigger target because his marksmanship is not as good?

Anyway, my original point in regards to a headshot came from someone stating that the gunpowder residue found on one of the bullet entry holes on her top may have been transferred after she was down and he walked up and shot her at close range. I had said I would tend to believe that if the gun powder residue got onto her shirt via the gun being so close Betty's back it was almost touching her when he fired, then I would think that occurred just as she was about to run, ie the first shot fired at her. Someone else then suggested that the G. Powder Res. could have been transferred due to Z shooting Betty in the back and close range after she'd fallen in the gravel area after being hit several time before that. I said I find that scenario unlikely for two reasons.

1. He didn't go over to Darlene at the Springs checking for signs of life, nor did he check for a pulse at Lake B.

2. If Zodiac had walked up to Betty as she lay mortally wounded on the floor, and he decided to pump a few more bullets into her then once again i'd tend to believe that if Z walked up to Betty to finish her off, he would have shot her in the head because it makes the most logical sense all round.

1. only one gunshot report echo.
2. Head shot is how he like to dispatch the male victims who he just wanted out of the way.
3. If the did walk up to Betty and fire into her back area while she lay on the floor, then he'd have to lean down and get really close to transfer ballistic evidence from the gun to Betty. It has to have come fro the gun almost touching her at the time the shot was fired other wise it must have blown around on the air at the scene before magically landing in the only place that you would expect to see G. Powder Res. if the shot had been forced close up, and that's around the entry hole itself.

Welsh Chappie wrote:So, let me see if I understand...

What your saying is, Zodiac was in fact a very good marksman, and yet would shoot at the torso of a victim like Betty Lou in order to have a bigger target because his marksmanship is not as good? [snipped]

You seem to say Zodiac was an unskilled marksman based on the entrance wounds on Betty. I disagree. I think most people reading here understand the reasoning on aiming at body mass. If he wanted to be a sniper he would have shot from a great distance -- shooting victims at close range and in the torso doesn't mean his marksmanship was poor. Not to mention it was pitch black out there (except for the supposed pencil light).

In my opinion, Zodiac was familiar with guns and knew how to use them with desired effect in less than optimum conditions.

Well it's nice to see you have decided you can speak for every other member of the site lol. (Oh btw, I don't think I have ever used that cheap trick myself, the one where you seem to offer a compliment to all other member's to try get them on side by hinting they are all very bright and capable of seeing you reasoning I don't need anyone to confirm for me that they understand my point or agree with it, I am quiet confident in my own ability to know for myself.

Now firstly, you keep saying about the body's mass being a bigger target and easier to hit and don't know why because I haven't said anything to the contrary. What I actually did say was that if you want to instantly incapacitate and/or kill someone out rite, then a head shot is the far more obvious choice of target, which as I said, Zodiac had a history of shooting victims execution style. I never said once anywhere that the head shot would be easier, I said it would drop any fleeing person instantly being hit in the head where as you can shoot me 3 times in the torso, miss all my vital organs, and I could run and escape a shooter. Shoot me in the head where the Brain is that is responsible for controlling everything I do, and I would hit the floor in a second. That is the point I was making.
The original point I made about a head shot I will say it again, was that the idea was proposed that Zodiac walked up and shot Betty as she lay on the gravel, firing two more rounds into her back. Now my point here is where the Idea of a head shot first came up. I said that if Zodiac wanted to make sure she was dead, then the most logical, likely target he'd have shot was her head like he had just done with David Faraday, and of which he'd later do to Paul S. (See they call a shot to the back of the head 'Execution Style' for a reason.....It's a cause it's the best place to shoot a human that is the most humane - Again, instantly you are felled - and 2nd, because it is the best place to shoot someone to guarantee death.

But anyway, I am not saying Zodiac was necessarily bad with a gun, I said in the diagram post that the shots were not all in one area such as middle of her back for example, they were spread out the length of her back down the right side. And if you go back and read it, I was referring to people that I have seen around the internet who talk about the 5 bullets entering in one, close and cluster like proximity and that's just not true.

And finally my point I also made earlier was, Zodiac was never more than ten feet away from Betty Lou which doesn't require him to be any type marksman. I mean personally I don't know how you can claim to know he's a 'Marksman', or very good shot at very least, when he's never more than a few feet away from the target. A marksman is a good shot firing over a distance, such as a sniper. But, if hitting a target 5 times out of 5 when that target is right next to you is deemed by you to be a fantastic marksman, then it is a free World and you may assume that if you like. That must be how he was able to be so accurate with his shot hitting Paul Stine rough around left year because of his great marksmanship.

Well...as this forum is still about the pencil flashlight I have to mention that Z aimed with the center of the light which most flashlights have..nevertheless I would'nt say it's easy to fire 5 shots from a few feet away on an actually moving target. To hit someone is one thing, to hit someone while moving away is something completely different.

Welsh, this stuff

Well it's nice to see you have decided you can speak for every other member of the site lol. (Oh btw, I don't think I have ever used that cheap trick myself, the one where you seem to offer a compliment to all other member's to try get them on side by hinting they are all very bright and capable of seeing you reasoning I don't need anyone to confirm for me that they understand my point or agree with it, I am quiet confident in my own ability to know for myself.

Has absolutely nothing to do here around...also you miss the point again, this forum is still about the pencil flashlight only. Sorry to mention but I almost don't read your posts anymore because of such crap. You got good points sometimes but If you can't handle this, I will unlike you on FB.

QT

Thank you QT.

Yes I think we can all try and pull this thread in a bit back to the topic. There's probably good stuff to be talked about considering need vs skill in regards the flashlight but we're drifting too much into other stuff and snippy remarks.

Trav.