Zodiackillersite.com

Finally one result came out of it: Pencil flashlights had existed at the time Z wrote about it ( thx ventura). And they mainly were used by hunters and police officers.

So I think it might be assumed that Z indeed had owned such a pencil flashlight.
QT

Really? Then seen as how this pencil flashlight was such a resounding success for Zodiac at Lake Herman Rd, how come he did not use it at Blue Rock Springs? How come, as Mageau says, Zodiac shined a regular flashlight beam into his eyes?

Welsh Chappie wrote:Really? Then seen as how this pencil flashlight was such a resounding success for Zodiac at Lake Herman Rd, how come he did not use it at Blue Rock Springs? How come, as Mageau says, Zodiac shined a regular flashlight beam into his eyes?

Some have speculated that the reason for this was that the pencil flashlight wasn't that effective. I'm not sure either way but I do wonder why we try to 'marry' these things. The use of the flashlight at LHR served one purpose, to hit victims in darkness, the use at BRS was to blind the victims and aid disguising the perp. The two don't have to apply to each other. It's not like he could use the same approach at LB, in that instance he employed a hood.

Going over a few of Z's letters, I noticed something that appeared to me to be a discrepancy. I say 'appeared to me to be a discrepancy' because I know nothing about guns and/or gun sights so I may be wrong in this suggestion and if I am, I am sure someone will correct me.

Zodiac, in his Aug 4th letter, seems rather displeased at police implying he managed to accurately shoot and kill the two victims at Lake Herman (Specifically, Betty-Lou). Zodiac has this to say of how he achieved his results that night:

(Copied & Pasted direct from Wikisource)

"Last Christmass

In that epasode the police were wondering as to how I could shoot + hit my victoms in the dark. They did not openly state this, but implied this by saying it was a well lit night + I could see the silowets on the horizon. Bullshit that area is srounded by high hills + trees. What I did was tape a small pencel flash light to the barrel of my gun. If you notice, in the center of the beam of light if you aim it at a wall or celling you will see a black or darck spot in the center of the circle of light about 3 to 6 inches across. When taped to a gun barrel, the bullet will strike exactly in the center of the black dot in the light. All I had to do was spray them as if it was a water hose; there was no need to use the gun sights. I was not happy to see that I did not get front page coverage.

So as is clear above, in this letter Zodiac is claiming he used pencil flash light taped to his gun barrel. He quite clearly states that "There was no need to use the gun sights."

But on Nov 9th, Zodiac writes the "I have grown rather angry with the police for their telling lies about me..." letter. He signs off in this letter by stating:

"To prove I am the Zodiac, ask the Vallejo cop about my electric gun sight which I used to start my collecting of slaves."

Now as previously stated, I know nothing about guns or gun accessories. But from the way it reads, it seems that in the first claim above, Zodiac clearly states "there was no need to use the gun sights" and then in the second claim in the Nov letter he appears to be saying that not only did he use the gun sights, but that it can, in fact, be used as proof that he is the Zodiac.

Am I just reading it wrong or is it actually as I am interpreting it?

He states he taped a pencil flash light to the barrel of his gun in the first claim, can I assume this would have to be a battery powered pencil flash light? I ask because in the second claim he now states it's an 'Electric Gun Sight.' So which one is it that he is claiming he used? The gun sight (electric according to him) or the Battery operated pencil flash light?

Another oddity appears when Zodiac is "very happy to supply even more material" about the Lake Herman incident. As I already alluded to, he states there was no need to use the gun sight in the first letter, and emphasises this point by saying that because he used the pencil flash light that: "All I had to do was spray them as if it was a water hose."

Spray them? David was shot once, and at almost point blank range. Why would he say all he needed to do was 'spray them' when he should know and be very aware of the fact that David was shot once with a single bullet to the head at point blank range?

Well, the gun sights and the beam from the small pencil flashlight are two different things. He did not have to use the gun sight because he was using the beam from the pencil flashlight to aim his gun. The beam from the pencil flashlight was acting as a sight. That's the way I understand it.

As for the electric part. A battery provides the electricity to power the light.

Weird...I posted and now it's gone. Must have forgot to hit submit.

Pretty much along the lines of what Seagull wrote.

He used the pencil flashlight...he didn't need to aim with the site of the gun. He just pointed the beam....his "electric site".

I think he's full of crap with pencil flashlight thingy.

Seems like it might work well if your shooting something with a flat surface from a relatively close distance.

Of course, I'm betting you'd go through more than a few light-tapings to get it sighted properly. That would be pita, huh?



As far as the electronic/sight question.... what seagull and tahoe said.
As for the "spray them" comment... don't know... that is weird. Good catch, wc.

BuckwheatFlowers wrote:I think he's full of crap with pencil flashlight thingy.

Seems like it might work well if your shooting something with a flat surface from a relatively close distance.

Of course, I'm betting you'd go through more than a few light-tapings to get it sighted properly. That would be pita, huh?



As far as the electronic/sight question.... what seagull and tahoe said.
As for the "spray them" comment... don't know... that is weird. Good catch, wc.

I agree and have always thought similar about his pencil flashlight due to the reasons you pointed out. If you have a thin pencil flash light at close range then yes, I imagine the beam would be visible on a target at close range. But I, like you, think that at any kind of distance the beam is going to be to weak to show as a target spot on a surface area. A pencil light is only going to be a thin beam obviously, which at close range I imagine would work fairly well but the further away you are the less accurate and concentrated the beam is going to be. To give an example of what I mean, if you get a regular flashlight and turn it on in a dark room and stand and point it directly at a wall while holding the flashlight 2 or three inches from the wall itself, the beam will appear on the wall as a bright small circle of light. Then walk backwards away from the wall keeping the flashlight pointed directly at the wall in the same place and the beam of light will get wider and wider and less bright the further away you get.

Ted K wrote that he attached a flashlight to his rifle and used it to successfully hunt rabbits and other game.

I think Mike B first noted an episode of the "Alfred Hitchcock" TV show that had a man with a flashlight attached to a rifle, who shoots a male/female couple. Called "Museum Piece" aired 1961.