When did the moniker "Zodiac" hit the newspapers?

[smithy]

I've was corrected recently (right now I can't find the post) about when the name "Zodiac" hit the press. Damn. I want to be able to ask that poster, "Do you have the newspaper please?" - and I can't find them. Hence this thread. Please bear with me, this rambles a bit, I know.

I know he first used it of himself - the name (we all do!) - in the "letter of 4th August", which was sent "to the San Francisco Examiner", Wiki Letters says. It says it went there on pretty much all the web sites, too.
Except The Yellow Book originally called it the 3-page letter "to the Vallejo Times Herald on August 7, 1969". Ho hum.
And since 4th August 1969 was a Monday, it's a bit odd if he did indeed send it to the Examiner - the Sunday publication, not the Chronicle.

I've got the Vallejo News (Evening) Chronicle for 5th August, which contains reference to it. That helps a lot. Except it raises a further question or two.... http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn93051522/

It has the text "...who started his fourth and latest letter to newspapers Monday with "This is the zodiac speaking . . . " (and yes, they did put it in the newspaper in lower case.) They don't mention their SISTER paper getting the letter, though - which would have been a coup of sorts I suppose - or indeed who got it. Just "to newspapers Monday". (There was more than one version again? Surely not.) Damn!
But it confirms at least that on Monday 4th August then, it was received. Yes. They say so. Yes, they're also Gibson-owned, the VNC, but they're not the Vallejo Times Herald that GS mentions. So, he got the date and the title of the newspaper who got the letter wrong, is that it? Ha! WTF? Because the VNC went out of business and he presumed it was the VTC? Because occasionally he was a shoddy researcher and a nincompoop, this hero of mine? Well, maybe.

Who was it who asked "for more information" by the way. Wouldn't that be the likely person, or newspaper, a reply would be sent to?
"We're not satisfied that the letter was written by the murderer, but it could have been," said the Vallejo Chief of Police Jack E. Stiltz, requesting another letter "with more facts to prove it". Right? Was that in the Chronicle. or the Examiner on Sunday, or a Vallejo paper, that quote? Wiki says it was page 4 of the Chronicle. So who did he reply to? Damn!

So question number one please - who got it? We know it was sent on the 4th, yes? Even though we don't have the envelope. Right?

Question two: did the name make it into the pages of the Chronicle of the 5th too, then (seems unlikely actually, since the VNC was an evening title), or did it make the morning of the 6th instead?

It's all very confusing. I now can't remember seeing either of those two papers, although I must have. No?
"Hunter Among the Stars" says it made the Examiner on August 7th. Only if they printed a special Thursday edition, it did. Pah! Wrong!
I'm beginning to question everything I read. Nearly. Helpme, I'm drownding.

[Tahoe27]

I know he first used it of himself - the name (we all do!) - in the "letter of 4th August", which was sent "to the San Francisco Examiner", Wiki Letters says. It says it went there on pretty much all the web sites, too.
Except The Yellow Book originally called it the 3-page letter "to the Vallejo Times Herald on August 7, 1969". Ho hum.
And since 4th August 1969 was a Monday, it's a bit odd if he did indeed send it to the Examiner - the Sunday publication, not the Chronicle.

I know back then the Sunday stuff was combined..."S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle".

I'm thinking it was in the Vallejo paper though. Sure seems like I read it in a Vallejo paper. Could have been both I suppose. I will look around too.

[Tahoe27]

...
Who was it who asked "for more information" by the way. Wouldn't that be the likely person, or newspaper, a reply would be sent to?
"We're not satisfied that the letter was written by the murderer, but it could have been," said the Vallejo Chief of Police Jack E. Stiltz, requesting another letter "with more facts to prove it". Right? Was that in the Chronicle. or the Examiner on Sunday, or a Vallejo paper, that quote? Wiki says it was page 4 of the Chronicle. So who did he reply to? Damn!

Never trust Wiki...(although it could have been in there too I suppose)

Thx to Zam via this thread: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=165

[doranchak]

So question number one please - who got it? We know it was sent on the 4th, yes? Even though we don't have the envelope. Right?

I suppose this is confirmed by the FBI documents:

Question two: did the name make it into the pages of the Chronicle of the 5th too, then (seems unlikely actually, since the VNC was an evening title), or did it make the morning of the 6th instead?

Not sure if this is what you're asking, but The News Chronicle references "this is zodiac speaking" on the 4th:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/5597c7da-a742-45fa-ad4f-6b5fb926f20f/b0f92ce685518bbc8ecda610000b99af (scroll down)

Or did you mean the SF Chronicle?

[Tahoe27]

I know he first used it of himself - the name (we all do!) - in the "letter of 4th August", which was sent "to the San Francisco Examiner", Wiki Letters says. It says it went there on pretty much all the web sites, too.
Except The Yellow Book originally called it the 3-page letter "to the Vallejo Times Herald on August 7, 1969". Ho hum.

Ok...It would appear the three page letter was in the VTH on the 4th, but they acknowledge the "this is the Zodiac speaking" letter was mailed to the Examiner. So whether or not the Examiner published it...."Zodiac" is used in this article on August 4th by Vallejo.

[Tahoe27]

--Sorry dornchack...posting at the same time.

[smithy]

Yes, I said that the VNC used the name on the 5th. In lower case, how unfair. Not in dispute.
That piece you posted there though T.? It's a composite that makes it look as if the name was published on the 4th, and it wasn't. Eh? Here! Damn!



Which is correct? One of them is wrong. I DO wish the masts hadn't been cut-and-pasted. It would be nice to have a whole pdf of the page.....

And Wiki is of course correct, you cynics. The publication of 2nd August in the Chronicle page 4 printing of "their" section of the cipher, also asks for more information from a sceptical Police Chief:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanutbutter/2462826041/

So he could have been replying to either the Vallejo papers or the San Francisco News Agency titles. Not very conclusive.
HOWEVER, thanks D., the FBI material does seem to confirm reception on the fourth by the Examiner, even though that's VERY odd.
I'll believe that for now. The Examiner got it on the 4th. OK. Graysmith was out to lunch. Pah! No envelope. Ha!

Remaining!
When did the San Francisco News Agency titles (the Chronicle and the Examiner) first publish the name "Zodiac", in one or both titles?
(Thanks folks, most helpful.)

Edited like crazy, sorting out the 4th and 5th VNC's and my opinion of the FBI's second-hand envelope-free list of materials.

[doranchak]

When did the San Francisco News Agency titles (the Chronicle and the Examiner) first publish the name "Zodiac", in one or both titles?
(Thanks folks, most helpful.)

The earliest I saw in the SF Chronicle was October 15, 1969: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/f0bec1f1-1d61-42dd-a4c4-e37c03f37499/e302c587f0b8f44a0dbc7187de5a4e45

But maybe I missed an earlier reference.

[smithy]

Thanks D., me too. MUST be out there earlier, though, surely.

[Tahoe27]

Yes, I said that the VNC used the name on the 5th. In lower case, how unfair. Not in dispute.
That piece you posted there though T.? It's a composite that makes it look as if the name was published on the 4th, and it wasn't. Eh? Here! Damn!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But, in the August 4th article via Vallejo, they do publish the name "Zodiac". They just don't show the actual letter.

Also, maybe someone can check the SF EXaminer and Chronicle for August 7th. Maybe Graysmith just mixed them up with Vallejo. ??