Sitting In the Front Seat

[replaceablehead]

We're talking about some pretty slim threads, certainly nothing that strongly points in one direction, or the other. But I've come around a little on the idea that Z may have "interacted" with his victims.

Looking over everything I know it's tempting to try and make those connections, I understand that. But instead of imagining a killer targeting friends over feuds, instead picture a serial killer who likes to stalk his victims. Maybe this killer likes to spend a little more time stalking, maybe there are certain physical features he likes to target, maybe certain personality traits. Maybe as part of the stalking he really does interact with his targets.

This scenario is not out of line with known serial killers. We often here that serial killers are partly defined by the idea that they pick random targets. In reality victim selection can often be a more detailed process, and stalking is not uncommon. Although its fair to say few interact enough with victims to cause suspicion.

So in the balance do I think it's likely Stine knew Zodiac? No, but that doesn't make it a bad lead. Carol's statement should be taken seriously, not to the point of blind belief. But consider this, when it comes to faulty memory we're often asked to remember things which at the time didn't seem important. But imagine yourself in Carol's shoes, she has the opportunity to speak to one of the top cops in charge of the murder of her brother, perhaps emotions are running a little high, but surely she would hang on every word, clarify every statement and according to Tom she associated the memory with a fact about her brothers habits. That sort of behavior aught to help the details stick.

Then we have Tom, a long time Zodiac researcher, a person who despite some controversy has put in a lot of leg work in the case. Tom has the opportunity to speak to Paul Stine's sister, he's going to be in interview mode, (hell Tom, did you have a pen and notepad?) he's not going to just have some casual conversation, he's going to be concentrating on every detail. Surely both Tom and Carol would get the basic essence of this detail correct. I mean they may not remember every word of the conversation, but this fact is a standout fact, both Carol and Tom zoned in on it mentally, fixated on it, chewed it over. What are the odds that Carol's brain just flat swapped it? Not impossible, in fact its exactly the kind of nasty trick the brain plays.

All in all though I find this particular piece of hearsay to be reasonably credible.

[Chaucer]

Agreed. However, it's important to remember that Tom heard this from Carol who heard it from the police - decades earlier.

As has been pointed out, there are reasonable explanations for witnesses and the police to erroneously say that the killer rode in the passenger seat.

[replaceablehead]

The decades earlier part is a concern. It is amazing the way our memories can play the craziest tricks on us. A detail swaps and we fix it twice as hard in our heads only to discover it was the exact opposite. If you have two possible details, "front", or "back", it's easy to think someones memory could reverse them. "got my wires crossed" is the expression here for this kind of almost perfect swaparoo scenario.

However I believe Tom when he says that Carol had a bit of a story to accompany the detail. That is that Carol had specifically committed this detail to memory as it stood out to her and that she had given quite some thought as to it's meaning. I think that changes the quality of the relayed information, in that all parties saw it as a significant and outstanding piece of information. That's why I find it credible.

What I would like to know is if when Tom says "on the record", does he mean to say that he took some actual notes during his conversation with Carol. If so that would considerable boost the credibility of the claim.

[CuriousCat]

What I would like to know is if when Tom says "on the record", does he mean to say that he took some actual notes during his conversation with Carol. If so that would considerable boost the credibility of the claim.

She said this during a chat at Tom's forum where she was the guest. Here's a thread about it and the link to the chat.


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack ... t7049.html

[masootz]

What I would like to know is if when Tom says "on the record", does he mean to say that he took some actual notes during his conversation with Carol. If so that would considerable boost the credibility of the claim.

She said this during a chat at Tom's forum where she was the guest. Here's a thread about it and the link to the chat.


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack ... t7049.html

thanks for that link. she says:

"Carol says to (04:38:51):
No, Paul would not let passengers ride in the front! Paul was not a fighter either! He knew his life was at tack that night"

Carol says to (05:51:34):
The police told me what the witness say. The scuffle in the front seat with Paul grabbing the hand which held the gun, saw he get out of the front. Saw wipe down the mirrow inside (strange) and door hgandles with a piece of Paul's shirt

colette says to (05:52:19):
they saw paul try to grab the gun

seeker says to (05:52:19):
Had always heard the police believed the killer sat in the back seat...

Carol says to (05:52:56):
No I rememberfront seat as I thought it was strange!"

for context, since i did read most of the chat - the chat layout is confusing and both carol and the question askers repeatedly seem confused about which question is being answered. i don't see her saying paul would let friends ride in the front.

i also don't see where "Paul Stine's sister, Carol, is on record having stated that Inspector Armstrong of SFPD told her Zodiac rode in front." she says the police told her a witness saw paul scuffle in the front seat with the killer and tried to grab the gun. this would obviously have been before he was shot. this doesn't make much sense since the witnesses did not report seeing/hearing the shooting. again, unless there is some other source for this i don't find it the airtight compelling evidence some others seem to find it.

[Chaucer]

There is no way the teenage witnesses saw Paul and Zodiac struggle over the gun because they have stated on record that they didn't hear or see a shot. I hope someone can provide more exact details, but their first images were of Zodiac in the front passenger seat handling Stine's body and wiping down the interior.

This sounds like a game of telephone.

Per Officer Pelissettii in 2007:

"One of the kids (not sure which) noticed a cab parked outside (in that now famous spot) with the interior lights on. So when Lindsey told me that the light inside the car was like a spotlight, it was so bright. The first kid at the window said the driver looked "sick, or something". Lindsey and Rebecca went to the window and saw the driver laying across the front seat, head toward the passenger door."

So, unless there is an unknown witness or witnesses that saw something sooner, the idea that Paul Stine struggled with Zodiac over the gun in the front seat is not true.

[CuriousCat]

What I would like to know is if when Tom says "on the record", does he mean to say that he took some actual notes during his conversation with Carol. If so that would considerable boost the credibility of the claim.

She said this during a chat at Tom's forum where she was the guest. Here's a thread about it and the link to the chat.


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack ... t7049.html

thanks for that link. she says:

"Carol says to (04:38:51):
No, Paul would not let passengers ride in the front! Paul was not a fighter either! He knew his life was at tack that night"

Carol says to (05:51:34):
The police told me what the witness say. The scuffle in the front seat with Paul grabbing the hand which held the gun, saw he get out of the front. Saw wipe down the mirrow inside (strange) and door hgandles with a piece of Paul's shirt

colette says to (05:52:19):
they saw paul try to grab the gun

seeker says to (05:52:19):
Had always heard the police believed the killer sat in the back seat...

Carol says to (05:52:56):
No I rememberfront seat as I thought it was strange!"

for context, since i did read most of the chat - the chat layout is confusing and both carol and the question askers repeatedly seem confused about which question is being answered. i don't see her saying paul would let friends ride in the front.

i also don't see where "Paul Stine's sister, Carol, is on record having stated that Inspector Armstrong of SFPD told her Zodiac rode in front." she says the police told her a witness saw paul scuffle in the front seat with the killer and tried to grab the gun. this would obviously have been before he was shot. this doesn't make much sense since the witnesses did not report seeing/hearing the shooting. again, unless there is some other source for this i don't find it the airtight compelling evidence some others seem to find it.

She said a bit more than what you have quoted but yes, it's confusing and disjointed, but it is clear she is inferring the police told her they think Zodiac rode in the front and she mentions personally dealing with Dave (Toschi) and Bill (Armstrong) several times so it seems very likely that is where she received the information from.

None of that proves anything and my post was not intended to show "airtight compelling evidence" of anything, just to show what she said in the chat. Tom has spoken to her many times so he might have more solid information.

[CuriousCat]

There is no way the teenage witnesses saw Paul and Zodiac struggle over the gun because they have stated on record that they didn't hear or see a shot. I hope someone can provide more exact details, but their first images were of Zodiac in the front passenger seat handling Stine's body and wiping down the interior.

This sounds like a game of telephone.

Per Officer Pelissettii in 2007:

"One of the kids (not sure which) noticed a cab parked outside (in that now famous spot) with the interior lights on. So when Lindsey told me that the light inside the car was like a spotlight, it was so bright. The first kid at the window said the driver looked "sick, or something". Lindsey and Rebecca went to the window and saw the driver laying across the front seat, head toward the passenger door."

So, unless there is an unknown witness or witnesses that saw something sooner, the idea that Paul Stine struggled with Zodiac over the gun in the front seat is not true.

The witnesses first thought Zodiac was fighting with the driver, and honestly we don't know that didn't happen. Just because they didn't hear a shot doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. I mean, we know a shot was fired at some point but because they didn't hear it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

However most likely they saw Zodiac moving Stine's body and tearing the shirt and mistook it for fighting. Stine's sister Carol said Paul was the type he wouldn't have tried to fight someone he thought was robbing him, he would have just gave them what they wanted.

But again, we don't know exactly how it happened. It was already under way when the witnesses first saw it and most likely Stine had already been shot by then. It's possible Stine saw a threat to his life and reacted, we just don't know, but it doesn't seem likely the witnesses would have seen it anyway.

There are those dark spots on the back of Stine's left hand that we never had an explanation for. I suppose it's possible they were powder burns but again we don't know. SFPD has been as tight lipped as Riverside generally so we don't get solid information to work from.

[replaceablehead]

I've always thought the fact that they didn't hear the gun shot was odd. But I don't think it says much either way about whether on not they saw a struggle, they were certainly close enough to. The two reasons often cited to refute the struggle is that the teens didn't hear a gun shot and that the Zodiac taking the piece of shirt is used as an explains for what they saw. I think that's it's a good theory, but I think it gets accepted to quickly.

Without evidence to the contrary a struggle is as likely if not slightly more likely than no struggle.

The fact that they didn't hear a shot is really neither here nor there. If they didn't hear it before they got to the window, why would you expect them to hear it at the window? I suppose we image because the window is the closest vantage point and they would have by then been transfixed by the scene. But it's a gun shot, being a few extra meters closer shouldn't make the difference. The other assumption might be that the gun shot is what drew their attention. But there is no evidence that was the case. As for the shirt tearing, well it provides an alternative explanation, but it does nothing to refute the struggle, it mere provides a plausible alternative.

So what we're left with is a situation where we seem to intuitively want to dismiss the claim of a struggle, but we haven't got any real reason to doubt it. If they said they saw a struggle, why shouldn't that remain the most likely explanation? I say most likely not to imply that it's significant, it's just that when you have an eyewitness report, as faulty as they can be, how quick should we be to dismiss it? And how much evidence to the contrary is needed before we consider the alternative more likely?

[Fisherman'sFriend]

In every accepted Z attack he puts distance between himself and the victims and avoids a physical struggle.

First two attacks victims shot from a distance - he even goes through the trouble of telling us how he does this in his letters.

Third attack he approaches people on an isolated spit of land and gets them tied up before attacking.

He AVOIDS confrontation where he might have to engage in a physical struggle.

I believe him to be disabled in some way, especially when considering the reports of some kind of odd walking style.

Shooting someone from the back seat of a cab sets him up in exactly the kind of situation he would want.