Sitting In the Front Seat

[Chaucer]

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.

Yes. A cowardly, ambush style attack is, IMO, exactly what this was. I don't think Stine saw the gun, let alone struggle with Zodiac. Stine never knew what hit him.

[replaceablehead]

I understand what's so persuasive about this argument. That is that sitting in the back is more likely because he would have had more control over his victim. I'm not saying he sat in the front, but this particular argument doesn't persuade me much one way or the other.

The back has some disadvantage, in that if the victim were to struggle they could use the seat as a bit of shield, sure not much of shield, but if a struggle ensued between the back and front seats it would be harder to control the outcome. It's not impossible to imagine the victim spotting the gun, ducking behind the seat and crawling out the door while the killer struggles awkwardly to clamber over the seat. Yes you could fire over the seat, but it makes me think of the famous footage of the guy getting shot point blank who ducks and weaves behind the tree, sure it's not totally effective, but it makes shooting him properly surprisingly awkward, that guy survived. If I had a gun on someone I'd want to be as close as possible, with nothing in between us, I would think that would give me better control of the situation.

But look I'm playing devils advocate. All I'm saying is I don't see any significant strategic advantage to sitting in the back, or indeed the front for that matter. It's all much the same to me.

The best argument against the front seat theory is that it is the norm for passengers to sit in the back. The best argument for the front seat theory is that it is what the teens originally reported.

Oh, but wasn't there a book, or notepad, or something found on the front passenger seat under the body? If so, then that would be the best argument against the front seat theory.