One Size Fits All? Message Board: Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell: One Size Fits All?

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:42 am:

Speaking strictly within the parameters of the Lake Berryessa investigative findings, there have been numerous posters here suggesting various methods by which their favorite suspects must have modified their appearances, in order for them to conform to the witness descriptions and physical evidence. This can be said of proponents of Allen, Davis and Kaczynski, and perhaps others. Some of the modifiers have included wigs, oversized shoes/boots, lifts, padding, weight belts, flak vests, hood space, etc. Added to these modifications are the claims that Bryan’s descriptions were either faulty or too indefinite and subject to change over time, and that soil compaction tests were invalid. I can understand the necessity for such qualifiers, since without them, none of the more popular suspects could remain viable, and this Board would all but lose its core membership. If that should ever happen, I cynically suspect that few of the more staunch proponents of these suspects would thereafter be able to readily divest themselves of their long-held beliefs and honestly reapply their analytical acumen to an objective search for the truth.

So let’s just see how much modification is required to qualify each of these top three (or others) as matching the official suspect description. All of you spinmeisters out there, let’s see your list of disguises, alterations and witness-defying feats of deception. Once these have been received, I’ll be interested in seeing just how much manipulation has been employed for each suspect for him to become an exact match.

I’ll start it off by suggesting that Allen wore a wig, to account for the hair seen by BH. [long pause] Gee, I can’t think of anything else.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 10:29 am:

I guess it's Allen, then. Allowing for the DNA and the wig.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:23 am:

Doug, I didn't know about there being DNA evidence from LB. We were talking strictly about LB, weren't we? Unless or until there has been a documented DNA comparison with TK, using the same source materials and processes as were used by SFPD to exclude Allen, it would seem rather (typically) snide to dismiss this thread so cavalierly. But then, I shouldn't have expected any less from the TK camp.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 05:59 pm:

Bill, Great thread! I would suggest also, to be completely fair, that individuals state what suspects OTHER than their pet suspect would need to qualify. For example: I agree with Bill that Allen only needs the wig. Of course, I'm an Allenite, so I'm probably not going to look too hard for much else.

So Doug, how about it? What else would Allen need? And what would your suspect, TK, need? Bill, what do you think TK would need?

Remember this is ONLY the LB evidence Bill is testing.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 06:52 pm:

I contend that Allen wouldn't have even needed the wig, after all, he wasn't bald. He had hair and it is impossible to say how unkempt it was beneath the hood. I suggest that if it was Allen at Lake Berryessa, then his hair was simply swept forward instead of combed back and, of course it would have been sweaty given the circumstances.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:36 pm:

ALA was probably sweaty under any circumstances.

By Classic (Classic) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:09 pm:

Grant was 6' tall, 180-200lbs., with a pauch, had a full head of hair and was seen at lb the day of the crime. Classic

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:38 pm:

Please elaborate on Grant being seen at LB on 9-27-69. I trust this is an established fact, rather than suspicion.

By Gregusjay (Gregusjay) ( - on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:11 pm:

A wig on top of a hood? That'd be like putting shoe polish on the bottom of a shoe. Not to mention the fact that if there is a struggle, the wig would only put the perpetrator at a disadvantage..blocking his vision, falling out from underneath the hood..creating even more heat inside an already hot hood. Wig? I can't see an advantage to having a wig under the hood.
There's also the possibility that Hartnell could have grabbed the hood off Z's head and the chance of the wig coming off in with it.
Whomever Z was, Hartnell saw enough of the hair from the eye holes to see it was brown and sweaty. Another small ? was the hair from the forehead area or the side near the side burns?
From the pics I've seen of Allen, his forehead was lacking and very receded.

By Linda (Linda) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:46 am:

Hartnell description: Man "...5,8" 5'10" to 6', somewhere in there..."
(Kaczynski is 5'9")

Hartnell description: Weight solid, not flabby, stomach hung over trousers OR he had puffy air-filled jacket - weight 225-250 lbs
(Kaczynski, although weight was probably around 160 at the time, could have used stuffing to puff up the jacket as indicated by Hartnell. In his Unabomber crimes, he used disguises such as this to give altered appearance of himself)

Hartnell 2nd description: "He had to be fairly lightweight (without puffed up jacket). All the guys the police had me look at were really fairly husky guys. This guy I think was in his thirties and fairly unremarkable.
(Kaczynski: Weight at that time approximately 160 lbs. With puffed up jacket would look larger)

Hartnell Description: Dark brown, sweaty hair
(Kaczynski: Brown hair - sometimes described with hint of red)

Police Report: Approximate shoe size from prints found near Hartnell vehicle - 10-1/2
(Kaczynski: Size 10 (and this would have to be confirmed. I believe I have read this somewhere, but can't find info... Height being at 5'9" makes sense that shoe size would be in this range for a man; however, I do believe that somewhere there is confirmation of Ted's shoe size as being a 10).


Above is my take on the Z descriptions at the LB attack and TK.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:28 am:

Kaczynski was 5'9" and weighed 150 pounds when he was captured, following a brutal Montana winter. Looking at his Berkeley photo I'm inclined to think he weighed between 160 and 180 in that photo, taken in 1968 or 1969. To fit the Berryessa profile he would have needed an extra layer of clothing, and/or loose-fitting outer garments as described by Hartnell. Kaczynski is already on record as stating that he bulked up his appearance as a disguise.

In order to be Zodiac, Allen would have needed a superfluous wig at Berryessa and a convincing crew-cut wig at Presidio Heights. Not impossible, but highly unlikely, to my way of thinking.

Incidentally, anyone wishing to understand the ambiguity behind the eyewitness account at LB need only look at the transcript of the Hartnell interview, or any Hartnell interview, for that matter (even the most recent, of which some of us have a copy). Hartnell is obviously the kind of person who can't maintain a train of thought for longer than half a sentence--he thinks tangentially while he's trying to speak. Not only does that kind of thing interfere with any attempt to draw information from him, it's symptomatic of a mental state that's not good at cataloguing and remembering events. Given this, and the circumstances of the attack, Hartnell's recollections are probably no better than vague impressions.

What I'd like to see from Hartnell is a good written account of the event.

By Len (Len) ( on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:40 am:

I'm one of those folks who think LB could have been a different perp, and I think that Allen is a reasonably good candidate as the attacker in this case.

There is a second problem with Allen, though, besides his hair: his height. At 6'1" (if memory serves), he was a full two inches taller than Hartnell's best estimate (the same height as Det. Robertson or 5'11"). Poor posture could account for it, I guess.

As for TK, the problem is that Hartnell's estimate on his weight was confirmed by the compaction tests. Therefore, TK would have been required to bulk himself up with something besides cotton batting.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:54 am:

Doug, you wrote, "In order to be Zodiac, Allen would have needed a superfluous wig at Berryessa and a convincing crew-cut wig at Presidio Heights."

I feel that you are wrong on both accounts, Doug. A wig at LB? Why? Allen wasn't bald. A crew cut at PH? Not according to the evidence I have seen. Would you mind explaining both of these assertions in greater detail?

Also, as Linda pointed out, the shoe print left at LB was determined to be a 10 1/2. TK may have worn a 10, but Allen definitely wore a 10 1/2.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:05 am:

Len, you wrote, "There is a second problem with Allen, though, besides his hair: his height. At 6'1"...he was a full two inches taller than Hartnell's best estimate..."

6'1" according to whom? It says that he's 6'1" on his driver's license, but people aren't measured for height and weight at the DMV. The only way I know of to determine his height is to obtain his military records, medical records, or his autopsy report. Anybody have access to these?

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:14 am:

Also, for those who doubt the validity of the compaction test, please 'explain' one thing to me, why would the police fabricate such information if in fact a compaction test couldn't be or wasn't conducted?

By Len (Len) ( on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:20 am:

Scott: You are correct. For example, the Sheriff's report posted elsewhere on this site lists his height as 6' even. We do need better information.

By Classic (Classic) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:55 am:

Det. Baker, the witness saw a man acting strangely in the general store at Lb the day of the murder. The witness picked Grant out of a picture line up. The description of the man and his car also matched the description from the girls who were sunbathing at Lb. 5 years later, the witness was almost certain, but not postive Grant was the person he saw when viewing Grant in a large crowd. The uncertainty came from a change in hair color.10 days later the witness was killed in an explosion, so obviously there is no way to revisit the subject. Classic

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:14 am:

Classic, do you by chance know the nature of the explosion that killed the witness? Accidental? Suspicious circumstances?

By the way, the name of the "general store" is Moskowite Corners, and it is a bar, not a store. A group of us gathered there last July at the time of the first ZTFM. To my knowledge, 'Grant' was never positively identified which, as we all know, is very different from picking a suspect from a photo line-up.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 10:45 am:

In the spirit of this thread, in order for Grant to match BH's description, he would have had to somehow alter his voice a great deal. As Tom has said: "I've interviewed him twice. He has a big, booming voice with a thick, unmistakable accent." Neither BH nor the police recipient of Z's phone call that evening describe anything close to that. It's not impossible to effect a different voice, but it would be a "disguise" nevertheless, and should be mentioned.

By Warren (Warren) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:19 am:

Beware of official records for definitive height. Lee Harvey Oswald's height varies greatly in military, arrest and autopsy records, as much as three or four inches, I recall.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:43 am:

You can basically put whatever you want for height and weight, as long as it's obviously not too different than what you actually are. I once tried to update the weight on mine (I've gained a few pounds since I got my driver's license in 1984) to no avail: I'm still listed on it as 140 pounds, some 30% less than my current weight, and no one at the DMV has ever bothered to verify it. Military records will have precise height and weight (we had ours checked yearly in the Air Force, as I recall), as will autopsy reports.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:12 pm:

Classic wrote:
"...the witness saw a man acting strangely in the general store at Lb the day of the murder. The witness picked Grant out of a picture line up."

You've been duped by a certain author and the two private investigators who fed him that story. Neither Napa County or Napa PD ever investigated Grant and there is no record of such an incident.

Regarding Allen's "official" height, he was one-quarter inch under six feet.

By Warren (Warren) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

Can't we just place Zodiac's height as somewhere between Mini-Me and Yao Ming? Then we can call it a push between all suspects.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:59 pm:

As I suspected, the Grant sighting at LB was not an established fact. Such perpetuation of unsubstantiated claims is largely the reason why people like Grant remain under suspicion. It doesn't help when posters (Classic) say in unequivocal terms, "The description of the man and his car also matched the description from the girls who were sunbathing at Lb." The girls gave approximations of the man's age as 28 and 30. Grant was 49 at the time. Using words like "matched" is hardly an honest representation of the facts, and another example of spin-to-fit. Using an elaborate makeover to appear 20 years older is certainly possible, but not 20 years younger.

By Classic (Classic) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:02 pm:

Scott, the report I have does not include an explaination to the explosion.

Det. Baker, yes, the voice does not match. However, the accounts of z's voice do not appear to be consistent. Changing his voice would be a disguise, but a fairly simple one.

Tom, I thought I got the report from you, but maybe it came from elsewhere. I did not get that from graysmith though.

Based on Det. Baker's criteria set forth above, Grant's appearance, sans disguises, fits z as good as any and better than most. Does that mean he was z? Nope. Classic

By Classic (Classic) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:23 pm:

Det. Baker, I missed your last post. I was strictly going by the report I have. I do not spin to fit anything to any particular subject. I play devil's advocate with Grant and Marshall at times because there are things that merit consideration. I am,however, not a Grant-inite. I'd bet the farm that z is/was someone we never heard of. I have posted before what occupation I think he was too.

I did not make that post to be absolute fact. How do I know that any of the reports here or elsewhere are accurate? I didn't write them and have never met any of the participants. I made my post in good faith. If the report is wrong, I hope it can be rectified.

What I keep coming back to is how one suspect can be easily dismissed, while theories abound as to how another could be z. I have no stake in any of the suspects. It could be Arthur Allen or Ethan Allen. Makes no difference to me. Classic

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:38 pm:

Classic, I apologize if I made it sound like a personal attack, but I have grown weary of people using such absolute words like "matched" or other similar terms to convey an impression that is misleading. This practice is a spin designed to dishonestly influence and distort facts to accommodate a particular theory or belief that wouldn't otherwise conform on its own merits. Others here tend to overuse such absolutes to strengthen their cases, but for me all they have succeeded in doing is emphasize the weaknesses therein. Facts should speak for themselves, without the necessity of verbal manipulation or spin.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:44 pm:

In the Don Cheney report Allen's height is put at 5ft 11ins !
Just an thought on the "wig".If Zodiac (whoever he was)was into disguises would he not have a disguise under the hood? This was broad daylight and he had to walk nearly 500yards across open country.No doubt he would also have been hanging around the area beforehand.The report indicates that he did not put the hood on until he was close to the victims.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 04:08 pm:

Lapumo, you've brought up a point I made last October:

"And while we're discussing LB, I also think that Z would have worn a secondary disguise, under the hood that he put on behind the tree, and just before he confronted the couple. During the time he might have been cruising the park looking for victims, he would not have wanted to be remembered later by witnesses as having been there. He certainly wouldn't have wanted to be identified as walking to or from his car before or after the attack, so a disguise of some sort, other than the hood, would have been a necessity for him."

That "secondary disguise" could have been a wig or eyeglasses (not normally worn) or false facial hair or anything else that would have altered his appearance to minimize the chance that he could be identified later, of a nature so as not to readily appear as a disguise to witnesses, and inappropriate for the area and weather conditions.

His "primary" disguise -- that which he presented to the victims -- with the hood and clip-on sun glasses, might have included the jacket, although that would not have been appropriate apparel that day for a visitor to LB. Nor would, of course, the armaments strapped to his waist or the lengths of clothesline, which were probably stuffed in one of the jacket pockets. I'm inclined to think that when Z was scouting the area prior to the moment that he was seen by CS ducking behind the tree, he was wearing the secondary disguise with the primary items close at hand, and when he was first seen by CS he was carrying them as a bundle. As he reappeared, the items were now in place. The length of time that he could have been observed by others while he was in full dress was cut to a bare minimum. Conversely, I suspect that the primary disguise was quickly removed soon after the attack, and carried back to the parking area.

Following that reasoning, any additional items such as a flak jacket, weight belt, padding, etc., that would not have been part and parcel of his inconspicuous secondary disguise, would have likely been carried to the scene and quickly donned during his brief disappearance behind the tree. I'll concede that he could have chanced it and worn the coat from his car, with the aforementioned items under it and even the weaponry in place, leaving only the hood and clip-on lenses to put on, but that would still have subjected him to possible view by passersby while he walked the 500 yards to where CS and BH were located. And if he was seen by someone as he walked from his car, and his appearance was out of place, that would have increased the chance that the witness would pay more attention to him and possibly watch him confront the victims.

This is all speculation, predicated on what is known, and applied as faithfully and as reasonably as I can.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

Classic: Allen's father, Ethan, died on 3-17-1971, so he couldn't be Z. Otherwise, who wrote the 1974 letters?

By Kendra (Kendra) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

Scott, Allen did have hair. Along the same lines as Lapumo and Det. Baker- If Allen was Z, he may not have needed to wear a wig, but may have chose to wear one for one of the possible reasons mentioned above. Any suspect could have worn a wig, for that matter. Especially if that suspicious man lurking around LB that day (if that's even true!) was Zodiac. If they were one in the same, then he might have worn a secondary disguise (under the hood) as Det. Baker had suggested, to avoid being recognized pre-hood.

By Classic (Classic) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:19 pm:

Ed N. I forgot Allen's fathers name was Ethan. I was talking about Ethan Allen, the revolutionary war guy. Classic

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:08 pm:

Actually, I thought you were referring to the Ethan Allen chain of stores (presumably named after its founder).

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 10:46 pm:


I think your assessment of events at Lake Berryessa is probably very accurate, but I'll have to ponder the 'secondary disguise' component a bit longer. The way I see it is like this: Sure, a secondary disguise is possible, perhaps even likely, but nevertheless, one isn't needed to account for the facts as we know them. In other words, nothing that I can see about LB is predicated on the need for Zodiac to wear a second disguise. In my opinion, this is especially true if the Zodiac was Allen; no weight belts, no flak jackets, no shoe lifts, no wearing of larger shoes, no wigs, etc. I agree that Zodiac put on a jacket while also donning the hood, but in my opinion the jacket was a necessary part of his MO that day, as it was needed to conceal the gun and the rope and was probably used to bundle everything together before and after the crime. Don't get me wrong; perhaps Zodiac was wearing a secondary disguise. All I'm saying is that, from what can be determined from the evidence, I don't think it was a necessary part of the MO if Allen was the Zodiac.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:06 am:

Scott, you're right regarding a secondary disguise not being a necessary element insofar as the crime itself, but I think if we are to better understand Z's activities prior to the crime and how he came to choose the victims he did, such a disguise should be considered. It's my opinion that CS and BH were not targeted until that afternoon, and probably not until shortly before Z descended upon them, not knowing how long they intended to remain there. That suggests he spent some time at the lake scouting for victims, and within view of any number of recreationists. For this reason, I tend to think that if it was Allen, being a long-time resident of Vallejo and with a greater chance of being recognized at the lake than someone from out of the area, he would have even more need to disguise himself.

I can't explain it, or offer any alternatives, but Bryan's observation of the greasy, dark hair under the hood and behind the clip-on sunglasses just doesn't sound credible. But in keeping with my own restrictions on using only the documented descriptions as a basis of discussion, I felt it was necessary to mention Allen wearing a wig as the only modification he would have needed to fit. In that Allen, if he was the one, was out in daylight hours, hunting for prey in a populated area, it stands to reason that he would have modified his appearance, prior to the crime, in some fashion.

It's all highly speculative, but also consistent with Z's own claim to changing his appearance when being criminally active.

By Len (Len) ( on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 05:46 am:

If BH was correct in saying that he saw greasy brown hair through whatever opening there was for one or both eyes and if Allen was the perpetrator, then I would have to assume, from what I know, that he was wearing a wig. In every picture of the guy taken as an adult, his hair was sparse on top and cut close on the sides and back. (You have to give him credit for this: He didn't indulge in the fiction of the comb-over.) Therefore, the only way that BH could have seen hair on ALA otherwise would have been if the mask got twisted by almost 90 degrees, which is something that probably would have caught Hartnell's attention, especially since he would have gotten a glimpse of ear.

That he wore a wig as a secondary disguise is plausible, however, it would have had to have been an expensive and well fitted one; a rather large man walking around wearing one of those Beatles mop-top wigs probably would have attracted more attention to himself, not less.

By Sandy (Sandy) ( - on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 02:29 pm:

If it was not a wig and I hardly think it was because wigs don't sweat,your head gets warm but the band on the wig would hold it in. I would say that the killer had a hair-doo like a pompadore and a duck tail. For you too young to have seen this doo,the top would be 4 or 5 in long and the the sides could be as well. The hood is very hot being black, (ask Ed N.)and yes his hair would get wet. Kane had that doo at least in the 68 photo.Darlenes ex had long hair,how about Davis, or Marshall? I believe Bill Baker is right about the killer looking different while he was hunting for victims that day. Just my thought, that he took off his "glasses" while he pretended to read a book. If he was stopped as a suspect for watching the girls he could prove he couldn't see with out his glasses, gaully - geee those girls must be mistaken! Glasses a quick and easy disguise on or off. To this day, the man who pretends to be, or is the Z, still sits in his car and pretends to be reading a book. Somethings never change,for sure his DNA hasn't.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:37 am:

I think first cause is vital here.We START with BHs ability to carefully and acurately describe the perp.It is BH that is forcing me to come up with possible scenarios as to the real height and weight of the hooded figure.
I have an understanding -at least somewhat,what BH must have gone through,but we must present things as we see them.
It IS BH that made such statements as"And I DON'T KNOW how TALL he was.MAYBE 5-8 or MAYBE 5-10,6 feet,somewhere in there."
Now,I take that,to mean the perp COULD have been as tall as 5'8,"so I look at my suspect and he was about 5'8" in shoes/boots.Now,MM said Z was "SHORT or about 5'8"."The three teens said about 5'8" and KJ(just as an FYI)said about 5'9".So based on this,I have an arguement.We can disagree to be sure,but I am not overlooking the 5'8" range of Zodiacs PRECEIVED height on three,possibly four crime scenes.We don't have a description for LHR and this is regretable.I know that even we did,say from Stella Borges, or a surviver or other witness ,we would still be having this debate!Even if CS has survived we would still be contesting th BH crime.I guarantee it.
I can go higher,but only as to preceived height based on the hood ,costume and shoes/boots, for reasons I will post later.
BH had the extreme disadvantage of trying to estimate the height of a man that was wearing black "sloppy" or "baggy" clothes complete with a large hood!Then we must consider the FACT BH was on the ground MOST of the time he spent with his attacker.Some of this time Z was on higher ground.Go through all of the reports and it can be seen BH was at a positional disadvantage.
No one has proven that there wasn't,or was, a space in the hood from the surface of the perps skull to the top of the hood.Was it one inch,or two, maybe it was as much as three inches?This is a legitimate question.I have made a statement that has merit as this man had a costume on and this includes a large square topped hood!This is not a normal situation by any means!
Now,add shoe/boot height(no lifts here!)and we could add false height to the perps true height.
BHs'constant use,in all the reports,of "I don't know";"Maybe";"I forgot","I don't remember,"etc.,has me doubting his estimations of height and weight-no scales or tape measure out there!
As to weight, BH went as low as 160lbs and as high as 250lbs!Wow!When we consider that baggy or sloppy black outfit and BHs doubts( see posts -some time later)as saying the perp looked fat or large,we can pick and chose.Also, BH didn't know for sure if the perp had a real potbelly or 'pouch',"And I don't know[for the millionth time!].Maybe he had SOMETHING in his pouch."I say this is a possibilty-BH did!
I say that "compaction test" was a bad joke.I place no confidence in it whatsover.I have posted my arguements on this subject in detail.
Now,the hair."J.R.Okay.You said his hair looked dark brown.How could you see his hair?B.H.Cause' I saw it from where those goggles[clip on sun glasses]fit[they would have to be more than mere slits or Z could not have been able to see clearly!]I LOOKED SO CLOSELY to find out[it was day too].And when he turned ,you know, they kind of flittered ...I COULD SEE HIS HAIR.It looked kind of greasy."
BH ,in this case, has been consistant,he saw dark brown,greasy hair.I say this negates a wig as a wig has a liner that would keep scalp sebum or oil/grease from the fake or synthetic hair.This I got from a makeup artist and others in that kind of business.My suspect had dark brown hair and and yea,it was greasy too.I further note that BH said "I looked through his hair.I[it?]kind of looked like it was COMBED,like this[probably using his own hair] was brownish,you know,dark brown hair."I think it was real"combed," dark brown ,greasy hair.
The 'voice concept' that BH describes seems to be sure and consistant and jibes with Officer Slaight, that it was "young"or was the voice of someone around "20-30."Dispatcher Slaight said "early twenties."
Let's not blame the posters,it is BHs depictions of the perp and we are only responding to that.We can't accept that the perps appearance is the'usual'criminal description, when in reality, he had on a totally BIZARRE COSTUME that could manifest a false weight and height estimate and the survivng witness was on the ground most of the time-and he could not even see his face!

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:45 am:

Howard, you wrote, "It IS BH that made such statements as'And I DON'T KNOW how TALL he was.MAYBE 5-8 or MAYBE 5-10,6 feet,somewhere in there.'"

It's interesting, if only as an aside, that 5'10" is the average between 5'8" and 6'. We've all pretty much agreed that Zodiac wasn't extraordinarily tall or extraordinarily short. Why can't we just settle on the probability that Zodiac was of average height?

"Now,I take that,to mean the perp COULD have been as tall as 5'8"..."

I take it to mean that Zodiac could have been as tall as 6 feet.

"I am not overlooking the 5'8" range of Zodiacs PRECEIVED height on three,possibly four crime scenes."

Howard, that is purely speculative. We have no idea what the teens told SFPD. Do you have a copy of the transcript? If so, by all means use it as reference. However, I've never seen a transcript of their testimony, therefore it is an assumption to proclaim that the teens 'said' Zodiac was 5'8".

"Even if CS has survived we would still be contesting th BH [LB?] crime.I guarantee it." [Parentheses is mine.]

Nope, that's speculative.

"I can go higher,but only as to preceived height based on the hood ,costume and shoes/boots, for reasons I will post later."

That is shoehorning, Howard, nothing but pure spin. And it is because Bruce Davis wasn't a RCH taller than 5'7".

"Go through all of the reports and it can be seen BH was at a positional disadvantage."

Yes, you are right Howard. However, laying on the ground isn't going to distort one's perception to the point of absurdity. In other words, lying on the ground isn't going to make a small man appear large, though it might make a large man seem larger. Howard, Bruce Davis was a small man; he was listed as 5'7" and 140 lbs. on the day of his arrest on 10/12/69; 1 day following the Stine murder and exactly 2 weeks following Lake Berryessa. In my mind, that warrants serious consideration with regard to BD as a Z suspect.

"No one has proven that there wasn't,or was, a space in the hood from the surface of the perps skull to the top of the hood.Was it one inch,or two, maybe it was as much as three inches?This is a legitimate question."

No Howard, it isn't. There is absolutely nothing in the LB evidence 'file' that suggests the hood being 'taller' than the top of the perp's head. You're saying that the hood had to have added inches to the top of the perp's head while, contrarily, I'm saying, where is the evidence to support such a notion? Just because the hood had 4 corners?

"Now,add shoe/boot height(no lifts here!)and we could add false height to the perps true height."

Sure, those can be added to the list of items that would be needed if Davis was the Zodiac but it's not exactly the simplest explanation, is it?

"BHs'constant use,in all the reports,of "I don't know";"Maybe";"I forgot","I don't remember,"etc.,has me doubting his estimations of height and weight-no scales or tape measure out there!"

No, but there was a compaction test that was done on a Zodiac boot print found at Lake Berryessa. Granted, many scoff at such a test. My only response to such criticism is the question I asked in an earlier post: "Why would the police fabricate such information if in fact a compaction test couldn't be or wasn't conducted?"

"I say that "compaction test" was a bad joke.I place no confidence in it whatsover.I have posted my arguements on this subject in detail."

See above.

"Now,the hair."

See previous posts for my view on this matter. However, IF Zodiac wore a wig, it could still look sweaty even if it wasn't real sweat. It's my understanding that most wigs of that era had acrylic in them. Acrylic almost always looks shiny, and it is this shine that could easily be mistaken for a 'greasy' look.

"The 'voice concept' that BH describes seems to be sure and consistant and jibes with Officer Slaight, that it was "young"or was the voice of someone around "20-30."Dispatcher Slaight said "early twenties.'"

Have you ever heard a woman's voice over the phone and you could swear that she must look like Daisy Fuentes at age 18 only to find out that...

Howard, seriously, how do you account for Bruce Davis' appearance the day he was arrested on 10/12/69? You're not going to argue that he grew a lengthy, unkempt beard overnight, are you?

With all due respect,


By Classic (Classic) ( - on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:56 pm:

Scott, you mean that women don't always look as good as they sound over the phone? Hmm, maybe I should stop payment on my credit card...LOL. Classic

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:01 am:

Thanks for your detailed reply!I,like you,still hold to my post.I will focus as there are several components and points that could be covered.
I very carefully reread the Stine report and I think the "description" that is metioned covers Zodiacs height as given by the three teens.There are other factors,but I will,as given,focus mainly,on height.
The height given in the PD report- before 'descriptive revisionism'set in(as Dave Peterson called it)-was 5-8. G.S. seems to quote from a report where the teens say,"He had a stocky[Davis was described as "husky,""stocky,""thickset" and "muscular"- FYI] build...looked like he was five foot eight inches tall"(he was "around 25 or 30 years of age"-Davis was 27 FYI-this is close to MMs,BHs and KJs description as to age).All of the above,as to height,etc.,is what Peterson told me by phone.He was supposed to send info,but we both forgot about it.He sent other copies I wanted.He would dig for documents and would send them sometimes- even weeks or months later.I attributed this to his faltering health.I found out later this was correct and later we had to cease our partnership.But Dave was certain the teens did say the killer was around 5'8".Where else do you think the 5'8" came from?
DP believed ALAs evolving status along with GSs'book info on ALA,'changed'or influenced estimates to fit his stature,etc.
As I have said,I stay away from ALA and the other suspects.They have their supporters,as it should be,and they do a great job of presenting their evidence.No one dare deny Tom is the top authority(and this includes document collection which surpasses the PD/FBI,etc.!)on Allen.He can do a much better job of presentation than others who have focused on their own particular suspect.
BH said the perp could have been 5'8",as did the teens,MM and KJ.Now,this is case fact.We can go up(and BH gives us up ,down, around and through man!),but it remains that those original witnesses gave this estimate-"five foot eight inches."The numbers are there.MM was firm on 5'8" and you disagree.Fine,that's your opinion.I accept it.You favor Allen and I favor Davis.All just opinion.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:53 am:

I forgot to say,yes,Davis was 5'7"-without shoes/boots-but he was 5'8" in boots/shoes( and the some one half to one inch his hair would take him up to).If you are six feet you really go up!
This is witness 'perception'we are talking about here-it may not reflect true height per se.NO scales or measuring tape was used on site!Right?
Ones body or the thickness of their hair as it stands up on the scalp gives some added 'height.'Even a crew(which is being revised now)has some height depending how close to the scalp it is cut.My crew cut on the team stood up about one inch.I will stand with that.
As to Davis being 145-55lbs(one report says 155lbs),is no problem for me.I care as to what OTHERS apprised his weight to be.Even people that I have spoken to have said he 'appeared' husky,stocky,muscular and thickset.Look up in a comprehensive dictionary.And let's not forget the possibility of bulking up with a vest or any number of methods that were given in anti detection books.What did he have under the windbreaker?Nothing?No one can say for sure,but it IS possible this was part of the "disguise" Zodiac wrote about, knowning he would be in public that fateful October evening.
It's is YOUR opinion that he shouldn't be "seriously"considered as a Zodiac suspect-I developed him and I will retain him, as I continue to gather more info that will be published in due time.
The bearded picture was taken when he was sent,yet again,to the same area, to be processed.This WAS FEBUARY 1970!See the picture at the far left on page 273 of my book for the'69 shot.Davis was processed several times!
I thought it very interesting that when a young lady asked CM recently if either he or BD was involved in the Zodiac case,he told her neither he nor Davis was ever in Northern Ca and that they lived in Southern Ca ,so my assertions are false.I say what he told her was false, as he knows,as well as many others, he did frequent Northern Ca constantly from 1967 to 1970( in Davis'case)and so did Davis!Even his own followers place him in the Bay area December 1968 for about three weeks,for example.
Davis will not comment on the Zodiac case as he claims he has not been charged with that crime!Ridiculous.They all profess their innocence!No.I am staying with it sir.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 08:57 am:

Howdy Howard. You wrote, "It's is YOUR opinion that he shouldn't be "seriously"considered as a Zodiac suspect-I developed him and I will retain him, as I continue to gather more info that will be published in due time."

Whoa! Back up there, hoss. I never meant to imply that you should throw the kittens out with the bathwater for Pete's sake. I'm just wondering if you have managed to 'retain' a sense of objectivity as well as a suspect, that's all. I'd like to think to myself that 'yes, Howard hasn't lost that objective edge.' But sometimes I wonder, especially when you write, "As to Davis being 145-55lbs(one report says 155lbs),is no problem for me.I care as to what OTHERS apprised his weight to be. ??? I mean, come on, you're not really saying...What are you saying, Howard? Because I honestly don't know.

"The bearded picture was taken when he was sent,yet again,to the same area, to be processed.This WAS FEBUARY 1970!See the picture at the far left on page 273 of my book for the'69 shot.Davis was processed several times!

Howard, I'm staring right at it. To be honest, the image quality is so poor that I'm unable to tell for certain, but it looks like Davis has facial hair to me, albeit poorly kempt. However, it does indeed appear that Davis has facial hair in the picture that was taken the day following the Stine murder. Additionally, it looks like Allen isn't the only suspect in need of a 'crew-cut wig' on the night of 10/11/69.

Howard, I appreciate all that you have contributed to this case, but some things add up and some don't. Do you have a better copy of that picture that you can post here on the board? I'm just doing what I can with the facts as I see them. Some of it is opinion, some isn't. But one thing is certain, losing ones since of objectivity is, well, you know.


By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:10 am:

"Davis will not comment on the Zodiac case as he claims he has not been charged with that crime!"

What page of the book is that on? I'm assuming you meant to place quotations in there somewhere?

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:22 pm:

Howdeee Scott,
Give me an address(I don't have a scanner and don't know how to use one)and I will send you a copy of the picture and you will see he is clean shaven,so much so, you can see the sores on his chin and neck!Where did I read about scars on someones chin?
Don't worry about my objectivity.I've been on this case since '87 and I think I can handle that area,but it is a wonder I havn't been kicked off this fine site for my crazy remarks,etc.Tom has been easy on me.I can barely type!
Dave was on the case since '68 and we agreed on the issues.Thanks fer yer concern dude.
Why do you reject the voice concept?I referred to both BHs' estimate of the perps age by voice concept and Officer Slaights analysis.Is the simple answer no longer valid?You mentioned,I believe,the simple answer in the past.Instead you make some joke about a womans voice,etc.Z was male!To a trained Dispatcher, his voice sounded like someone in his "early twenties"with BH agreeing and capping it at around thirty tops.
Back to height.In his TV interview Bryan says to the reporters,"Well,when he[the perp] was standing up he would kind of shift around,he acted like a very nervous person,he WAS MEDIUM TO SHORT IN HEIGHT..."So you will accept this 'simple' statement?MM called Z "SHORT."
One of Davis' friends(I think he knew him from school) e mailed me some time ago.He denied that BD 'did such a thing' and if he did he would confess as he 'is a changed man,'etc.I asked him to ask Davis if he had anything to do with the Zodiac case and the reply is as given.This has happened more than once.
Write him or call and see what response you get.
I accept the description of Davis by people that saw him,in some cases,on many occasions,and those are the depictions I have gotten.Even the L.A.Times reporter ,in an article, gave out the word "husky"when referring to Davis and he was standing very close to him in the day light. I have seen the file footage of that scene twice, with the crew cut Davis saying "It's time(!)...and when told by the reporters they would arrest him for two murders he said...Oh,is that all?...there's a lot more than that(!)...they don't know the half of it."Zs penchant with "time" and Zs remark saying"...there's a hell of a lot more[victims] down there"[in Southern CA]certainly fits Davis' mind set.
We are going no place here,so we will agree you are being objective and I am not.How's that?I will let you win!YOU WIN YEAH!
I guess you are "around in the snow!"We have been suffering from 94 degree weather,Whew!I'll put some shrimp on the Bar-B-Q for ya!
Ed and I are looking forward to seeing you again because we know after we had beaten you in arm wrestling last July, you'll want revenge!We are on your little list,but we, er Ed, is ready.I am his manager this time....

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 07:30 pm:

I have made a large digital blowup of the Davis photograph.They did a great job and you can see the sores on his neck and pock marks (and sore) on his chin.
I am also sending you a previously unknown photograph (zerox)of him at college.
E mail me and I will send it to you Monday.
You can frame it for your den!

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:02 am:

Howard, don't worry about sending me the photographs, I have no problem taking your word for it. However, I've a few other questions, if you don't mind?

What's the deal with Bruce's hair as seen in the photograph? It's obviously long and unkempt, so how could the Zodiac have been described as having a "crew cut" or "short hair" the night before Davis was arrested if Davis was the Zodiac?

Was Davis out on bond in time to compose and mail the Stine letter?

Where was Stine's bloody shirt at the time of BD's arrest? Was it being held by one of the 'family' members?

Look, Howard, I'm not trying to be a jerk, okay? You've often said that you don't mess with other peoples' suspects, or try to 'convert' people into believing that BD is the Zodiac, and that's fine; I have no intention of converting people into believing that Allen was the Zodiac, either. What I am doing, however, is making sure that I've studied all of the options to make sure that my conclusions don't need revision, which I'm more than willing to do if shown to be wrong.

It's my opinion that an investigation, any investigation, would and should have an organic quality to it unless, and until, all of the facts point in one, and only one, direction. Until that happens, if in fact it ever does, I'm more than willing to explore all of the options open to me, including, but not limited to, Bruce Davis.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 12:08 am:

I sent the blow up to Lampumo.He may scan it to you or on this site,hopefully.
Books on disguises in the 60's informed the reader how to increase height,color hair,bulk up,make the face appear different and how to use a wig,etc
The person was to either use spirit gum or pomade and smooth down the hair(no matter how long it was) then place a latex cap(I have one) over the head, then the wig-whatever style(crew?) desired-was to be placed over the head.Simple.I have done it as an experiment.I have consulted makeup experts.Easy.The wig could be dyed also.
In the pic,Davis'hair-and it is not that long ,looks wax-like or greasy,just like BH described.
Davis was arrested 10/12/69 at 6:30 PM,the same time as the 10/20/69 supposed Z call to the Palo Alto Times.
The letter,and it is a short rush job(see style),says,as to when it was written, by implication, "last night,"so this would mean it was written ANYTIME AFTER midnight on the 12th.This short letter,then, could have easily been mailed by any confidant in S.F.Great alibi when one considers Davis' circumstances!
He was released 10/27/69(one year later the Chronicle gets a Halloween card)and there are no letters till 11/8/9/69, the two anniversery days of the Tate/ LaBianca murders-exactly three months later!
Z NOW says things are going to CHANGE!Then,in the very month the Tate case is solved,December 1969 and it looks very dark for CM and his group, we get a Z letter to one of the top lawyers in the country and this letter is filled with despair too!
The hardened criminal is wimpering and very depressed which was a total change from his normal personality-a real surprise,actually.Not so,if he is a CM intimate at the time.It would be understandable,including seeking legal assistance.They later thought, in 1970, they were going to get off so we have the old Zod' back at it.
There is no Zodiac letter until Davis' friend and Family member Bobby Beausoleil is convicted 4/21/70,with the Z letter coming just a day before!
They constantly went back and forth to the Bay Area.They flew(about one hour) or drove.There were hardcore members living in parts of the Bay Area, including S.F.CM had an ex con friend in S.F. called a "rounder," as he was into everything from forgery(there was another forger they knew in L.A. who also taught some of them forgery techniques),bomb making(they knew two other bomb nuts in L.A.-Davis was 'always saying he was going to blow up someone,but never did'-sounds like Z -Van Houten),weapons(he could get stolen guns quite easily)to murder for hire,etc.He would do anthing for CM and knew a whole host of criminals in the area.Any scenario was possible.Z did state he was "crack proof."
I gave one example,in my book, of a communication being mailed to "Anton La Vey" in S.F.(12/71)with a return address from CM(and Sue Bartell) in L.A.- so they not only sent letters,but signed off on them as being from Davis or Manson and both men were in jail!
It was/is easy to send "kites" or communications from prison.It is done all the time.There is an FBI report telling how CM did it.
Hardcore Sandra Good tried to get a guy to mail some letters from S.F. to get a S.F. postmark on them.They were threat letters with a false return address.They used to search dumpsters for paper/envelopes,etc.This is found in the bio on Lynette Fromme.
The bloody shirt,based on my possible scenario, could have been hidden by Davis as he did other things ,according to his history.He even hid his speed under a building!He was called "very secretive" by those that knew him.
Of course,you aren't a jerk,I consider you a friend ,Scott.I'd be afraid not to!Just kidding!ALL FYI.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:33 am:

Howard, I consider you a friend as well, and real friends are able to tell one another the truth, right?

The truth of the matter is that this thread, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates the following: Of the known suspects, Allen is the one who needs the least amount of explanation as being the perp of LB relevant to the facts that are known. Does it make Allen the Zodiac? No, not necessarily. But given the hypothetical nature of Bill's opening post, Allen is obviously the logical conclusion. That is not opinion that is fact. And it's a fact that should be well regarded among 'Allen detractors' considering that there are precious few in the Z investigation.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 10:42 pm:

That kind of reasoning proves absolutely nothing.So,if there is 'less need of explanation' this proves that the suspect under consideration is,indeed ,the perp!
This IS the Zodiac case-history time- and there has been nothing but'explanations'rendered on all of the suspects,case facts and the whole case for that matter!Think about what you wrote.
I know I am a late arrival to the Z case, as I didn't start on the case until 1987,but I have heard and read of many and varied intricate explanations about ALL the suspects and this includes Allen!This includes everything from why a suspect didn't match the document or fingerprint examination to why certain proofs weren't forthcoming on certain aspects of the suspects'past and present,so as to line up with the factual evidence in the case,etc,etc.
And NOW the DNA!A flurry of explanations found their way to this great Board on that hot issue too.Right?Read the Archives and they will tell you your assessment of the issue under discussion is in error.
There'are precious few in the Z investigation,'(!)including ,the late great Dave Peterson ,who was with the case since 1968,that would truly agree with your statement,which,frankly greatly surprised me.
There is no convicting ,hardcore evidence that has been produced ,to date ,on ANY suspect-none,zero.No one can be smug or arrogant here-there is no place for it.Z history proves this.All of this IS easy to explain!

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:56 am:

Howard, reread Bill's original post, my last post, and any one of yours, then tell me that the logic with regard to Allen and Lake Berryessa doesn't hold true. I made it abundantly clear that the conclusion, in and of itself, doesn't convict Allen of the crime, but that doesn't mean it's a position of arrogance to say, given the hypothetical, that Allen IS the suspect who would need the least amount of costuming/preparation and "modification" to account for all that is known about LB. Think about what you wrote, Howard.

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:34 pm:

ALA remains the logical suspect, the Occam's Razor guy. DNA be damned, nobody's saying anything. The next best suspect goes to some godawful cop thing emanating from Vallejo, some BLUE VELVET scenario, possibly involving your random occultoids. Then we devolve to the Penn/O'Hare collaboration, the ROPE scenario.

That's it. This Unabom/Manson fetish goes nowhere and everywhere.

Maybe it was Lee Harvey Oswald, or Osama Bin Laden.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:28 pm:

Sorry Scott I have-for many full moons now.So did Dave Peterson.We now agree to disagree from this point on.
There is no "logical suspect" in this totally illogical UNSOLVED series of crimes.No evidence,no arrest,no conviction no solution and a myriad of endless debates-even about DNA!
Zodiac would ,no doubt, write and be correct: PD-0;Zodiac 37+;researchers-0;news media-0+0+0=0!
Let's hope the score board will be reversed in the near future.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:43 pm:

You know what? Everyone's wrong! As others have pointed out, I am the most logical Z suspect these days, despite the fact that I'm 30+ years too young. What ya'll don't know is that I have a TARDIS (let's see how many people actually know what that is!) and that's how I was able to travel back through time to commit the Zodiac crimes...

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:46 am:

I give up.

By Warren (Warren) ( - on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 07:33 am:

Temporary Articulate Random Digestive Ischematic Syndrome. I've suffered from it for years. No known cure.

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) ( - on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:00 am:

What'd ya do, Ed? Steal it from the good Doctor while he was listening to Rush?

By Lapumo (Lapumo) ( - on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 12:51 pm:

Doctor WHO? Sorry

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 10:57 pm:

Gentlemen: just a little levity injected into an increasingly heated discussion. However, I'm glad at least one other besides myself has expanded his horizons beyond that of the average American; Lapumo, it's a given that you'd at least have heard of Doctor Who. I first started watching it 30 years ago... in the meantime, the Doctor's condemned Type 40 TARDIS had faulty navigational equipment (and chameleon circuit), and actually rarely delivered him where he wanted. Maybe I borrowed the Master's TARDIS instead...

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:14 am:

Yeah, I really appreciate y'all allowing the 'real' conversation to dwindle down to Howard and me. Anybody else have something to add to the discussion? I'd love to hear from you.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 04:40 pm:

You're kidding me.

Come on Bill, you started this thread. Am I being unreasonable in my conclusion that Allen is the logical conclusion given the criteria of your original post?

Howard, you are reading more into this discussion than actually exists. The logical conclusion derived from Bill's hypothetical has very little to do with the truth in its totality. Certainly you can see the logic of that, right?

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 06:30 pm:

Scott, of course it's the logical conclusion, but based on the strictness of the criteria imposed to elicit it. Why do you think I asked it? It was merely to illustrate the degree of manipulation necessary to arrive at a match between core descriptions and suspects, and was hypothetical (The logical conclusion derived from Bill's hypothetical has very little to do with the truth in its totality.) only in the respect that the core descriptions as given were accurate. We can argue until the proverbial cows come home about accuracy, but that defeats the whole purpose of the original thread. The intent behind the thread was not to rehash the respective viability of each suspect, but to strictly apply what information was obtained in 1969 against the known physical characteristics of each suspect.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:55 pm:

Keeping in mind, of course that the result is only a relative ranking of the known suspects, and no indication of the absolute value of any suspect.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

. . . the result is only a relative ranking of the known suspects, and only as that relates to LB. The same exercise could be employed with respect to the other Z crimes, with perhaps varying conclusions, but I feel that LB probably offers more information about the killer than any of the others, including Stine.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 07:15 am:

Yeah guys, I know. That is why I am at a loss as to why Howard got upset at my reasoning.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:41 am:

Good point, Bill: only as to LB. Good point about the amount of information revealed about the killer, too. I had never considered that, but not only are you right, but that point becomes more significant the deeper one delves into its implications. Isn't it counterintuitive that the only crime that was witnessed by a non-victim, which also provides the greater abundance of forensic evidence (as compared with LB), in which the killer's face was more or less clearly seen, by four people, does indeed provide less informayion about the perp.

So why do we learn more about the LB killer from that crime than the PH killer from that one? Is it because the perp revealed so much personality at LB?

In fact, this got me thinking about the case again, to the extent that I have devised an anlytical exercise I plan to carry out over the next few weeks.. And yes, kids, you can try this at home.

Set up a matrix with the four accepted Z hits on one axis and all identifiable elements of MO and personation on the other: weapon, tactics, location, water body, time of day, letters, phone calls etc etc. See not only a rough correlation ofn these elements across all crimes, but which elements are most characteristic. I think it may reveal more or less objectively why Berryessa provides the richest store of info, as Bill suggests.I'll let you know results. In fact, since I tend to discount certain elements as coincidental (such as the water connection), I would appreciate any suggestions of elements to include in the matrix, just so I don't do that: there may be some I wouldn't think of.

If In can get my statistician friend to help me, I may be able to come up with weighted correlations among elements of the crimes, MO and personation. And I promise to publish here, even if the results are compelling enough to go to SFPD, VPD or NCSO

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:13 pm:

I'm not sure how informative it may be, but beyond the actual confrontation with CS and BH, and whatever intelligence was gained about him from BH, Z left a written message on the car door and allowed his voice to be heard in his call to the police afterward. I'm not clear on why he made the call, since the car door message should have sufficed to give him credit for the crime. It was as though he not only put his actions in Italics, but underscored them as well, in bold type, and CAPS. As anxious as he was to have unequivocal attribution for the crime, once he learned that BH had survived, no further mention of that evening was ever made by him. In addition to donning the hood, conversing with his victims, in daylight, he took extra steps to take immediate credit. That seems to point to LB as being some kind of crescendo to his murderous work, and representative of the significance that scenario held for him.

By Warren (Warren) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:27 pm:

Graysmith suggested the possibility that LB was being filmed, perhaps as a snuff film. This could be evidence of a duumvirate and could account for the differing appearances of the people seen in the locale that day. Actually, some sort of a tag team could account for many inconsistencies in these crimes.

By Peter H (Peter_H) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 03:44 pm:

More excellent points, Bill. Definite additions to the matrix. Dare I call it The Matrix? And start a separate thread? Bill: Note that every one of the emphases you note is directly and unequivocally attributable to the LB perp. But not necessarily to Z the letter writer. He really wanted credit for LB. But no letter, which is the one thing that would have cinched it for him. That pattern only resumed after Z did PH.

By Howard Davis (Howard) ( - on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 07:16 pm:

I understand what's going on here.We have just ONE witness at LB as to the perps description.The reason there is a contraversy is because of BHs' ever changing depictions.I have documented them from police reports.
I say his statements are flawed to some extent.He is 5'8"(MMs,three teens,height description-like it or not)no,he is 6',no it is 5'10".His weight is 160,no it is 180,no it is 200.ETC.,ETC.
You don't like the voice concept as given by BH and Slaight-in his 20's(Slaight said EARLY 20's)so you bounce that around as it doesn't fit' your man.It has to if I give an explaination of some point,it is 'forced,'etc.
I say the problem is with BHs' ability to give an accurate,consistant description(which he has not)of someone he spent some 20 minutes with!This allows for we heretical non ALAs to foster all kinds of inaccuracies!

By J Eric (J_Eric) ( - on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:45 am:

Maybe Zodiac's disguise, whatever it was, was something he put on AFTER his killings that would allow him to leave the crime site "unseen" and unsuspected. I'll throw in my 2 and suggest maybe he was a cross-dresser. If you were going to knife people at close range, wouldn't you bring along an extra set of clothes of some style?

By Sandy (Sandy) ( - on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 07:13 pm:

J Eric,One of the suspects is a cross dresser! Either way if he had a shaved head before his kill,and put on a wig and glasses after,that would work or vice-versa. A full wig can fit in a pocket. We can see the men in that hair club for men , how different they look! I can't think of a better disguise it is quick and very easy.