Zodiac's glasses: disguise or prescription?
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Zodiac's glasses: disguise or prescription?
|By Tom Voigt (Admin) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 02:45 pm:|
At Blue Rock Springs Zodiac shot his victims in the dark. According to the surviving
victim, Zodiac was not wearing glasses and was aided by a flashlight.
At Lake Berryessa, Zodiac wore clip-on sunglasses over his hood. It is unknown if he wore glasses underneath.
In San Francisco, Zodiac wore glasses during the commission of Paul Stine's murder.
The question is, did Zodiac require prescription glasses, or were they merely a disguise?
I wear glasses. I need glasses. If I were going to shoot someone, especially at night, I would definitely wear them. At Blue Rock Springs, Zodiac didn't. Yet, if he didn't require glasses, why did he have a pair of clip-on sunglasses in his possession? What would he clip them to? And if he required glasses, why did he wear them in San Francisco but not at Blue Rock Springs?
My thinking is this: Zodiac didn't require the use of glasses and that's why he wasn't wearing them at Blue Rock Springs. However, because he left a surviving victim who could identify him (and also to fulfill some perverted fantasy), Zodiac overcompensated for his next attack at Lake Berryessa by wearing an elaborate disguise. The clip-on sunglasses were probably added to his wardrobe for this occasion, just as the hood was. Meanwhile, when the time came for a murder in the big city, Zodiac went with a more logical and practical disguise: a pair of glasses.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-141-151-2-162.phil.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 06:04 pm:|
That works for me, Tom.
|By jane (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 09:53 am:|
I have glasses for driving because I see double, and I don't have to use them unless I am very tired.
|By Dan Hall (cache-rp06.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 09:53 am:|
Tom Yes he wears glasses so do I but I am not blind without them. Glasses are
reflective at night sometimes I take mine off when its dark/low light conditions to see
We are talking about point and shoot range. With a little practice a blind man can hit a living target.
|By John Doe (pool918.ntrl.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 10:31 am:|
In my childhood when I was going to play "fighting with swords" with a friend
of mine there was a danger to break my glasses and I was taking them off. We played in the
evenings when outside was dark but I had no problems, nor he had any advantage that I was
It depends how much someone needs glasses.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-130-215.client.attbi.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 05:38 pm:|
"It depends how much someone needs glasses."
I understand some people only need their glasses under certain conditions. However, why would the Zodiac need his glasses to shoot someone at night in San Francisco, but not need his glasses to shoot someone at night in Vallejo? Doesn't make sense.
|By KKOJAK (Kkojak) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 06:08 pm:|
"why would the Zodiac need his glasses to shoot someone at night in San
Francisco, but not need his glasses to shoot someone at night in Vallejo? Doesn't make
Well, this is just a thought which makes some sense to me, and may make some sense to you or others. I don't know.
The Blue Rock Springs shooting occurred outdoors, and Zodiac stood a short distance from the victims. The Stine shooting took place in close quarters, inside a vehicle, with the Zodiac right next to Stine.
Say that the Zodiac had planned to shoot Stine and remove his shirt in order to use it as "proof" later, and needed his glasses to see what he was doing then. But, at the Blue Rock Springs shooting, he just walked up to the car and started shooting the people inside, so he didn't really need to "see" that well.
Perhaps Zodiac was farsighted, and only needed his glasses to see things up close. If that were true, he wouldn't really need his glasses in Vallejo, but could have thought they might be helpful in San Francisco.
Just a thought.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 06:42 pm:|
Maybe so, but if I didn't see very well I doubt I'd design a costume that restricted my vision even more.
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 09:11 pm:|
I am wearing my glasses nowadays, but have gone several years without wearing them. Only my right eye is nearsighted, so I could get by very easily without wearing them (my vision seemed fine). However, during that time, I did get headaches more often then I do now, mostly caused by eye strain. Maybe this was the case with Zodiac? ("I have headaches," said "Sam".)???
|By Muskogee (Muskogee) (65-70-66-92.ded.swbell.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 04:02 pm:|
I'm with Tom on this. I hardly ever wear my glasses, but I need them for fine point
discrimination in the distance, especially at night. If I were to see a target properly
for shooting, I would be much more likely to hit my target with my glasses on, and I'm
only slightly nearsighted.
It's possible, thought, that Zodiac was FARsighted, as we tend to become in our late 30's-early 40's and wore his READING glasses as a disguise when he was shooting at point blank range. Unlikely, but possible.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-141-151-15-191.phil.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 04:44 pm:|
I'm a slave to glasses, but I've always hated them. To this day, the first thing I do when I get home is to take the infernal things off. When I was younger, and my condition wasn't so bad, I'd use them strictly for driving, and wouldn't so much as park the car before tearing them off and throwing them on the dashboard.
|By KKOJAK (Kkojak) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 05:06 pm:|
"It's possible, thought, that Zodiac was FARsighted, as we tend to become in our
late 30's-early 40's and wore his READING glasses as a disguise when he was shooting at
point blank range. Unlikely, but possible."
Being farsighted doesn't mean that you only wear "reading" glasses. Some people only need reading glasses, but many farsighted people actually need glasses to see things clearly a few feet away. I've been farsighted since I was 18, and although I use my glasses primarily for reading, there are many other people who are farsighted and need them for everyday things.
As for the costume restricting his vision, that's just an assumption. We don't know if Zodiac's vision was restricted to any real degree. After all, he obviously spent a lot of time making that hood exactly the way he wanted it, so why wouldn't he take the time to make sure he could see well, too?
|By John Doe (pool769.ntrl.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 07:42 pm:|
To Tom...sorry about my poor atitude. I'm an european..
|By Muskogee (Muskogee) (65-70-66-92.ded.swbell.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 11:18 am:|
kkojak, um, I know about the farsighted thing. I was using "reading glasses" as an example, as that is the most common form of farsightedness.
|By scott_bullock (cache-ntc-ad10.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 11:34 am:|
The eyeglasses were a disguise, in my opinion.
|By Sandy (Sandy) (adsl-67-122-214-145.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 03:59 pm:|
Scott,If the eyeglasses were a disquise,why would he have to wear sun glasses on top of the clear ones? Why not just put on sun glasses?
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 04:12 pm:|
Sandy, there is no reason to believe Zodiac was wearing glasses under his hood.
|By Sandy (Sandy) (adsl-67-124-239-208.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 08:16 pm:|
Tom ,You have to have glasses on to put on clipp- on glasses. Bryan said in his report that the killer had on clipp- on glasses over other glasses. I believe that was when he also told about the dark brown hair. I also read in one of the reports that the hood came to the killers shoulders,not to his waist.(just like the one I found in my car in 69). I am only posting what I have read. If the killer didn't have on glasses then why wouldn't Harnell tell what color the eyes were? I have been reading about this case for over 33yrs, long before the Z book came out. I don't need to make up stories.
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 08:18 pm:|
If Z was wearing glasses under the hood, it could have been intended as an initial disguise, in case anyone could have seen him lurking around before (or after) the murder at LB. Yes, a strange man was lurking around and a composite had been made of his face (without glasses) - however, there is no direct evidence that he and Z were one in the same.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 08:28 pm:|
Sandy, this is from page 5 of the Hartnell interview:
"And he had clip-on sunglasses...it was hard to tell. You know, the sunglasses you clip on when you're wearing glasses, eyeglasses. He had those clipped on. I'm pretty sure...I don't think he had glasses, though. I think he just had these clipped on to his suit...you know, that little mask."
|By Sandy (Sandy) (adsl-67-124-239-208.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 08:43 pm:|
Tom ,Try and get clip on glasses to clip on cloth or paper and stay on. The only way would be to put them on the bottom of the cut outs for the eyes. They don't clip up! You are just too young to know about clip-on's.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 08:44 pm:|
Ok, Sandy...Bryan was wrong.
|By Julia (Julia) (user-v8ldv2q.dsl.mindspring.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 09:10 pm:|
As far as clip-ons go, I have a little theory. I've been clearing out my parent's house
and found my dad's old clip-ons. Upon examination, it occurs to me that if Zodiac made the
whole hood to begin with he could also have done the following: sewed to the upper rim of
the hood's eyeholes, with hard-to-see black thread, the little bar or brace at the top of
many styles of clip-ons. Or, on other styles, the little clips themselves could've been
attached in this way. A sample picture:
See what I mean? It'd be a cinch. Anyway, if I could dream this up, I'm sure Zodiac could...
Random thought: glasses make a good disguise because--consider this--people with glasses seem less threatening, even wimpy, to many folks. Stereotypically speaking. Puts potential victims off their guard. It's a good way to hide what you're thinking, too--eyes give away a lot, especially those of a predator like Zodiac.
|By Julia (Julia) (user-v8ldv2q.dsl.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 09:17 pm:|
Here's the question, relevant to the issue of did he or did he not wear glasses, that
I'd love to have asked any surviving witness...how magnified were his eyes, or to put it
differently, how thick did the lenses look? I, being a spectacle-wearer from way back,
have always noticed how lenses used for myopia make one's eyes look so much smaller
(greatly contributing to the classic four-eyed nerd "look"!) If Zodiac wore
lenses like that, chances are he really needed 'em, because, well--any of you with normal
vision ever tried to look through those things?! Talk about a headache...
Of course, I sincerely doubt there's any way at all to answer this question, alas.
|By maria petrof (22_166.btc-net.bg - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 12:54 am:|
Check this out (lines 3 and 4):
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 01:03 am:|
When one sees someone wearing a pair of clip-on sunglasses, the natural assumption is that they are attached to glasses. Unfortunately, Cecelia apparently didn't mention whether she saw her attacker before he put on his hood...
|By Maria Petrof (22_166.btc-net.bg - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 01:06 am:|
Could be so...
|By Brian_D (Brian_D) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 05:07 pm:|
Kkojak,, he might have been wearing safety glasses when he shot Stein from such close quarters thinking he needed protection from blow-back or possibly being struck by the ejected shell casing.
|By Kevin (Kevinrm) (ip68-98-108-6.ph.ph.cox.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 09:59 pm:|
Maybe he clipped the sunglasses onto "the wig", haha
|By Muskogee (Muskogee) (65-70-66-92.ded.swbell.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:01 pm:|
there are glasses with no precriptive- in other words, plain glass (they're kind of trendy right now, but I'm guessing they weren't back then). Also, one could use glasses such as mine, which are very weak, without it causing much of a problem.
|By lester mills (cache-ntc-ad10.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 11:58 am:|
I need glasses and so I wear them all the time. Except when I am wearing my contacts, then I don't wear glasses. So, sometimes when people see me- I am wearing glasses and sometimes I am not. This line of questioning means nothing.
|By Muskogee (Muskogee) (65-70-66-92.ded.swbell.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 03:40 pm:|
Except that contacts were not nearly as popular back then as they are now.
|By Kendra (Kendra) (pluto.cds1.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 04:40 pm:|
Contact lenses were not distributed until 1971, and at that, very sparsely.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-151-197-40-105.phil.east.verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 04:51 pm:|
Did Superman need prescription lenses?
|By Clark Kent (Clark) (220.127.116.11) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 07:42 pm:|
No, but thanks for asking.
|By J Eric (J_Eric) (dsc01-lai-ca-2-220.rasserver.net - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 10:45 pm:|
On 10-6-70, Z wrote, "I'm crackproof." I wonder--could it refer to the lenses of his eyeglasses? (The rest of the world would say "shatterproof.") Those are the kind I use now, after sitting on my older, non-polycarbonate ones.
|By jane (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 07:51 pm:|
Your right I had safty glasses and did not need any perscription glasses at all for using pumis on polishing dentures.
|By Scream187 (hse-quebeccity-ppp3498918.sympatico.ca - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 02:36 pm:|
I wouldnt thing he was talking about his glasses beeing crackproof... it doesnt mean
anything and it seems a little far stretched.
I dont think theres a hidden meaning to "i am crackproof" thats exactly what he means. Police cant get him because he's too smart for them.
|By Joshua (184.108.40.206) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 07:16 am:|
People often lose a lot of their ability to think, reason and remember details when they are frightened. Remember the composite of the uni-bomber. It REALLY looked like ol' Ted. Obvisouly I am kidding but my point is this, has anyone thought it odd that Bryan who was most likely frightened, we all would have been, after being stabbed, blacking out, remembers some very clear details about his attacker? When he heard someone in the area by the bushes/trees, why didn't he bother to put on his glasses to see what was going on? Even after CS told him there was another man hiding behind a tree, they didn't move, get up, or even put on his glasses. Is anyone else a little wary of the whole Hartnell interview? Thanks for the time guys.
|By Scott_Bullock (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 09:50 am:|
"Is anyone else a little wary of the whole Hartnell interview?"
Yes, I strongly advise approaching the Hartnell interview with caution. He's trying too hard to play the 'straight guy, which he definitely isn't, and I'm NOT referring to his sexual orientation either.
|By scott (18.104.22.168) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:45 pm:|
Well, let's be honest: Hartnell had obviously cheated on a steady with Cecelia. At the
end of the taped interview from his hospital bed, he asks Detective Roberston if he can
use the phone for a long distance call. When Robertson asks why, Bryan says:
"The reason I asked is that my girlfriend lives in Portland and I've got to talk to her before this gets to her..."
Combine this with the purported used prophylactic and Bryan had a problem. But beyond that, and a case of possbily cowardly behavior (and even that is with the benefit of smug hindsight), I'm not sure what is so ominous about Hartnell.
More intersting to me is the corrupt timeline of the whole Berryessa saga. Graysmith (and others on this board) have painted a picture of a couple who had been there for hours enjoying the scenery before they were attacked. Yet, it is clear from p. 11 of the Police Report, that, as of 5:15, Hartnell was still driving to the area where he parked. Given that it would take the couple about 20 minutes to walk Graysmith's '510 yards' to the water from where they'd parked, that Zodiac talked to them for at least 15 minutes before he tied them up, and that murders occured no later than 6:30, it is apparent that the couple was only there a short while before Zodiac approached, seemingly less than a half an hour.
|By scott (22.214.171.124) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:57 pm:|
One other timeline thing: According to Graysmith, Zodiac was 250 yards away on the
adjoining hillside when Cecelia Shepard first saw him. If so, it would take him about 8
minutes to get to the oak tree behind which he dons his clothing. If so, we have 8 less
minutes that the couple is there 'enjoying the scenery' (ie, if they were there 25 minutes
before Zodiac approached, it was really only 17 minutes of peaceful bliss).
Just doesn't add up to me.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:59 pm:|
Scott, why are you focusing on the yellow book author's bizarre interpretation of the facts? Not only is he a proven boob, but you've got the actual police reports at your disposal right here at this site.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:18 pm:|
In fact, that author was actually mistaken about exactly where the crime occured. How he managed this, I do not know.
|By scott (184.108.40.206) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:41 pm:|
Tom, I share your doubts about him; in fact, my doubts grow by the day.
But the timing issue has spread far beyond him. In this thread:
Ed says that they "arrived about 4:30 in the afternoon" (July 11, 2001 post), and even Hartnell is quoted in the Times Herald as saying the attack came at 4;30 (also a July 11, 2001 post).
I'm relying on the Police Report (not Graysmith) in pointing out that these conclusions can't be true. I think it also raises some questions about what Cecelia and Bryan were doing out there and how long Zodiac had known of their presence.
|By Rick Miller (proxy.ia2.marketscore.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 03:47 pm:|
I think that the presence of glasses is the strongest possible link between Allen and
the killings. Hyper-sensitivity to sunlight is a common symptom of diabetes in that it
degrades the vascular system and often leads to partial or total blindness. Allen was a
known sufferer of the disease.
|By Muskogee (Muskogee) (216-19-219-62.getnet.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:45 pm:|
Rick, when was Allen diagnosed with diabetes? Occular effects of diabetes usually occur years after onset of the disease. Also, my understanding is that photophobia is not a terribly common symptom of diabetes.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:53 pm:|
Allen didn't develop diabetes until long after the Lake Berryessa attack. Also, none of his driver's licenses issued in the 1960s required corrective lenses.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-151-197-206-202.phil.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 03:55 pm:|
Allen had the general look of a Type II diabetic. It probably didn't manifest itself until much later in life. Something to do with too much Coors!
|By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 02:08 pm:|
How can anyone assert that "the presence of glasses is the STRONGEST POSSIBLE LINK BETWEEN ALLEN AND THE KILLINGS?" Glasses are extremely prevelant and common. It's almost like saying "the presence of pants suggest a strong link between Allen and Zodiac". Besides, it's a faulty line of reasoning that a) The Zodiac wore glasses b)Allen wore glasses c) therefore, Allen must be the Zodiac.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 02:13 pm:|
Allen didn't even wear glasses until much later in his life, as far as I know.
|By sf (1cust167.tnt1.des-moines.ia.da.uu.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 04:30 pm:|
Lester, I agree - I believe that is a proposterous line of reasoning. As you said, millions of people wears glasses. Wearing glasses is an incredibly "weak" link, in this case. It certainly isn't the "strongest" link. And, since it's quite easy for ANYONE to put on or remove glasses, even fake glasses, I don't see much to that...
|By George In MD (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:48 pm:|
Seriously-- Was crazy glue available at the time?
(Concerning the hood and clip-on glasses.) How about the airplane cement Z mentions in one letter? I don't know if that would work, or not.
The hood was made with extreme care, I think the glasses were a disguise.
|By Bargle (pcp03606092pcs.shrpsr01.tn.comcast.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:44 pm:|
I don't think Crazy Glue was available until the 1970s. Airplane cement has been around much longer. I want to think I've read that airplane cement has been around since the 1930s, maybe longer. I started using it back in the 1960s when I first became interested in model airplanes.
|By Bargle (pcp03606092pcs.shrpsr01.tn.comcast.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:13 pm:|
And once again I get a memory jog. There are 2 different kinds of clip-on sunglasses. The 1st type are the ones that simply slide down over the regular glasses. The 2nd type have a hinge incorporated as well allowing them to be flipped up out of the way or down over the glasses as needed. It occurs to me that this second style could be used in the flipped up position with the mounting clip section inverted to clip onto the hood. This would put the colored lenses over the eye hole position. Only thing is, was this type available in the 1960s?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-151-197-120-123.phil.east.verizon.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:14 pm:|
I built model airplanes in the early '60s, and back then the cement (which came in a tube) left a very hard, dry encrustation on the skin that was very difficult to remove. What's being sold as airplane cement nowadays doesn't seem to have quite the same effect.
|By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:57 pm:|
Zodiac could have simply worn a regular ol' pair of sunglasses. They merely appeared to be clipped on due to large eye holes in the hood.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (220.127.116.11.lcinet.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 12:39 am:|
All of the PD reports agree with the following two BH interviews:"...and he[perp]
had this black hood on that came down to here.Just little slits-the eyes and wearing these
clip-on sunglasses,they were clipped into those little loops."KCRA-TV
"And he had clip-on sunglasses you clip on when you're wearing glasses,eyeglasses.He had those clipped on.I'm pretty sure...I don't think he had glasses,though.I think he just had these[clip-ons] clipped on to his suit...you know,that little mask."J.R. PD interview
|By LiL_Rascal (22.214.171.124) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 09:12 pm:|
I'm not only new to this site but VERY NEW to learning the details to this case, and
please forgive me if I'm wrong but didnt Zodiac claim in one of his letters that his
appearance in/out of "uniform" were completely different.
That to me (if i remember correctly) says that his glasses were added to just throw a little more comfusion in the mix. And well let's face it, Z loved to do just that.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (host-66-81-198-206.rev.o1.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 12:49 am:|
"I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing,the rest of the time I look entirle[sic]different.I shall not tell you what my disguise consists of when I kill." (11/9/69)
A big zelcome!
|By LiL_Rascal (188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 02:33 am:|
I thought I had read that somewhere. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't even want to pretend to have alot of knowledge on this, but over the past couple weeks it has completely fascinated me. Again thanks
|By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 11:05 am:|
In the "Case Reopened" on TLC, i think it was Tom who said that during the Lake Herman attack that it was 22 degree's so it was cold. Onto the disguise or prescription, I need to wear glasses when i'm driving, during winter time when i'm outside with my classes on, it gets fogged up. Imagine someone who doesn't wear glasses often, he wouldn't be able to see clearly. If he's used to wearing the glasses everywhere he goes, then he'd probably be used to it and work his way around the fog. Unless ofcourse his glasses are just frames with no lens.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (220.127.116.11.lcinet.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 01:55 pm:|
|By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:35 pm:|
Other then that, how are we sure that Zodiac even wore glasses at Lake Hreman Road? Both of his victims died. The only composite that we have was after Paul Stine's murder is Zodiac with glasses, what about Blue Rock Springs? We also have a composite of someone not wearing glasses.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (126.96.36.199.lcinet.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 03:24 pm:|
Mageau didn't seem to note Z was wearing glasses 7/4/5 69.We only assume he wasn't wearing glasses 12/20/68.We also,assume he used a pen light that evening-we have no proof of it,only his word.He mentioned the pen light twice.
And you are right,we know Z wore glasses 10/11/69.Of course,some don't believe that the composite was accurate,but they seem to accept the teens/officer/s report he had glasses on.FYI
Many do not affirm that Kathleen Johns was a Z victim.That's fine,but I do.
We have only Zs word KJ was his victim-like the pen light deal(KJ only said the man looked like the Z wanted poster- more like the the second version).In June 1970 Z wrote in a letter that he gave KJ and her infant an "interesting ride" and later "burned" her auto.
She told me that evening(3/22/70)the driver was wearing black plastic horn rimmed glasses-like superman wore.This matches the composite(but does not prove it was Z) as given by the teen/s/officer/s.Keep in mind,some even dispute whether the officer/s even saw Zodiac-so the composites accuracy and /or the man seen was even Z in the first place!This case is more fun than a barrell of angry serpents LOL.FYI
|By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 06:16 pm:|
This might be off topic, but it might not since we're talking now weather the officers actually saw Zodiac to say he looks like the composite. I was doing this trivia and one true or false question asked if the Zodiac case was handled right by the police, the answer was false. Why do they say it wasn't done right?
|By Estelle Cotton (12-227-211-15.client.bresnan.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:09 am:|
Zodiac said that he looks like the description passed out only when he does his thing,
but how can we trust what he says. It would be in his best interest to have people think
they don't know what he looks like most of the time. I think this statement by him is an
attempt to throw people off of his track. The composite doesn't lend itself much to a
disguise. How could he change his hair into a crew cut. I think it is more likely that he
did in fact look like the composite, and he was trying to throw people off.
I also lend credibility to Kathleen John's encounter. This would give further support to the theory he wears glasses at least for some functions such as driving.
Both victims died in his first attack, so there was no one to say whether or not he wore glasses. Also, it is unlikely that Mageau got a good look at the attacker, since the attacker had a flashlight. The flashlight would have blinded them, and the attacker began firing almost immediately.
|By Brad (ertpg9e1.nortelnetworks.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 06:04 am:|
"Zodiac said that he looks like the description passed out only when he does his thing, but how can we trust what he says.(sic)"
Estelle, be careful. We don't want to bring up the "Zodiac, liar or truthful?" debate again.
|By Estelle Cotton (12-227-211-15.client.bresnan.net - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 02:52 pm:|
I'm not trying to start a debate! Just pointing out that it was in his interest to have people think he didn't look like the composite.
|By Jake (Jake) (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 08:11 pm:|
One thing to consider about the Stine murder is that Z wore glasses while undertaking
the attack, but must have taken them off for his getaway -- compare the three teens'
description with Foukes'. Personally, I've long been a proponent of the "Clark
Kent" disguise, although I guess this instance could go either way (ie, maybe he used
the glasses when he needed them -- for the shooting and wipedown -- and removed them for
the less sight-intensive walk home) (or maybe he got blood on them).
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (188.8.131.52.lcinet.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 09:54 pm:|
Good thoughts mr.Jake...
|By Estelle Cotton (12-227-211-15.client.bresnan.net - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 02:30 pm:|
I actually saw an old Superman movie on tv yesterday and thought about the "Clark
Kent" disguise. I wondered if Zodiac could have been influenced by Superman, but I
don't know if Superman was even popular in the 60's.
Also, if he was wearing them for a disguise, it seems like he would have left them on until he was at his car or driving away. Although he probably never thought he would be stopped by the police.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-141-151-81-90.phil.east.verizon.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 03:11 pm:|
Estelle, to the best of my knowledge, Superman was popular all through the 50s and early-to-mid 60s. I can remember as a kid ca. 1961 watching the TV series, which was actually re-run from the 50s. I believe the comic book has an even earlier provenance. However, I'm not too sure what that has to do with Zodiac. Glasses are a fairly obvious disguise.
|By Estelle Cotton (12-227-211-15.client.bresnan.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 07:02 pm:|
Superman's only diguise was to take off his glasses, change his clothes, and I think
he combed his hair back. It's a very poor disguise, and you can clearly see that it is the
same person. I was just wondering if Zodiac might have been using glasses as a reverse
disguise, he put them on while committing his crimes.
I'm just throwing that out there. I personally think he did wear glasses.