Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Zodiac's Familiarity with Weapons

Kevin M. wrote:
"Just curious, where in the world do you get the idea he is not very competent with weapons!?! Cannot agree with you on this one. We can take this to another section of the board if you wish..."

Good idea -- this one has little bearing on the ciphers.

The lone indication that Z had any competence at all with the weapons he used was the murder of Betty Lou Jensen, who was a moving target in the dark. However, one report states that the shots that killed her were fired from no more than 10 feet away, which leads to my hypothesis that she was felled with one shot and Z fired the rest from a relatively close range. The fact that he was using a forerunner of a laser sighting system is pretty clever, but it also cuts way down on the amount of skill necessary to commit the act.

Faraday was probably standing still when shot, as pointed out by Mike R. Ferrin and Mageau were fish in a barrel, and Mageau lived, even though he was closest to the killer. Hartnell and Shepard were hogtied and lying face-down, again presenting zero challenge, and again leaving a survivor. Further, the knife used was a bayonet or kitchen knife, not a hunting knife, which might have suggested some skill at outdoor survival. Finally, Stine was killed by a point-blank shot, which a monkey could have made.

I think Z was fascinated by weaponry, as are a lot of paramilitary kids who shop at Army-Navy stores and read Soldier of Fortune, but I don't think he had any formal training with guns or knives.

--Jake

Aside from the yellow book and various newspaper articles, there isn't much to examine regarding the Faraday-Jensen murders. Police reports are necessary to get the facts, and those are hard to come by.
I doubt that Zodiac shot Jensen once at a distance, then finished her off at a closer range.
If he did, I would think the angle/appearance of her wounds would have made it obvious.

Tom wrote:
"Aside from the yellow book and various newspaper articles, there isn't much to examine regarding the Faraday-Jensen murders. Police reports are necessary to get the facts, and those are hard to come by.
I doubt that Zodiac shot Jensen once at a distance, then finished her off at a closer range.
If he did, I would think the angle/appearance of her wounds would have made it obvious."

There's a photo that appered on the TLC show of Faraday's chalk outline next to his car. With his feet at the rear wheel and head pointing towards the front of the car, it sure doesn't look like he was shot while getting out.

As for Jensen, I know that the trajectory wasn't mentioned, but neither was anything else except the killer's distance. You're right though -- if she took four bullets while lying on the ground, the coroner would have noted it. I'm just hypothesizing a situation that isn't inconsistant with what we know.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

[Aside from the yellow book....]
Especially this part:
„Abruptly, an object fell from her white-and-pink panties and rolled across the floor to Lundblads boots.“

[...and various newspaper articles,...]
Like.......
VTH 12/21/68 "Vallejo Teenagers Are.....Herman"
VTH 12/22/68 "Investigators Lacking Clues...."
VEN 12/23/68 „Jealousy Motive Checked“
VTH 12/23/68 „Hunt Maniac In Murders Of Teenagers“
VEN 12/24/68 „Check Leads In slayings“
VTH 12/24/68 „Single Gun Was Used In Slayings“
VTH 12/24/68 „Screams Frighten Attacker“
VTH 12/26/68 „Lovers Lane Slaying Quiz“
VTH 12/26/68 „Officer Reviews Slaying Evidence“
VTH 12/27/68 „Officer Sift Few Leads In 2 Slayings“
VTH 12/29/68 „Check Weapons In Twin Killings“
.
.
[...there isn't much to examine regarding the Faraday-Jensen murders. Police reports are necessary to get the facts, and those are hard to come by.]

I really hope you don’t own the LHR forensic report‘s allready, because if you lie this time...
We can remember our questions & your statements regarding LB reports.
Add. we do remember that Jake throw his own theory over board (we were forced to do the same) since you was mercy enough to post the „Exorcist Envelope“. Tom, are you trying to stretch this case, or is it more that you wanna play a VIP or generally makeing you interesting ? Tom, we have your psycho-profile, it wasn’t made by an expert but untill now she was for 67% right !

P.S.
Alles klar, Glen Glas, Eddy Clown, Speedy Gonzales, EdwardX ?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen.
Stromjunkie

So sorry, I didn't realize I owed you something.
Perhaps if you showed a little initiative you might be able to obtain these items yourself, instead of waiting for me to feed them to you.
Of course, we both know that won't happen.

Dambuster:
"Add. we do remember that Jake throw his own theory over board (we were forced to do the same) since you was mercy enough to post the „Exorcist Envelope“."

Lord, I've said so much ridiculous stuff over the years -- what was it about the Exorcist envelope?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

Dambuster is a child of Adolph Hitler if you get my drift.

Thanks, Jake, for backing me up on this one. The only instance where Z seems to have exhibited any skill with weapons is the murder of Bettilou Jensen. Based on the rest of his track record, which shows little, if any, skill, I suspect that Z hitting her five times in an area about the size of a half-dollar was more a matter of luck than anything.

Uh oh, Ed. My post about "Rambodine" is in direct conflict with your "Betty Lou Jensen" theory. Flame on me, I deserve it!

Not really, Glen. Rambodine or Z, one good shot followed by four lucky ones will do the same thing. Especially if he was at close range, like ten feet or less. Hey, if Z was really that good, why didn't he demonstrate his marksmanship at any other time? That tells me he was incompetent and lucky.

"Lord, I've said so much ridiculous stuff over the years -- what was it about the Exorcist envelope? "

I think maybe it had to do with the postmark not specifying a specific town, rendering doubtful the Z-on-the-map theory.

Stromjunkie's tirade reminds me of Arianna Huffington's comment that a Pat Buchanan speech sounded much better in the original German.

Okay, so I am so totally lost here! Why is the neo-Nazi interested in Zodiac and Tom in the first place? Don't they have their own guys like Himler to concern themselves with?

I am picturing neo-Nazi's crowded around a computer in northern Idaho while some woman looks for non-Nordic traits in Tom's photo. These guys are some master race?

A pen-light taped to a pistol top, where did he get that idea from? Until the laser-sight came along a substantial time later, that pen-light really strikes me as innovative.

Jedermann kann zu Altavista.com gehen und etwas zum Deutschen übersetzen. Stromjunkie/Dambuster ist ein Dummkopf mit rude Telefongewohnheiten.

Gee, isn't that impressive?

My bet is that Zodiac read about the "electric gun site" in a detective magazine.

A pen-light as a rifle sight was hardly innovative, as all us who hunted rabbits by headlight and flashlight know. Rabbits and some other animals freeze when the light is shined on them. (Yes, I'm old enough to have been out hunting rabbits while Z was using pen-light sights.) I never tried it on a pistol, only a rifle, but the idea was probably around since just about the time someone invented pen-lights. I'm sure we could find it in some old hunting magazine somewhere.

Other sources of light have also not been ruled out. When Betty Lou was "running" as Graysmith speculates, the car door was open. If the Rambler was like most American cars, that means the inside cab light came on when the door was opened. There's no one around to say that the headlights on Z's car were not also turned on. Of course, if Z would have mentioned that, it wouldn't make him such a good shot, now would it?

Another question from Graysmith's book - the racoon hunters who were in the field on a very dark night - what exactly were THEY using to spot racoons when it was too dark to see 5 feet in front of you? (page 3, Zodiac, Graysmith)

Actually, even when there is no moon, it's still quite bright (relatively speaking) on LHR in the middle of the night (yes, I've been there at all times of the day and night). However, that's because of the lights of the nearby refinery and Martinez. I don't know if the refinery was there in 1968, but Martinez certainly was, and so, in conjunction with the car's interior light and Z's penlight, no wonder he seemed to be such and "incredible" marksman on such a "dark" country road. There was plenty of light that night for him to aim with...

P.S. That still makes him a lucky, incompetent putz in my book...

In your attempts at showing that Z is not such a "genius" after all, you tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater so to speak by not accurately portraying this persons abilities. Since Ed N. is the one who made the statement "he is not very familiar with weapons" or something to that effect in reference to Z, it is his burden to show such, not mine to prove the opposite. Nevertheless, this is not hard to do. Such broad statements do not show Z's lack of firearm knowledge, but instead shows Ed N.'s.

Lessee, according to Greysmith's book, Z,

1) Used a .22 semiautomatic pistol at LHR.
2) Used a Browning 1935 High Power 9 mm semi, made in Canada ( Not real common ) at BRS.
3) Used a second Browning 1935 High Power 9 mm semi on Stein.
4) Probably was wearing a Colt 45 1911A1 .45 cal. at Barryessa.
5) Knew enough to tape a flashlight to his pistol ( something someone unfamiliar with weaponry would do? NOT! ).
6) Had the ability to shoot a running human target at night reliably ( Oh sure, luck!) multiple times, under stress.
7) Knew that shooting Stein point blank in the head would muffle the "bang".
8) Mentioned the "ban" on ordering firearms through the mail ( which probably means that he had ordered before ).

So that's at least 3, probably 4 separate pistols he had. Do people who are not very familiar with weapons usually have so many? This guy is a gun nut. Let me reiterate.... hitting a moving human target in the back 5 times, at night, in an area the size of a half dollar or even the size of a grapefruit is NOT LUCK! At 10 feet, if you move your muzzle just a hair, you will be a lot farther off than a "half dollar". What do you mean "the ONLY time he proved his ability..."? How many times does it take? While any ONE of the above does not make him into "the boogie man" for sure, the preponderance of the evidence points to a person VERY familiar and proficient in firearms, as well as someone who has at least experimented with bombs. While the guy did get a lucky break or two, if he was as stupid and lucky as you guys make him out to be, none of us would be here debating the subject.

You're right, I don't know a lot about firearms, but I do know that Z, with only one exception, demonstrated a lack of expertise with weapons. He owned a lot of guns, so what? He knew about the ban. So what? I do too. I've never shot someone in the head with a gun pressed to his head, but I do know that it would muffle the report. Why? I've watched a lot of TV and movies, and read a lot of books and magazines, and they are all in agreement on that point. I also know about flashlights and laser sights too, and would know to mount one on a gun. Why? Because I've watched a lot of TV and movies, and read a lot of books and magazines.

Now, the only time I've ever fired a gun or rifle, you know what? I was in the Air Force, and I qualified as an expert marksman, because I hit the bullseye 36 out of 40 times. Granted, I was not chasing someone at night across gravel, but then, I had never fired a gun before either. What does that make me? Lucky or skilled? What does that make Z? Skilled or lucky?

The point is, please let's not make this monster out to be something he wasn't. He wasn't a genius, he wasn't superhuman, hell, he probably was just average intelligence and somewhat educated, but a doctor he was not. Nor, by his track record (that is, Jensen), do I think he was like Mel Gibson's character in the Lethal Weapon series who could shoot the wing off a gnat at 1,000 feet. Z demonstrated only once that he might have had some skill with firearms, and he also owned at least four guns, but overall, his tactics indicated something quite different: that he wasn't overly competent with his own weapons, and relied on what amounted to bushwhacking to kill his victims, and he wasn't even good at that. The two who he should have killed instantly, Ferrin and Mageau, he failed to! If he was so good, why not shoot them in the head? He shot Mageau in the face, and yet failed to kill him! Darlene Ferrin died apparently because of the large number of hits she took, not because any particular one was fatal. This demonstrates incompetence, not skill. Had it been the other way around, that he shot all but one of his victims at a distance of ten feet while chasing them and hit them five times in a tight pattern the size of a half-dollar, I would unhesitatingly say that yes, he was a skilled marksman. Since it was not that way, my opinion is that he was not that good with his own weapons and got very lucky that night on LHR.

I think you'd have to define what a gun nut really is, even in 1968 terms. I grew up in a house that had a collection of at least 265 different weapons, with new guns coming in and out all the time. I've fired just about everything from home-made muzzle loaders to BAR's to Uzi's, yet I don't own a single weapon myself. Go figure. My family made guns and we shot and reloaded just about everything there was to reload. I never considered any of my family gun nuts, though. I may not own a gun now, but I believe I might have more than a passing interest in the subject.

I'm sure Zodiac had SOME familiarity with weapons, and probably was an avid hunter in his own right. Things like the pen-light suggest hunting of rabbits or varmints. What we were debating was whether there is any evidence as to his skill and marksmanship. Point blank is NOT marksmanship.

I haven't seen anything that says the pattern on Jensen's back was the size of a half dollar, or even a grapefruit. Some powder residue suggests fairly close range, possibly less than 10 feet with a .22 automatic. I know I can fire 5 rapid shots at 10-15 feet from such a pistol and stay within a grapefruit just about every time, but there's no way to tell if he fired all at once or shot once, then pumped the other four into her when she fell, or if she tripped and then he shot her while standing over her. If the size was a half-dollar, the whole scenario would raise some serious flags in my mind. Evidence wise, there really isn't enough to draw a conclusion.

As to the degree of knowledge of guns, his choice of a .22 semi-auto is not the best choice. They were and still are notorious for jamming because of the small amount of force exerted by the powder on the bolt, and anyone who has some knowledge of self-defense weapons knows never to bet their life on the smaller caliber automatics.

The 9mm on the otherhand is one of my favorites after the colt .45, but for self-protection the revolver is still your best bet. If Z knew his stuff, the .22 wasn't the only gun Zodiac had with him that night. He doesn't mention another gun, and there are no witnesses, so there's not enough information on this either.

I believe he was very familiar with the firearms he possessed, and yes, he did try to dabble in bombs. Right off hand I'd say he probably stopped into a gunshow or two and purchased a few underground books. The Anarchist's Cookbook (original edition) was one of the books circulating at gunshows during that timeframe. Yes, I owned a copy. I also bought books on lockpicking, survival (map reading), self-defense and SEER (survival, escape, evasion and resistance). Military manuals were quite popular at gunshows. None of this makes him an expert at firearms or bomb-making however. Nor does it necessarily mean military background and training. I think this really sums up MY point at least - that there is not enough evidence to accurately determine ANYTHING about Zodiac, including degree of familiarity or proficiency.

Just as an addendum, I'd like to focus for a minute on the .22 long rifle copper jacketed bullets. I passed over them because it was just simple logic to use them and nothing new to me, but maybe it's new to you, so I'll throw it in for what it's worth.

The vast majority (read all here) of .22 semi-autos use a long rifle round because the shorter rounds don't have enough powder to throw the slide back all the way, which causes jams. A long rifle round provides the extra force necessary to achieve this technical marvel and make the gun work properly. A long rifle round is the only choice, and many of these weapons are even stamped ".22 long rifle only".

The .22 long rifles come with lead bullets and jacketed bullets. So you go out and buy a brand new .22 semi-auto and a box of lead bullets and go out plinking. To your surprise and dismay, the very first (or maybe second) round you jack into the chamber jams on you. You get one in the chamber and fire it, but the next one in the clip jams up the weapon again. Defective gun! No, wrong ammo.

Most of these small guns are cast and then machined in spots where moving parts come in contact, so there's a lot of rough left over from the cast in "non-critical" contact locations. Look at your clip and you'll notice that the cartridges are loaded into the clip pointing up at an angle. When the round is forced into the chamber, it travels up a small milled ramp inside the clip housing and then into the chamber. New guns usually have burrs at the beginning of these ramps which cut into the soft lead of the bullet and cause the round to jam in the loading mechanism. Okay, defective gun then.

A gunsmith would know this and carefully stone the ramp and any other contact points until the rounds loaded in properly, but if you're not a gunsmith and don't know much about your gun, you'd choose the easy fix and buy jacketed .22 long rifle rounds because the copper jacket is harder than lead, so it doesn't shave off when it comes in contact with ridges and burrs. No jam, problem fixed. No big deal, just another one of life's little problems solved the non-technical way.

(For the gun enthusiasts out there - yes, I'm aware there are other reasons for jams in these guns, but I'm listing the most common reason and the most common fix because the ammo matches the problem.)

Geez, Glen, you just shattered the stereotype of the "on-line codebreaker." A real renaissance man you are! Thanks for an interesting post.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

Glen wrote:

I haven't seen anything that says the pattern on Jensen's back was the size of a half dollar, (italics mine) or even a grapefruit. Some powder residue suggests fairly close range, possibly less than 10 feet with a .22 automatic.

According to Graysmith in Zodiac, p. 6: Racing after the girl, gun extended, less than ten feet behind her, the stocky man shot Betty Lou five times. He hit her in a tight pattern in the upper right portion of her back. (italics mine).

According to Penn in Times 17, p. 260: There were five entry wounds in her back, forming a shot group about the size of a half-dollar. (italics mine).

How was it Penn claimed to know this, when Graysmith didn't? As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), in Penn's pathetic rebuttal in mid-July concerning my arguments against his theory, he said something along the lines of not having had access to much in the way of the police reports at the time. So how did he find this out?

Betty Lou's death certificate says simply (section 29A): Multiple bullet wounds to the chest and abdomen with hemorrhages. It also says (section 40), Victim shot five times in the back.

Technically (I asked my brother about this, because he was a medic in the Army and was trained in the use of the lingo) both the back and the front is referred to as the chest and abdomen. So, a shot into the upper back is still considered the chest, as evidenced by the statement in section 40. The mention of the abdomen, which I had forgotten about until I read the death certificate again just now, suggests that perhaps the gunshots weren't really in such a tight pattern after all. That is, perhaps some hit her in the chest area (upper back) and the rest in the abdomen (mid- to lower back area). If Tom has access to those particular reports, they might shed more light on the matter.

Of course, her death certificate also shows that she was not shot in the anterior abdomen either like the "Item 9" claim (whatever that was).

Well, I guess I did not chase rabbits because I never heard of that. You guys know far more about this area historically. Thank you for updating me. Good thing the rabbits don't return fire I guess(LOL.) Z took chances of running against an armed target, I wonder how much though he gave to that?

Chrissy, I never chased rabbits either. Bugs Bunny is one of my heroes.

Hmmmm. I really dont know what all the fuss is about, But lets take a close look here. 10 ft is really and i mean really close. If you dont think so taka tape measure mark off 10 ft from the wall and extend your arm and see just how close that is. Now add the fact that the weapon use was presumably a .22 JC Higgins or HiStandard pistol really the same pistol. A reliable well made .22 thta has virtually no recoil Z feat of shooting is .....well not that special. as to the penlight sight interesting idea......but useing a light attached to a rifle is an old poaching trick some the adaptation to a pistol is not much of a reach. I would also have to disagree with the notion that a clad bullet is more reliable....hogwash the truth is that plain lead bullets are used in the best match grade .22 ammo. The reason that .22 ammo for hunting and plinking is copper washed or "Clad" is because regular lead .22 bullets at the time were lubed with grease ....And would pick up lint and grit like mad when stuck in tha pants pocket or caot pocket. The copper clan bullets are lubed with a hard wax and much cleaner. Finally the question of .22 long rifle only for semiautos agian not true some .22 semis are designed for .22 short only. Some match .22 semi auto pistols are also .22 short only. The fact is that .22 is a very old cartridge dating back to the very first metallic cartridges. the very nature of the type of mechanisim (simple blowback) works much better when useing one standard length cartridge not trying to accomadate both long and short case's Power is not really a factor Some older .22 semi's fired .22 short, long and long rifle's not that well .22 long rifles always worked best because the feed ramp angle was better. Z's pistol probably had the penlight mounted under the barrel for practical reasons that I wont go into here......I dont think that great skill was required at all.....like i say measure it out and draw your own conclusions.

Michael

If the death certificate is correct and Betty Lou was hit five times in the chest (upper back) and abdomen (middle- to lower back), then this "tight formation" of Graysmith and "half-dollar" of Penn may not in fact be all that impressive. The death certificate possibly indicates a spread of shots across her back, which attests to what Z wrote: "All I had to do was spray them."

Michael's a match master! I haven't shot match since my early 20's, and I didn't use off-the-shelf weapons when I did. Match pistols are usually balanced, counter-weighted and specialized beyond cost of the average gun owner. A couple of our match pistols were .22 all right, but with center-fire cartridges, handloaded charges, modified chambers, and totally modified internal workings. When it comes to match shooting and control over accuracy factors, the marksman takes every advantage and does not limit himself to store bought cartridges. Hand loading and bench testing are almost necessary to eek out that very last drop of performance, and you can't hand load a stock rim-fire .22 cartridge. Match with a plinker - what a novel idea.

I did have a pistol that used .22 long rifle, but the mechanism was reworked and the barrel had been replaced with a Marlin micro-grooved barrel for increased accuracy. That pistol represented a good 60 hours of labor to modify and construct, and the fine tuning took hours of bench testing and reworking. (It also had to be built to match my chronic left-handed handicap.) Even then it was probably one of the cheapest pistols on the range.

As to weapon designs and cartridge choices, it is true some were designed for .22 short - a very few. Chronologically, older weapons were designed for .22 short and long because .22 long rifle didn't exist yet. Once it did exist, just about every combination of mechanism was tried with these rounds, just like the older rounds. Somebody's always trying to improve on the design.

Yes, the beeswax mix used to load standard rounds was always a problem for .22 semi-autos (rifles included), and even with the advent of copper-jacketed bullets and special coatings the dirt problem causes many of these lower caliber pistols to jam quite frequently. Let's not forget to mention clip alignment, ejector fine tuning, slide friction, firing pin deflection, etc..

Simple powder build-up from blowback can jam some models within 20 rounds of firing, so .22 semi-autos need to be kept very clean. There's also that little problem that you clean it, lube it, load it, put it on a shelf, but when you take it down a few months later to shoot a burglar the first round jams. Really reliable weapons - like I said, not exactly the best choice.

Since the subject has come up, I just happen to know a library that has gun books and magazines dating back before I was born. I'll write my father and ask him to photocopy the pre-68 reviews on the two weapons in question.

It's pretty well accepted that Zodiac didn't use a match pistol, so I really don't know why we're talking about such a specialized weapon, but for those who can't picture the difference, I found this picture on the net, which should give you a good idea of how much a match pistol differs from a plinker:

http://www.jnb.com/~funggrip/

Michael, we can argue the merits and the problems associated with .22's for a good week and not resolve the issue - but it isn't the issue. The issue was that many models of .22 (including the models in question) had problems loading the .22 long rifle lead rounds. Wax was a factor in jamming, but when you pull the round out and see lead shavings on the bullet itself, it becomes pretty evident what the problem is. Copper jacketed bullets didn't have this problem and slid into the chamber without incident. Gun owners either found this out or had a knowledgeable salesman who sold you the proper rounds so the problem wasn't encountered.

This sure has been one hot topic today!

Glen, I was only useing the match pistol as an example. If you look in some other older referance books you will find that the OSS the fore runner of the CIA issued Hi-Standard pistols in WW2 fitted with silencers for there agents. .22 are some of the most accurate and reliable weapons available even today. And frequent cleaning is not even important in quiality firearms. Example Remington made a .22 rifle the nylon 66 a resonablely priced rifle that fired over 50,000 rounds without cleaning and had only 3 malfunctions this was introduced in the early 60's. As you point out .22 cannot be reloaded however world class match ammo is made in UK, Germany, US and Russia. I can tell you from personal experiance that i have owned several .22 semi auto pistols including a 50's vintage colt that stright from the factory are not only reliable but in practical terms quite accurate. A match pistol is capable of accuracy that in truly remarkable on the order of 10shots in a group covered by a dime at 25meters or over 75ft. True the tolerances are much greater the real secret to accuracy is in the barrel A good barrel and a match grade barrel are not even in the same stadium. Besides the factorys standard of accuracy for anything but the cheapest junk .22 pistol is 2-2 1/2 inches at 25yards. I have been shooting for many years and I am very well versed in accuracy reloading as my interests have been geared to long range rifle now for some years, but i still enjoy an afternoon on the range with my Hammerli .22 pistol.

Michael

Something we agree on - actually pretty much everything. One thing you see in a gun shop is the ones that don't come from the factory perfect, and there are quite a few, believe me. I usually took them out to test them after they had been fixed, and eventually I was taught to do some of the repairs myself. I've seen several problems in brand new Hi-Standards and other problems of over-wear in older models. That doesn't mean there aren't many of them out there that are virtually problem free.

The question was, why the copper jacket, especially when they were apparently so difficult to get? Answer, he probably had a problem with the gun I've seen many times.

By the way, rifle was my absolute favorite, and darn was I good at it! I got to the point that I found the smallest crosshairs would obscure my target and limit the accuracy. Pity I took a money job instead of doing something I enjoyed doing.

My favorite bumper sticker "Long Distance, Next Best Thing To Being There". My favorite rifle - 45-70 trap door, with original metal buttplate and adjustable elevation sites. On a still day you can hit a coke can at 3/4 mile without a scope. Very cool. I Also liked my 9mm Gerand - my .22 K-hornet (excellent weapon), and I really get a kick out of the newer .17 Superbee. It may not kill 'em, but it sure can sting 'em from a long way away. Also punches neat little holes through 1" steel plates and goes through layers of kevlar without so much as saying hi. Best B-B gun I've ever fired!

Question - Unlike Hollywood guns, to truly silence a round you have to slow the bullet down to less than the speed of sound, so did the government purchase special ammo for these folks? That supersonic "crack" is a dead giveaway and is the sound that travels the farthest.

Enough of guns, though. Back to crypto.

Gentlemen, forgive me for butting in on a subject in which I have only a passing knowledge, but weren't the rounds used in LHR copper coated, or washed, rather than jacketed?

Yes, Bill, but I don't think I've ever seen a 'real' copper jacket on a .22 rimfire. Wasn't his ammo also hollow-point? I'd have to look it up.

Glen, I was only referring to the term "copper jacketed" as used in the above posts in describing the ammo used in LHR. It's misleading.

Bill, the only copper jacketed .22 bullets are for centerfire cartridges and now some .22 Magnum rimfire cartridges. "plated" might be more of an accurate statement. Why super-x .22 who knows maybe thats all the store had, maybe the box looked cool. Who can say.

Michael

Dear Ed:

I am truly relieved and so are many a rabbit.

Chrissy

I don't wish to belabor the issue, but I KNOW the difference between copper-jacketed and copper coated, or washed, or plated, and that actual jacketing was not found on rimfire .22 long rifle.

9-5-00/1:36pm Glen wrote: "I'd like to focus for a minute on the .22 long rifle copper jacketed bullets," and "The .22 long rifles come with lead bullets and jacketed bullets," and ". . . choose the easy fix and buy jacketed .22 long rifle rounds because the copper jacket is harder than lead." He went on to describe "copper-jacketed" .22 bullets several times in other posts later that same day and the next.

The only reason I opened my mouth in the first place was merely to point out that "copper-jacketed," as it relates to the ammo used at LHR, was not accurate and therefore misleading. For some reason, that prompted two responses "educating" me on copper-jacketed .22 rimfire rounds. Hey guys, I know, I know.

Sorry Bill my posts were not directed to you. I think the only significance is that the same type and brand were used. Other than that i see no real reason for the selection.

Michael

Where is the difference between Colt45 model 1911 & 1911A1?
Was it ever 100% confirmed that Zodiac did used a Colt45 during his LB crime, or was that only assumed?

The differance between the two is not much. When the US goverment adopted the .45 automatic in 1911 they made some minor changes most notably they changed the mainspring housing shape and added a lanyard ring to the butt. The improved pistol was then desigated 1911A1. The think that based on Hartnell's description of the waepon it was assumed to be a .45 auto, however a Browning Hi-Power 9mm auto looks very much the same from the business end. Who can say other than "Z" how he was heeled that day.

Michael

Jake (Great website btw) you mention Faraday's feet and how he was posed. Zodiac mentioned how his victims were posed. Is it possible that after the fact the victims were posed. Zodiac mentioned how their feet pointed this way or that. A quick kill, extra bullets fired into the girls corpse, arrange the bodies and run. For all anyone knows zodiac could have had searchlights and spotters at the Faraday/Jensen crime scene. He showed no great ability or anatomical prowess at any other crime scene, couldn't he have just gotten off a few lucky shots?

Sorry but...
Where is the difference between Colt45 model 1911 & 1911A1?

in detail(s)

Michael, it was interesting that you should bring up the point about Colt .45 vs Browning Hi-Power at Berryessa. It occurred to me some time ago that the pistol he brandished at Berryessa was never fired, so he would have had no reason to get rid of it, and may have gone on to kill Stine with the same gun. Other than Hartnell's description of the weapon and ammunition leading investigators to believe it was a .45, the fact that Z used 9mm's in two other cases tends to suggest that the Berryessa pistol was also a 9mm.

TShultz wrote:
"Jake (Great website btw) you mention Faraday's feet and how he was posed. Zodiac mentioned how his victims were posed. Is it possible that after the fact the victims were posed."

We may never know exactly what transpired at LHR that night, but Stella Borges' serendipitous drive-by severely limits the amount of time Z could have spent there. Coupled with a rapid withdrawal from all the other scenes, I doubt that the scene was staged. Thanks for the kind words about my site.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewrk/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

From where Z stood at LHR, you can see cars approaching from Vallejo about half a mile away. If Z saw the headlights of Stella Borges' car, he had, at most, about a minute to get back into his car and escape before she drove by. Since he had perhaps five minutes total to wait until the coast was clear, get out, possibly talk to them, scare them out of the car, and kill them, that doesn't seem like enough time for him to start fooling with the bodies and pose them in specific positions. In any case, It think Jake's right when he says:

Coupled with a rapid withdrawal from all the other scenes, I doubt that the scene was staged.

Based on what I know about the crime scene I imagine that Zodiac could have carried out the attack at Lake Herman Road (and Blue Rock Springs, for that matter) in something just over one minute. I don't think he would have risked a longer encounter. Berryessa was different, but the scene at Berryessa was exceptionally isolated.

regarding the question of type of gun used at Lake B, I have always suspected it was Browning Hi-Power rather than a .45 auto. Unless a person knows guns better than in passing the two large frame auto handguns look a lot alike. More people know about the .45 and might well assume that's what it was. But since we know Z used Hi-Powers in other crimes that indicates it was the large caliber handgun he felt comfortable with so why carry a different one even if he did own it? No offense is intended toward Mr. Hartnell for what I suspect was a mistake. If I had a 9-mm handgun pointed at me I wouldn't remember every detail either!

Lisa, the differances are really only very slightly cosmetic. The 1911 and the 1911A1 are really the same. However the Mod 1911 is more rare.

If you want all the details e-mail

Michael

I have the Jensen autopsy report-I'm going to dig it up. After a move things got shuffled around. Instead of full comment I will simply quote the report . The question is should we not have a few things held back?The powder burn info relative to Jensens clothing should not have been published unless it was to mislead a false confessor-of course I'm not saying the info is correct and that it accurately reflects the reports,etc.Lack of powder burns around some(if it was some) of the apertures could possibly give a possible distance factor. Of course this test was done and a report filed.

Howard: how did Z actually shoot Betty Lou? Graysmith claimed:

Zodiac, p. 6: Racing after the girl, gun extended, less than ten feet behind her, the stocky man shot Betty Lou five times. He hit her in a tight pattern in the upper right portion of her back. (italics mine).

However, Penn claimed:

Times 17, p. 260: There were five entry wounds in her back, forming a shot group about the size of a half-dollar. (italics mine).

Betty Lou's death certificate says simply: Multiple bullet wounds to the chest and abdomen with hemorrhages (section 29A). It also says Victim shot five times in the back (section 40).

Since both the back and the front of the torso is referred to as the chest and abdomen, this suggests that perhaps the gunshots weren't really in such a tight pattern after all. In other words, it sounds like some bullets hit her in the chest area (upper back) and the rest in the abdomen (mid- to lower back area), and not in "a tight pattern" or "a shot group about the size of a half-dollar."

The only thing that seems apparent is that Z was about 10 feet behind her when he shot her, and her death certificate suggests that he wasn't that good of a marksman.

Michael---
What's about the weight, any differences there ?


Yes Howard,let us all discuss if we should keep informations back.
(I fear we need this "new topic button" again & urgently.)

Lisa, no the weight is the same.

Michael

The tight pattern in the Jensen murder could be attributed to Z's having used a .22 semi-automatic rifle. At 10 feet with a pistol there would be a wider spread. The weight of a rifle allows a steadier shot. Achieving that level of accuracy with a pistol even at 10 feet would require practice and a Ruger semi-auto with a bull barrel. Even then.....
Certainly would be interesting to have present day Forensics examine the casings etc..
Z used a rifle, NOT a pistol. And he has had some practice to know that all you have to do is pull the trigger as fast as you can and it'll shoot unless it jams.

...also " the code killer " had both feet planted firmly on the ground...not running.

MDB Wrote:
" ...both feet planted firmly on the ground...not running."

I thought that was something we were all wondering about -- is it common knowledge? Was this determined from footprints, casings, or what?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

A rifle, maybe, but then again, maybe not. In any case, while BLJ was shot five times in the back, was she shot in a "tight pattern" or a "shot group the size of a half-dollar?" Howard was kind enough to forward me a copy of the autopsy report, and this is what it says:

There are five bullet wounds of entry on the right side of the back: three on the posterior chest cage and two over the right lower posterior lumbar areas. (italics mine) From up downward the first is located in the 5th ICS (InterCostal Space, that is, between the 5th and 6th ribs) 3&3/4" right of the midline, the second is in the 8th ICS 5¼" from midline, the third is in the 9th ICS at 1¼ from the midline, the fourth is in the tip of the right 12th rib at 3½" from midline, and the fifth over the crest of the posteior (sic) right iliac bone and 5½" from the midline.

Now, will everyone please get an anatomy book, a skeleton, a significant other or combination of these, a ruler and a felt-tip pen, and PLOT THESE FIVE POINTS OUT. Then attempt to explain how this spread of five bullet wounds can possibly be a "tight pattern" or a "shot group the size of a half-dollar." It ain't either the former nor the latter, because Z wasn't that good with weapons. Z's presumed marksmanship is nothing more than part of the mythology that has grown up around this scumbag.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Z's record shows no particular skill with anything, but rather, demonstrates incompetence with weapons in general. The burden of proof is not on me, but rather anyone who insists Z was some sort of incredibly super-accurate marksman. The autopsy report which I quoted above dispels this myth, because BLJ is the only known victim that Z didn't shoot or stab from a distance of less than two to four feet.

I do agree, however, that Z was almost certainly not running after BLJ, and that he did shoot her from a distance of about ten feet.

Jake, I'm new to the Zodiac enigma. I assumed Z was standing in order to achieve a tight pattern.

Ed, Thanks for the revelation. The San Francisco Chronicle dated December 22, 1968 page 10
"Friends Quizzed in Slaying Of Teen Pair Near Vallejo" states "...who shot them with a small-caliber rifle..."
"...had been shot with a small-caliber rifle...".
Two references.
I think casing marks and the degree of distortion of the slugs, and depth of penetration might reveal if a rifle or pistol were used.
Ed, anyway you can access that info.?

Jake,
Thanks for the insight about my "common knowledge"
It was an assumption driven by caffeine and arrogance making an ass-of-only-me and not U.

MDB-We have gone over all of this . Just check for key words.I know the Honeymooner's Seaside Slaying (remote-but Z can't be ruled out)in San Diego in the early 60s was accomplished with a .22 rifle FYI. The Lake Herman 87 was by a pistol. I have the PD ballistics on the case.Again,just check out the ground we have already covered and welcome to Z Board! Your post shows you are really attempting to rethink the accepted version and that's good!

MDB: Three bullets were perforating, two were penetrating and were recovered (one ended up in her neck!). As far as what they looked like, I don't know.

Now, I'm not saying that Z was standing as he shot, but I don't get the idea that he ran after her, but perhaps he was moving at a fast walking pace. In any case, at least two newspaper reports indicate that he was some ten feet behind her.

MDB wrote:
"It was an assumption driven by caffeine..."

Hey, no sweat. Every one of us has gone off half-cocked at one point or another. Except Oscar, who is fully cocked. Whatever that means.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

LOL Jake! I don't know either but I am sure he'll tell us!

Now I know where Graysmith (and probably Penn) got the idea that Z was an awesomely super duper incredibly accurate marksman:

Zodiac, p. 12: Examination of the dress (Item 9) revealed one hole in the front near the center and five holes in the upper right side of the back. (italics mine)

Graysmith quotes this from some CI&I report (p. 11), and obviously did not see BLJ's autopsy report (CI&I must've missed out on it too), and assumed that the "five holes in the upper right side of the back" was accurate, and therefore Z was an awesomely super duper incredibly accurate marksman. However, based on the autopsy report (part of which I quoted earlier), both the CI&I report and Graysmith must be inaccurate on this point.

Both Graysmith and Penn should have wondered why there would be an exit hole in the front of her dress near the center, if she was shot five times in a tight pattern in the upper right back. If she was shot with a spread of five shots instead (which she was), the explanation is obvious. The second, third and fourth bullets were perforating, so one of those exited in the front.

To continue (p. 12):

No smoke or gunpowder residue was found in the vicinity of any of these holes except the topmost hole on the back. Near the latter one single grain of gunpowder was found. (italics mine)

The reason I mention this is that for one grain of gunpowder to be near the topmost hole (made by the bullet that penetrated between her 5th and 6th ribs and presumably the first one he hit her with) and nowhere else, one would think that Z was close enough behind her when he shot her the first time, and hit her four more times as she ran out of the range for potential powder burns.

This therefore suggests to me that while she ran for her life, Z either stood still or walked (not ran) after her while shooting, further dispelling the myth that he was an awesomely super duper incredibly accurate marksman who could shoot the wing off a gnat while running in almost total darkness.

Had he run after her as Graysmith suggested (pp. 6-7), one would think that there would have been more powder found on her dress, unless she was somehow able to sprint really fast out of powder burn range in the few seconds it would have taken to pump five shots into her.

Ed is right. It also shows us that Z was fairly truthful in his letters .Consider the fact that this is someone that never missed an opportunity to boast ,but in his letter he says"ALL I had to do was spray them like a water hose." This use of "all" is clearly down playing any superior marksmanship in this case.His "electric gun sight" was a great help in directing his weapon-he just followed the beam as he said and squeezed the trigger.Z may have been fairly good with weapons, but from all we can go on it's not evident at any of the known Z 187s.Some could say, I suppose, that Zs poor weapon performances (like his writing skills!)were deliberate to leave another one of his false "clews".The beat goes on.Ed though,in my view ,is right on!

Thanks, Howard, and you're quite right, Z could very well have deliberately demonstrated "incompetence" with weapons and downplayed any skill in marksmanship he may have had, but if so, he might have gotten carried away with it as he left two survivors, one of which surely would have ID'd him had he not fortuitously been wearing his hood. Overall, however, his known murders do not demonstrate skill but rather basic incompetence. Maybe he was drunk and/or high at the time and wanted to make sure he didn't miss. Who knows? But I do stand by my conviction that Z was basically incompetent with weapons until such time as new evidence is uncovered which demonstrates otherwise.

Ed-Excellent stance-as always! You always display wisdom, but you are certain to come to a careful defining point -without unprofessional sarcasm- based on the evidence ,and this you have done with this issue also!You are a good example for all of us.Zodiac had an interest in weapons and had some knowledge of them,but in all actuality failed to demonstrate it in his "activity".

I've posted a quick-and-dirty diagram showing the approximate locations of Jensen's wounds, using the instructions Ed outlined above, and they sure don't fit in a half-dollar. Please note that the annotations are not exactly to scale -- it was hard enough finding the right diagram to annotate (search Yahoo for "skeletal system"), and I don't own a pair of calipers for getting the scale right, but you'll get the idea.

The URL is http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/wounds.html

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

Hello all,
If z had done what Greysmith said it would have been much easier to catch him,because marksmen like that are few and far between. The pattern of shots described above isn't that bad concerning the circumstances.A J.C.Higgins pistol is not going to shoot m.o.a. groups anyway. I used to compete in smallbore matches so I have some knowledge of this.z was not an accomplished marksman but he was not an incompetent klutz either.

Jake, it's interesting that all the wounds are on the right-hand side. As Classic observes above, he proves himself neither a marksman nor a klutz.