Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: SFPD Composite: Useful or Useless Tool?

I've never had a lot of faith in eyewitness testimony to begin with; however, following a rather violent episode that occurred to my wife and I about a week ago, I have virtually zero confidence in it at this point. The only possible exception that I can fathom is if the person being described by the witness and/or witnesses has a readily identifiable physical feature (Doug's "dwarf" scenario, for example) or some sort of unique marking, such as a tattoo.

Basically, I said all of that to say this: We may as well throw the SFPD Z composite right out of the friggin' window. I'm convinced, now more than ever, that the SFPD composite of Zodiac is so vague -- and I would also argue that, with regard to certain aspects of it, it is also blatantly wrong -- that it was essentially worthless from the moment it was finished by the artist.

Now, I'm not sure how divided we board members are on this issue, but I'd honestly like some constructive feedback in order to get an idea of how much value is being placed on the SFPD composite.* I'm sure there are those who feel that I am only pointing out the obvious, and that is fine. Likewise, I'm also sure that there are those who've based an entire theory around the composite (the Peter O. theory, for example) and think that my claim is ludicrous, and undoubtedly there are a plethora of opinions that fall somewhere between the two extremes. That is also fine.

What I'm asking of the board is not where you stand on this particular issue but why you believe the way you do with regard to both eyewitness testimony and the SFPD composite. I apologize if this seems like a waste of a topic and unworthy of discussion. However, if a meaningful dialogue can be started in this thread, it will become obvious why I felt the need to create it.

Thanks,
Scott

*Certainly, the value of the composite has diminished with the passing of time. I mean, the Z obviously wouldn't look the same as he did 30+ years ago. So, by "value" I mean to say, what was its worth even at the height of Zodiac's activity?

A composite is only good if there is more evidence to link to that person. I woudn't throw the composite out the window, but its not going to be the silver bullet. All it could be used for is to show that a certain suspect could resemble the composite either naturally or by some disguise. But then again most people could look like that in the dark with a disguise. At best its a tiny piece of circumstantial evidence.

And you're right about the 30+ years since Z certainly wouldn't look the same. But still I don't like the idea of throwing any evidence out.

Ryan

I don't think the purpose of a composite is to develop evidence against a suspect. It's a tool that the police use to draw attention to an individual with the thought of developing that individual as a suspect.

Scott,
I would agree that it's just a tool, nothing more.
Keep in mind as well that some composites are hautingly accurate. Examples: Bundy at Lake Samamish, Polly Klass's killer Richard Davis.

I think the value of eyewitness composites can vary greatly. Good eyesight, multiple witnesses, length of time to view the suspect, conditions viewed under, etc. can be factors to consider.

The young witnesses had good eyesight, their attention was drawn directly to Z, and they had ample time for more than just a fleeting look. The lighting conditions were not the best, however. Their composite drawing gains credibility when the two officers apparently feel it is close enough to the face of the man they saw, as to only slightly change the facial features in the amended composite. The officers apparently got a fairly good look, otherwise they probably would not have offered changes at all to the composite.

Z himself offers further credibility when he states in a letter, "...I look like the description passed out only when I do my thing,....". Now Z may have lied, but when all the above is taken into account, I believe the SFPD composite may be pretty accurate.

Not all eyewitness accounts are "created equal". Even the best, in my opinion, are, as Doug and Sylvie have said, tools. How much weight the tool is given may depend on the circumstances under which it was obtained.

The composite worked for Johns,but I well know the varied opinions on this subject.She told me she instantly tied the composite to the man driving the "interesting ride "vehicle and she was right next to him,separated by a center console,for about two "howers"in a full moons light.She could even see his pock marked chin.
Johns did not see the stranger without a "disguise",if indeed,he had one.
If any of the Stine witnesses saw the perp without a disguise(?)would they recognize him?That's really the issue here.
Eyewitness testimony as to a suspects appearance is only ONE tool in an investigation anyway.
We are back to DNA and prints,but we know the story on Zodiac prints!
It seems as though everything is contraversial in this case ,except the death of the canonical victims.Don't even go into supposed Zodiac victims!

"All it could be used for is to show that a certain suspect could resemble the composite either naturally or by some disguise."

Ryan, I see what you mean but let's be honest here, a lot of American males in the late 60's looked like the composite. Take a look at Peter O., the SF businessman, TK, or Kilgore's father, and then show me what it is about the SFPD composite that separates one from the other.

"At best its a tiny piece of circumstantial evidence."

Indeed.

"It's a tool that the police use to draw attention to an individual with the thought of developing that individual as a suspect."

Doug, very true. However, based upon any and all criteria set forth in the SFPD composite, wouldn't it have drawn attention to thousands upon thousands of American males living in California in the late 60's?

"Keep in mind as well that some composites are hautingly accurate. Examples: Bundy at Lake Samamish, Polly Klass's killer Richard Davis."

Sylvie, I agree with you 100%. Is it the quality of the witness, the skill of the artist, or a combination of both that accounts for the difference? Would you say that the quality of artistic ability exhibited in the SFPD composite vs. that demonstrated in the Klass case is radically different? If so, why?

"Not all eyewitness accounts are 'created equal'."

Bucko, I agree with that, and you have eloquently pointed out numerous reasons to support your position. However, let me ask you, doesn't it seem strange that the composite itself doesn't resemble the description directly below the drawing? IMO, the descriptions "heavy build" and "crew cut" are not reflected in the composite itself. Do you agree with that statement?

"The composite worked for Johns . . . She could even see his pock marked chin."

Howard, you are correct about the opinions with regard to Johns' testimony. However, even if she was a Zodiac victim, I certainly don't see the "pockmarked chin" description reflected in the SFPD composite. Perhaps that is an indicator that the Zodiac didn’t abduct Johns?

"If any of the Stine witnesses saw the perp without a disguise(?)would they recognize him?That's really the issue here."

Excellent question Howard. Personally I'd say "no." Seriously, what do you think?

Excellent stuff folks; let's hash it out for all it's worth, once and for all.

Sincerely,

Scott

Scott, you observe, "... based upon any and all criteria set forth in the SFPD composite, wouldn't it have drawn attention to thousands upon thousands of American males living in California in the late 60's?"

Yes, I believe that's how it would have turned out. But the police were hoping that it would be unique enough to at least give them a few leads. Incidentally, that's what happened in the Bundy case, where the composite was very good. Unfortunately, the number of leads was so great that by the time the police got around to Ted Bundy he had already been arrested in Utah for an attempted rape/abduction. Nonetheless, they would have gotten him eventually.

Scott: to respond to your original question:

If you look a little closer at opinions and studies that demonstrate the weaknesses in eyewitness testimony, I think you will find that these have identified particular areas of weakness, rather than a categorical condemnation of eyewitness testimony altogether. For example, in cases of aircraft crashes that result in exploasion, witness will often recall the explosion occurring before impact. This is probably due to the vividness of the explosion. Details that call for estimates or interpretation are also notoriously varied among witnesses to the same event, such as height or weight estimates. Phenomena that have strong cultural connections, such as use of language, exact wording or manner of dress may be strongly influenced by the witnesses prior experience, beliefs or prejudices. There is a classic example used in clinical trial courses at many law schools that involves showing a subject a picture of a scene for a minute or so and then testing for recall. In one scene, two men, one black and one white are having an apparent confrontation on a susbway. One of the men is brandishing a straight razor. A remarkable number of test subjects will recall the black man as being armed with the razor, although it is the white man in the depiction. (I believe this is essentially what happened in the dispatchers report on PH. Someone along the chain of communication "saw" a black man when given a description of the event.) The same test subjects will be able to recall the general scene, including background details and the physical descriptions of the two men reasonably accurately.
Point is, a composite may be very accurate, especially if consistent across a number of witnesses to the same incident. Also, the general sequence of events, such as the observation of Z at the PH scene, are probably reliable. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Scott,

I think a composite can be a useful tool if it is properly used.

As with other types of evidence, within limitaions, a composite might rule someone in, but it would be dangerous to rule persons out with such a sketch. The problem is, if the police use the sketch to decide who is to be investigated, it will only be helpful if the sketch is accurate. There is no way to know until after the game is over whether or not the sketch is accurate. What's worse is that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, speaking from a historical point of view. Now, there have of course been many examples of how a composite quickly apprehended the right guy, but I see all the time on New Detectives and Forensic Files, etc how this kind of thing doesn't work. In fact, there was an episode of one of these devoted to this phenomenon. There was some Phd on there who studies this exclusively. He has volumes and volumes of case files where eyewitness testimony was totally wrong. One of these cases happened in Chicago where there was a bandit/rapist who targeted beauty salons. The guy would come in, rob everyone, and then get a favor from one of the ladies at gunpoint before leaving. They made a composite, a suspect was identified who lived in the area, and something like 9 women picked him out of a lineup on the first try. They all went to court and said yes that's the guy and he wouldn't confess so the judge gave him 105 years. Luckily, he met the real bandit in prison, and convinced a new lawyer to look into it. DNA was able to rule him out after several years in jail. The other inmate matched the samples.

That's my reason to have doubts about the sketch.

On the other hand, I personally believe Foukes and Zelms spoke to Z. The amended drawing did not differ siginificantly from the first, so this gives a much greater degree of credibility to the accuracy of the sketch in this particular case. I'm not saying this sketch should be thrown out. It's just that it would never be courtroom evidence, which is all that we are really concerned with after so much time has passed. I say keep the sketch, but don't expect anything amazing to come from it. And, be mindful that a bad sketch can sink an investigation.

Ray

Scott,
If the S.F. witnesses viewed a man who was in disguise then WITHOUT that disguise it would have been very difficult for them to have ID'd the same perp.If the police placed horn rimmed glasses,etc.,on suspects(with the Zodiac as one of them-oh sure!) in a lineup it could have helped ,but manipulating witnesses could have been a real issue.
Both Ray and Peter have made good points as it relates to this contraversy about witnesses and the composite.

Doug wrote, "Nonetheless, they would have gotten him eventually."

Based solely on the composite? Maybe, maybe not. However, such an eventuality doesn't seem to apply in this particular case.

Peter wrote, "Details that call for estimates or interpretation are also notoriously varied among witnesses to the same event, such as height or weight estimates."

Which seems to be the problem with eyewitness testimony in this case, right?

"Phenomena that have strong cultural connections . . . may be strongly influenced by the witnesses prior experience, beliefs or prejudices."

True. But I don't see that being applicable in this case, do you?

"Point is, a composite may be very accurate, especially if consistent across a number of witnesses to the same incident."

Okay, I can agree with that, but I'm still unsure that there is any consistency among eyewitnesses in this case, even at Presidio Heights. I'm not sure what to make of the three teens at PH because I don't believe that we know enough about them. Were they interviewed independently or as a group? If as a group, then I simply can't put too much stock into their testimony. If they were interviewed separately -- which should have been SOP -- then I'd love to read the three different descriptions they gave in order to get a feel of how similar they were/are.

"Also, the general sequence of events, such as the observation of Z at the PH scene, are probably reliable."

Will you explain what you mean in more explicit detail, please? Also, it's okay to throw out the bathwater as long as you know the baby isn't in it. In other words, if it can be shown that the composite of Zodiac is worthless, why not throw it out so as to not impede the progress of the case? I'm mindful of Ray's statement that, "a bad sketch can sink an investigation." Exactly Ray, exactly.

Ray N. wrote, "The problem is, if the police use the sketch to decide who is to be investigated, it will only be helpful if the sketch is accurate. There is no way to know until after the game is over whether or not the sketch is accurate."

Very good point, Ray. Furthermore, with regard to this case, how do we know that we aren't essentially looking at the Zodiac's disguise? I mean, maybe the glasses were a part of the disguise and maybe they weren't. Maybe Zodiac lied about wearing a disguise, maybe he didn't. Which parts of the composite constitute a part of the disguise and which don't and are reflective of his true features? With these kinds of questions looming largely, perhaps we can make some solid judgements about the composite prior to the end of the game.

"I personally believe Foukes and Zelms spoke to Z. The amended drawing did not differ significantly from the first, so this gives a much greater degree of credibility to the accuracy of the sketch in this particular case."

I'm not so sure about that, Ray. It's my understanding that Foukes and Zelms never even talked to the artist of the composite. The composite's description certainly wasn't changed to reflect Foukes' statement that the Z appeared to be "approximately 5'10"" instead of "5'8"" and Foukes also never said anything about a "crew cut." In fact, if I'm not mistaken, even Toschi was disgusted by this fact and he believed that the composite was probably wrong. (Ed N., can you help me out on this one? Didn't you have Toschi's exact quote with regard to the SFPD composite?)

"I say keep the sketch, but don't expect anything amazing to come from it."

If nothing amazing has come from it at this point, I think it's fair to say that nothing ever will.

Howard wrote, "If the S.F. witnesses viewed a man who was in disguise then WITHOUT that disguise it would have been very difficult for them to have ID'd the same perp."

Howard, see above for my remarks regarding the disguise. Also, your point is well taken but I'm somewhat confused. Do you believe the SFPD composite of the Z is valuable or not? How about on a scale from 1 - 10 with one being the least amount of value?

Great stuff folks, I appreciate your input.

Scott

Scott: In "Deluge of Tips: Zodiac Letter Is Making the Rounds" by Duffy Jennings (San Francisco Chronicle, 4-28-1978, p. 3), we find the following:

Meanwhile, Toschi said a nine-year-old "composite sketch" of Zodiac is no longer reliable and should not be the basis for telephone tips to police.

Toschi said he has been deluged with hundreds of calls from Zodiac buffs and tipsters.

"The sketch is killing me," he said, noting that most of the calls were from persons who saw the drawing in Wednesday's Chronicle ("Zodiac Ends Long Silence," 4-26-1978, p. 16) and think they know someone who resembles it.

"It is of no value to me at this point," said Toschi. "Even in 1969, we didn't know how good it was." (emphasis mine)

The sketch, by a police artist, was based on descriptions provided by three Presidio Heights teenagers who saw a husky man in the darkened street the night cab driver Paul Stine was slain in 1969, and from a young man Zodiac stabbed at Lake Berryessa three weeks earlier while wearing a hood. Zodiac is known to have murdered six persons, although he has claimed many more.

"We have no idea what he looks like now," Toschi said. "We need something more than a lookalike. If someone is positive they have seen something or overheard a conversation that would be helpful, or if they have a sample of someone's hand printing they want to send me, I'd love to hear from them."

Mucho gracias, my friend. You are a one-man repository for all things Z!

Ed, by the way, "Zodiac is known to have murdered six persons . . ."

That is interesting. Is the author including Cheri Jo Bates or does he/she merely have their facts wrong?

Scott wrote: "However, let me ask you, doesn't it seem strange that the composite itself doesn't resemble the description directly below the drawing? IMO, the descriptions "heavy build" and "crew cut" are not reflected in the composite itself. Do you agree with that statement?"

I think the description indicated "short brown hair". The composite appears to have short hair, at least to me. "Heavy build" probably referred to the body of the individual, rather than the face.

It just seems to me that the analysis of the drawing represents a discussion of the finest details of something that has completely lost whatever dubious evidentiary value it ever had, if any.

As far as the disguise angle goes, what's in a diguise in this instance. If you think slipping on a pair of horn rim glasses is a disguise, well ok. There's not much to that from my POV. Short hair and glasses are all that appears to be possible. There is no mustache, beard. Maybe the hair was cut and colored. That means I am putting on a disguise every time I go to the barber shop?

This is another one of those times when one can ask, "Where are you trying to go and will the road you're on get you there?" There is no way that any composite is going to produce one molecule of substantive proof one way or the other about anyone, and it's certainly not going to produce any new suspects. These facts beg the question, "Could the drawing be detrimental to solving the case?" Of course it could. In fact, I predict when Zodiac is identified, there will be voice coming from the back row saying, "It can't be him, he doesn't look a thing like the sketch!"

Ray

When the Unabom composite hit the papers back in '94, I had friends all over the country calling me asking if it was me. Even people who knew that I can barely change a lock were asking if I was this nutjob mad bomber.

The composite on John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing looks like stumpy little fireplug-shaped guys I see in bars all the time.

Composites are pretty useless.

Bucko wrote, "I think the description indicated 'short brown hair'. The composite appears to have short hair, at least to me. 'Heavy build' probably referred to the body of the individual, rather than the face."

Actually, the amended composite does say "short brown hair". It was the original SFPD composite, dated October 13, 1969, that gives the "crew cut" description. IMO, that only complicates matters further. The 3 teens must have described seeing a "crew cut" because it is their testimony that prompted the original composite. However, the amended composite does say "short brown hair". Was this changed to reflect Foukes' description? If so, why didn't they also change it to reflect Foukes' description of Z's height?

As for the "heavy build" description, I suppose it is possible that it is only referring to Z's body. However, considering that we don't know that for sure, the composite, in my mind, is just that much more confusing, which supports the idea that, as far as the Z case goes, the composite simply isn't that viable.

Ray N. wrote, "If you think slipping on a pair of horn rim glasses is a disguise, well ok."

Like I said, Ray, maybe they were a part of the disguise and maybe they weren't. Allow me to ask you this; if in fact the Zodiac was telling the truth about wearing a disguise, what do you think it consisted of? Also, do you think he was telling the truth or not?

"'Where are you trying to go and will the road you're on get you there?'"

Ray, there are people who've built entire theories about the Zodiac's identity based upon the SFPD composite. Peter O., is one such example. In fact, the composite is so important to the author of that theory that he goes out of his way to show how his suspect has Ptosis and that this condition is clearly represented in the composite. Have a look: Peter O. and SFPD composite.

Yes, Ray, I do think I am on the right road and I'll tell you why; I'm tired of people asking, "ALA doesn't look like the composite so how can he be the Zodiac?" Or saying, "My suspect is a dead ringer for the composite, it has to be him." Come on, you know the type of comments I'm referring too. "Allen was 6' tall but the Zodiac was only 5'8" so it can't be Allen." And on and on and on . . .

What I'm trying to do is create an informed and intelligent consensus amongst all of us bright posters to determine what value the SFPD composite really possesses. What I want to know is if it is logical to discount or include certain suspects based solely on the composite. I want to know if the composite can be used with any degree of credibility when debating any issue that pertains to this case. All I want to do is level the playing field, as it were. Either the composite is useful, useless, or somewhere in-between. I want to know which it is and why. Is that fair enough?

Alan wrote, "Composites are pretty useless."

Alan, I appreciate your input, but I'd like to know if that is a truism in all cases or just cases like this one?

Thanks all,

Scott

As mentioned already, I agree that a composite is just a tool to use when you need additional help in finding an unknown. Composites are merely suggestions of what a person was remembered to look like. Since, in most cases, you'll have an artist trying to interpret the visions of another through verbal description, it's inevitable that the end sketch, although close, may still not completely resemble the image that the victim/witness may have still hold in his mind. It is hopeful; however, that a sketch will be recognizable to someone, subsequently leading to a positive match with other clues in a case.

Alone, a sketch is probably pretty useless...unless, of course, there's a unique and identifying physical characteristic (i.e. tatoo, scar, different color eyes, missing ear, etc.) to clearly narrow down the field.

Linda

Scott:

I don't have an opinion as to whether Z wore a physical disguise or not. I'll only concede it is a possibility. Having said that, it seems you have pretty much answered your own questions as to the evidentiary value of the composite. When I asked you if you thought you were on the right road you said yes, because you were tired of people comparing known suspects to the composite and drawing hard conclusions based on that. That still doesn't answer the question as to whether you're on the right road or not. Think of it this way: you have to have an identified goal in mind. What is it that you hope to end up with? If your goal is a concensus, that's fine. But what good will a concensus about the value of the composite be if one can even be reached? I'd like to see one person on here say that they would accept an exonneration of any WMA without disfigurements based solely upon the sketch. We already know that if we included everyone that looked like the sketch there would be years and years of work to do. This doesn't even include the fact that over 30 years have gone by. The other option is to include someone you already suspect based on the sketch. This is different than what you asked about including persons based solely upon the sketch. If you do that then you have to include every single person who resembles it. It's just impossible. Even if not what are you going to do, get handwriting samples, fingerprints, and alibi's from all of them? That would be about as beneficial as going out in your back yard, measuring the length of every blade of grass, and recording each one by number.

The whole process of making comparisons with suspects is kind of like playing a lottery, particularly because we don't even know for sure who the person in the sketch is. Is he even the Zodiac? When you factor in a disguise, it is obvious, at least it is to me, that this is not the right road because as soon as one starts down it, there is a big sign that reads, "DEAD END".

As far as Peter O's theory is concerned, it suffers from a credibility standpoint because of the things I have mentioned here. After all, his analysis never produced a suspect did it? All he did was claim to describe highly specific characteristics of Zodiac based upon the drawing of a person who is not even known to be the Z and if he is, may or may not be in disguise. Wow. Stop the presses.

Keep in mind that all of the above is only my opinion. I'm not trying to force a concensus, but the way I see it, we need to focus completely on the forensic evidence available. Whatever conclusion is drawn from that must stand, regardless of whether the identified suspect looks like the composite. Save the sketch for the museum.

Ray

I would adopt the stratedy of attempting to build off a composite. Let's take the Bundy composite. They also knew that "Ted" drove a Volkswagon, so you're looking for a guy similar to this sketch that drives a Volks. etc. You keep shortening the possibilities with further details. In the Zodiac case, you are looking for a guy similar to the sketch who is a murderer, publicity-seeker, bomber, drove a tan(MM) or brown(Z) car at that time, etc.

Can't imagine who that might be.

Linda wrote, ". . . in most cases, you'll have an artist trying to interpret the visions of another through verbal description, it's inevitable that the end sketch . . . may still not completely resemble the image that the victim/witness . . . hold in his mind."

Very true, Linda. So, essentially what you are telling me is that the quality and value of a composite will vary depending upon, not only the artist's skills, but also how well the witness is able to communicate their memories and how good the artist is at interpreting said communication. Is that about right? That certainly sounds logical but also very complicated. I realize that, at its best, you will end up with something like the composite done of Bundy -- virtually identical. However, what is the worst-case scenario and where does the SFPD composite fit into the mix?

Ray N. observed that, "you have to have an identified goal in mind."

Even if the goal is nothing more than to have a meaningful dialogue about the value of the SFPD composite, what is the matter with that? I doubt a consensus will ever be reached, but there is nothing wrong with evaluating the topic, is there? I truly value your input Ray, and welcome it whenever you are willing to provide it. However, it seems as though you are asking me to have a completely hashed out theory prepared before starting a new thread. What seems obvious to you and I appears to be a mystery to others and that is fine. Perhaps they have perfectly good reasons for finding the composite beneficial. If so, I'd like to know "why" that's all. No harm no foul, right?

"As far as Peter O's theory is concerned, it suffers from a credibility standpoint because of the things I have mentioned here. After all, his analysis never produced a suspect did it? All he did was claim to describe highly specific characteristics of Zodiac based upon the drawing of a person who is not even known to be the Z and if he is, may or may not be in disguise. Wow. Stop the presses."

Ray, you didn't even bother to check out the nice little link I provided in my previous post, did you? Peter O. is the suspect and was initially labeled as such because of his resemblance to the SFPD composite. Seriously, check it out.

Zander wrote, "In the Zodiac case, you are looking for a guy similar to the sketch who is a murderer, publicity-seeker, bomber, drove a tan(MM) or brown(Z) car at that time, etc."

Just for the record, are you telling me that step one in finding the Zodiac is to look for a guy "similar to the sketch"? (See what I mean, Ray?) If that is your opinion that is perfectly okay by me, you are certainly entitled to that. However, will you please explain to me why the perp has to look similar to the composite?

Doug, I can easily argue either side of the fence when it comes to the SFPD composite and TK, as I'm sure you are well aware. Out of curiosity, I'm wondering, what was the very first connection that you made between TK and Z? Also, how heavily does the composite weigh into your theory?

Thanks again, all!

Scott

One additional note: Ray wrote, "the way I see it, we need to focus completely on the forensic evidence available."

Hey, I'm all about that as well. In fact, I've demonstrated my resolve and am continuing forward in that endeavor as is evidenced in a couple of other threads. That reminds me, Ray, did we ever agree upon a more realistic time than "2 seconds" for the BLJ shooting?

Scott:

On the contrary, I'm not attacking your thread. I fully see what you mean. You asked for opinions on what the value of the sketch was and I gave my opinion on that. It was not intended to rebuff your thread. I was only trying to express my befuddlement at why people would assign so much value to the composite. Like I said, it may be the guy but so what? This is just like the fingerprints thing. Everybody instinctively wants to start drawing conclusions based on stuff that supports no such conclusions. It's maddening.

As far as Peter O., I did check out the link, but had no way of knowing whose photo appeared there as there is no label. I had never heard the name before and assumed he was the author rather than the suspect.

Ray

Scott, the first connection I made between Unabomber and Zodiac was about a year before Kaczynski's identity came to light. The criminal signature, a rare one, appeared to be similar.

Ted resembles the composite in point of the large, square lower jaw, which is a salient point of his features and the one element definitely remembered by the witness who had seen him plant the bomb in Salt Lake City.

I'm a prolific driver and do a great deal of travelling. I write a LOT and hold opinions very similar to those expressed in the FC manifesto. I look like the composite. I was very much "off the grid" during the time frame in question.

And I am not only completely baffled by any technical apparatus more complicated than a can opener, but I deplore the use of bombs in any context other than performance art, although I do think that nuking Jerusalem six or seven times wouldn't be a bad idea.

Even the wretched shrink I subsequently fired asked me if I was the Unabomber. I guess she figured it was some variant of savant syndrome. Anyway, composites (and eyewitness testimony) are generally unreliable. I'm sure they have their uses, but I don't think one should try to build a case on one or fixate too much on resemblances.

My guess (and that's really all ANY of us have on this subject) is the sketch is reasonably accurate. My thoughts are based on the facts that the drawing was made with multiple witnesses, with a competent artist who did this type of thing regularly (not a local painter pressed into service which sometimes happens in small communities) and was evidently 'confirmed' by an independent witness (Foulkes). Teenagers often do have phenomenal eyesight, and they had several minutes for their observations. While the police only looked at the man for a few seconds they knew they were approaching a crime scene and their senses were very alert. The only reason they missed the blood is Z was wearing dark clothing which did not show it was wet and hid the color of the blood. I am very aware of the problems with eyewitness testimony and weaknesses in sketches, but the multiple witnesses, at least one trained observer, and the experiencd professional making the sketch all lead me to believe it is pretty accurate. I doubt Z was wearing any disguize other than maybe fake glasses and I doubt that. I think that statement was a puny effort to through off identification by casting doubt on the sketch. Zodiac's strong suit was usually stealth. Here it failed him and he was probably freaking out when he saw the sketch. His only course of action: Lie.

Ray, no problem, I guess I just got my wires crossed there for a second. Btw, I actually did state a thesis of sorts in my first post: "I'm convinced, now more than ever, that the SFPD composite of Zodiac is so vague . . . that it was essentially worthless from the moment it was finished by the artist."

So far, I haven't seen anything substantial to discredit this statement. Do you remember "Kenny Kilgore"? His father (stepfather?) looks a lot like the composite as well. However, that is apparently all that he has in common with this case. For whatever reason, he swore he had physical evidence against his pappy but refused to reveal what it was. Go figure.

Finally, I apologize for the confusion on the Peter O. stuff. However, PO is apparently also a "suspect" because he has Ptosis, a trait that the author of the theory claims to be visible in the composite. That would somehow be a lot more intriguing if the SFPD composite also mentioned such a trait in the verbal description. Que sera, sera . . .

Doug, that is interesting, seriously. You actually made the connection between TK and the Z based upon criminal signature? I'm impressed, sincerely. Then again, I also realize that you are no slack when it concerns such matters. How long did it take you to realize that TK was a good match with the SFPD composite? Or, had such a connection not occurred to you until after TK had been captured?

"Ted resembles the composite in point of the large, square lower jaw . . ."

To be honest with you Doug, I don't see that at all in the composite. Also, for that matter, I also don't see TK's build, nose, or age anywhere on the SFPD composite. Finally, one more question: What do you believe the Zodiac's disguise consisted of, if in fact he used one?

Alan Cabal wrote, ". . . although I do think that nuking Jerusalem six or seven times wouldn't be a bad idea."

Yikes! I'm not even going to touch that one!

"Anyway, composites (and eyewitness testimony) are generally unreliable. I'm sure they have their uses, but I don't think one should try to build a case on one or fixate too much on resemblances."

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks again!

Scott

Scott, that's exactly what happened. Only I wasn't aware that it was called "criminal signature" at the time. My interest in the Zodiac case and killers in general arose from a personal investigation into the mental origins of artistic creativity, which I began ca. 1987. To be very brief and simplistic, I divided personalities into two fundamental types which I labeled "acute" and "obtuse," depending on the degree to which external stimuli gave rise to associations. My intellectual travels led me to a treatise on sociopathy, and there I noticed that what psychologists referred to as a sociopath appeared to possess an extreme form of my "acute" personality type. I became interested in sociopathy, and from there it was a short jump to serial killers, among whom was, ostensibly, Zodiac. About 1990 I picked up the Graysmith book, read it halfway through, and put it down. It wasn't Graysmith's writing style that put me off, but rather, the dearth of anything actually approaching the elements of sociopathic murder that made "Zodiac," less interesting a read than the works on Bundy or Gacy and their ilk. A few months later I finished reading "Zodiac," chuckled, and filed the whole case mentally away. I resolved that if Zodiac were ever to be caught it would be because he had returned to killing for the sake of widespread national publicity. I had no clue who he was, but felt fairly certain that if he surfaced again I would know it.

So far as Zodiac's disguise is concerned, we have little to go on except the words of the people who saw him. Hartnell might not have seen his face, but he's been very consistent about the way he dressed, e.g., sloppy, blousy garments; loose-fitting trousers, a shirt under a windbreaker; trousers tucked into boots; glasses, and of course, the elaborate hood. At PH he appears to have altered his hairstyle somewhat, if you compare it to what Mageau, and to a lesser extent, Hartnell, saw. Apart from a professional makeup job, what more could he have done? If you're normal-sized, you make yourself look bigger. If you're short, you make yourself look taller. If your hair is blonde, you dye it brown. If you wear glasses, you remove them. If you don't wear glasses, you get yourself a pair.

So far as the composites are concerned, that's a pretty subjective thing and I can't argue the point with you. Anyone interested can to go http://home.att.net/~mignarda/p10.html and settle the question for himself.

See also http://home.att.net/~mignarda/p11.html.

I'll touch it Scott. Nuke Jerusalem 6 or 7 times? What a horrific thought! Along with killing several million souls, we could devastate the histories of three major world religions. What possible thrill could one get at that?
Oklahoma Mike: excellent post, I think you said it all.

Even though I disagree with Doug's theory, I think that his technique is admirable and his work is very thorough. Doug, have you shopped the book around? It seems to me that there is a very wide audience for it out there. This "signature" approach will get investigators further than any sketch ever will.

Going strictly by the sketches, an impartial investigator could easily come to the conclusion that the Berryessa perp and the SF perp were two completely different people.

No thrill, Sylvie, just an end to tiresome and dangerous eschatologies. I subscribe to a minor religion.

Scott: I respond literally between the lines of your post:

"Peter wrote, "Details that call for estimates or interpretation are also notoriously varied among witnesses to the same event, such as height or weight estimates."

Which seems to be the problem with eyewitness testimony in this case, right? "

PGH: Nope, not necessarily. The height and weight variations are not all in testimony to the same event. They may or may not be the same person, but they are not the same event. You can't assume they are the same person, and if there was a disguise involved, it may have involved padding, shoe lifts, etc. So you can't really dismiss Mageau's or Hartnell's account, for example, due solely to the inconsistency. There are too many other variables to explain the difference, because they are not witnesses to the same event.

" "Phenomena that have strong cultural connections . . . may be strongly influenced by the witnesses prior experience, beliefs or prejudices."

True. But I don't see that being applicable in this case, do you?"

PH: Again, I certainly do, especially at LB. All that personation is strongly cultural and emotional. That's what makes it personation. Also at PH, the very fact of a night-time cab robbery could easily have triggered someone's racial prejudices, leading to the erroneous description. One can certainly imagine what the black teenage witnesses' emotional and cultural responses might have been.

" "Point is, a composite may be very accurate, especially if consistent across a number of witnesses to the same incident."

Okay, I can agree with that, but I'm still unsure that there is any consistency among eyewitnesses in this case, even at Presidio Heights. I'm not sure what to make of the three teens at PH because I don't believe that we know enough about them. Were they interviewed independently or as a group? If as a group, then I simply can't put too much stock into their testimony. If they were interviewed separately -- which should have been SOP -- then I'd love to read the three different descriptions they gave in order to get a feel of how similar they were/are.

PH: All good points, but they go to interview technique, not to the inherent nature of eyewitness testimony.

"Also, the general sequence of events, such as the observation of Z at the PH scene, are probably reliable."

Will you explain what you mean in more explicit detail, please?"

PH: In the evidence class test I referred to, a sample of witnesses to the same event will get the basic facts right, the overall sequence of events, the number of actors, sexes of each actor, things like that. There will be strong disagreement on such details as whether the gun went off before the knife was drawn, or as I said, whether the plane caught fire before or after it crashed. But there will be general agreement that the plane descended, crashed, exploded, burned, people either escaped or didn't, amabulances and fire trucks arrived, press arrived, etc. generally in that order.

"Also, it's okay to throw out the bathwater as long as you know the baby isn't in it. In other words, if it can be shown that the composite of Zodiac is worthless, why not throw it out so as to not impede the progress of the case? I'm mindful of Ray's statement that, "a bad sketch can sink an investigation." Exactly Ray, exactly. "

PH: Exactly, Scott, exactly. As long as you have determined that the sketch sucks for specific reasons, such as bad interview technique, etc, not just because it was based on eyewitness accounts. In tis case, I think you have plenty opf reasons other than general unreliability to dismiss the composite. Not the least of which, any way I look at it, the SFPD composite is no way a beefy, stocky, or husky guy. Go figure.

Add to the general confusion the probability that when the brain is confronted with a traumatic event it tends to see, not what it's actually seeing, but what it thinks it's seeing. I'm not sure why that is, but I think the thalamus is involved. It's more or less a defensive mechanism.

Alan, I shopped the concept of the book around before I had actually finished it, in 1997. I didn't have too much success, so Rusconi and I decided to publish it on CD. I'm in the process of updating the entire script, and I believe we'll be making another stab at formal publication. I should acknowledge that Michael Kelleher has kindly offered to assist me in the attempt and if I do manage to get a publisher I'll owe a great deal to his generosity.

There's only one "tiresome and dangerous eschatolog[y]," the one responsible for destroying ancient Buddhist statues, female circumcision, forcing women to wear burkas, not allowing them to speak nor go unescorted in public, walking behind their husband in public, and indoctrinating their children with the belief that killing themselves in order to take out as many of the infidel as possible is a good thing. But, that's my opinion.

In the meantime, speaking of eyewitness testimony...While doing research on the Santa Rosa murders, I came across a story I'd heard about many years ago, concerning a 17-year-old college student by the name of Lawrence Berson who was arrested in New York on 10-31-1972 for a series of rapes he steadfastly insisted he did not commit. He was spotted at his job by one of the rape victims.

However, he was released when the actual rapist, 20-year-old Richard Carbone, was arrested that November. According to a spokesman for the Queens DA, "the resemblance was startling." The pictures published with the story did show a marked resemblance, but the hair and nose were different (see "'Dead Ringer' Finally Freed in NY Rape Case," The Press Democrat, 11-12-1972, p. 16A).

So, as far as eyewitness testimony goes, no matter how good it is, they can still be in error. Therefore, I'm not too crazy about the composite having to exactly resemble Z. It's not like Jeanne Boylan was the artist anyway.

It appears in the SF composite drawings--more so
in the amended drawing- that the suspect has a
lazy left eye.

Do any of the known suspects have this feature?

Judy

Judy, those composites aren't meant to depict the perpetrator in any detail. They're generalizations based on the eyewitness reports. In this case, no one could have gotten a good enough look at Zodiac to determine that he had a lazy eye. Besides, what I understand to be "lazy eye" is a neural condition that wouldn't manifest itself externally.

Ed N.: there are 3 tiresome eschatologies, and they all involve Jerusalem. My own involves Camden, NJ, which town I'd nuke myself if someone would just give me the gadget.

Tom's probably tired of this tiresome eschatology drift, so I'll just wish Doug good luck and shut up for a while in this particular thread. I think better minds than mine have dealt with this subject pretty effectively.

Doug, perhaps "lazy eye" is not the correct term.
It is obvious in the drawing that the person has
a droopy look in his left eye. Why the artist would make such a distinction is yet another mystery which will most likely never be
answered.

As a child, I had a "lazy eye". While the average
person may not notice, that eye does have more of
a "squint" than the other eye.

Judy

Judy: the composite depicts Z as having ptosis, but that was all in the imagination of the artist. At a distance of 50 feet at night in the fog, especially with streetlights that wash out all fine features, you can't see much other than the basics, ie, eyes, nose, mouth etc. It would be impossible under those conditions to see if one eyelid was droopy in comparison to the other (possibly unless you were an Aborigine; they have incredible eyesight), especially when you figure in the duress the teens were under once they realized a crime was in progress.

Mike, you make some very excellent points and perhaps you are correct on more than one of them.

You wrote, "Zodiac's strong suit was usually stealth. Here it failed him and he was probably freaking out when he saw the sketch. His only course of action: Lie."

Not a bad observation, in fact that actually makes a lot of sense. My only problem is that it is still speculative with no evidence to support it. The very fact that Zodiac could have worn a disguise casts suspicion on the validity of the composite, in my opinion.

Doug, the amount of work that you have done is commendable. If anyone deserves publication it is you and I sincerely hope that Kelleher can help you find a good publisher. I'm of the opinion that there is a huge audience for such material and that yours will be considered among the finest of the genre once it finds its audience. Believe it or not, when I asked you what sparked the connection between TK and Zodiac, I honestly didn't expect you to say "the composite." However, I also didn't expect the reply that you gave, either. Honestly, I'm blown away and have gained more respect for the viability of your suspect as a result. On the other hand, I agree with Alan's assessment. The criminal signature route that you discovered in far more intriguing than TK's resemblance to the composite. Finally, let me ask you this: How "high" would you be on TK as a Zodiac suspect if he didn't resemble the SFPD composite in any way, shape, or form?

Alan Cabal wrote, "Going strictly by the sketches, an impartial investigator could easily come to the conclusion that the Berryessa perp and the SF perp were two completely different people."

Were you referring strictly to the SFPD composite or are you including the NPD composite into the mix? If so, why? Will you kindly explain in greater detail what was meant by this statement?

Peter H. wrote, "The height and weight variations are not all in testimony to the same event."

They're not? Are you certain about that? However, I do understand what you mean but I'm just not sure that such is the case with the SFPD composite.

"One can certainly imagine what the black teenage witnesses' emotional and cultural responses might have been."

I see what you mean and you are correct but, to my knowledge, the teens were white so I don't see how it is applicable in this instance. Also, I agree that the interviewing techniques of the artist, as well as the artist’s skills, are extremely important. I'm of the opinion, however, that the SFPD artist was not nearly as skilled as Jeanne Boylan (thanks, Ed!) by a long shot which, obviously, lessens the viability of the Z sketch.

"All good points, but they go to interview technique, not to the inherent nature of eyewitness testimony."

Absolutely Peter, and I have reasons to doubt the interview technique in this instance.

"In this case, I think you have plenty of reasons other than general unreliability to dismiss the composite. Not the least of which, any way I look at it, the SFPD composite is no way a beefy, stocky, or husky guy."

I agree with that completely. In fact, one of my major arguments against the Z composite is that the description contradicts the sketches. Where is one to put their faith? I suppose toward that which best describes their suspect, right? Another point, in my opinion, where the composite is rendered useless.

Alan, without the prospect of death, there would be no need for religion would there? Also, please stay more active on the board, okay? Personally, I love your forthright attitude.

Scott

Ed, I get it. I am still puzzled as to why he
would even bother to alter the eyes on his own-
with no input from anyone. Of course, without
really knowing exactly what the police officers
communicated about their impression of the suspect- we really will never know how accurate or
inaccurate this drawing is.

We are all guessing as to how good a look the cops really got that night. That drawing may be
more accurate than we realize.

Judy

Scott:

Obviously the PH descriptions are from three kids, all to the same incident. Do they match? I guess we don't know. Aside from them, what two eyewits do we have to any one event? Hartnell, the girls at LB, the doc at LB, Mageau, KJ, even the cops at PH did not witness the same event as anyone else, including the kids: the cops saw someone minutes later, who may or may not have been the perp. Not the same event.

Scott, for TK not to resemble the composite in any way, shape or form, he'd have to be a woman, or something other than a caucasian male; exceptionally old or exceptionally young--you get the point. There's not a caucasian male of that general age group about whom you couldn't say there was something in common. As it is, two elements of the composite stand out as relating to Kaczynski, i.e., the stiff hair and the large, square jaw of the #2 adaptation. In fact, I can't imagine why the artist would have altered the first composite in that way unless he were given specific information by the witnesses (the police officers) involved. And if it were Kaczynski they saw, I can very well understand why they would have tendered that particular description. Kaczynski's chin/lower jaw is so prominent a part of his features that it was the only element recalled by the 1987 Unabomber witness that actually resembles Kaczynski on the famous composite that's forever been associated with the case.

Consequently, to the extent TK resembles the composite, I put a check mark in the "plus" column, and to the extent he doesn't resemble the composite I put a check mark in the "minus" column.

If the composites and/or descriptions had depicted other than a caucasian male between the ages of, say, 20 and 45, I'd have called it a day and gone home!

Judy wrote, " . . . without really knowing exactly what the police officers communicated about their impression of the suspect- we really will never know how accurate or inaccurate this drawing is."

Excellent point, Judy. Incidentally, I also believe the same can be said of the information provided by the 3 teens. Btw, perhaps you are right, maybe the composite artist was trying to signify the ptosis of the subject's left eye. Have you taken a look at suspect Peter O.? You can find him on Tom's "links" page.

Peter wrote, "Obviously the PH descriptions are from three kids, all to the same incident. Do they match? I guess we don't know. Aside from them, what two eyewits do we have to any one event?"

Peter, you are right, we don't know. Also, I finally get your "single event" concept and I believe it to be accurate, to a degree. So, in your opinion, is it fair to say that the SFPD composite, which utterly lacks any multiple witnesses to the same event, is therefore, by definition, less accurate than a composite created from multiple witnesses viewing the same incident? Personally, I've seen studies where the exact opposite has proven to be the case.

A good example of what I am talking about can be found in the first post of the "Eyewitnesses?" thread I started some time back. I've also had police officers (including my father, who is a retired state trooper) tell me that 15 witnesses, once isolated from one another, will provide 15 different answers to the same question. That may be a hyperbole of the truth, but the point is nevertheless understood. Granted, the more witnesses you have to one incident can certainly be used by the prosecution to bolster their case. However, as has proven to be the situation in more than one instance, it can also be so heavily relied upon that an innocent person could easily end up in prison instead of the actual perp. Have a look at the King bank robbery case that took place in Denver several years ago. King was acquitted of all charges -- rightfully so, I might add -- despite the fact that numerous witnesses testified that he was the one they saw during the robbery. In an ingenious move by the defense, it was clearly demonstrated in a court of law that the real perp was able to get away with the crime because of one simple thing: A disguise, which consisted of a hat, glasses, and a fake moustache.

The point is, with regard to this case, what do we really know about the SFPD composite? In my opinion, quite a bit actually. Unfortunately, I'm also of the opinion that that knowledge seems to indicate that the composite is completely worthless.

Peter, sorry for the excessive verbiage (you too, Tom); I know that we are more in agreement than not. However, I challenge you to look at what I'm talking about BEYOND its connections to the courtroom. I wonder how many innocent people have suffered in the hands of the law simply because some as*hole is willing to step forward and say, "Yep, that's the guy."?? I'm not trying to undermine the value of justice, but I often wonder if it is in need of reform, especially when the life of an individual hangs in the balance? I truly appreciate your willingness to contribute your knowledge to such matters, Peter, but I also realize that the legal system has to be examined as objectively as anything else that is meaningful in life. After all, like every other human endeavor, it too is flawed.

Doug wrote, "for TK not to resemble the composite in any way, shape or form, he'd have to be a woman, or something other than a caucasian male; exceptionally old or exceptionally young--you get the point."

Assuming that I do get the point, is it then fair to say that the investigative tool called a composite is utterly worthless? I mean, if all it amounts to is generalizations with regard to race and age, then of what value is it at all? Why not just post a flyer that reads, "WAM, approximately 5'2" to 7' with short hair, and approximately 25 - 50 years old."?? Also, why couldn't the composite be a depiction of a woman? I mean, if all that was available in the case was the composite based upon the descriptions given by the teens, why would we necessarily have to eliminate the possibility of the perp being a woman? Once again, that is assuming that all we had available was the composite and nothing else. It wouldn't be logical to eliminate females in that situation, would it?

". . . two elements of the composite stand out as relating to Kaczynski, i.e., the stiff hair and the large, square jaw of the #2 adaptation. In fact, I can't imagine why the artist would have altered the first composite in that way unless he were given specific information by the witnesses (the police officers) involved."

Excellent point, but if Foukes and Zelms had called that much attention to it, why wouldn't such a description be available directly beneath the sketches? Maybe that description ended up in the same scrap heap as Foukes' "approximately 5'10"" description?

"There's not a caucasian male of that general age group about whom you couldn't say there was something in common."

To be honest with you, Doug, I honestly don't see Arthur Leigh Allen anywhere in that composite. Are you saying that, in principle, I could eliminate him from the list of suspects with no possible repercussions simply because he doesn't seem to match the composite in any capacity?

"Kaczynski's chin/lower jaw is so prominent a part of his features that it was the only element recalled by the 1987 Unabomber witness that actually resembles Kaczynski on the famous composite that's forever been associated with the case."

And yet, no such feature has been described by a single Z witness and also isn't mentioned in any official capacity, including the description beneath the composite?

". . . to the extent TK resembles the composite, I put a check mark in the "plus" column, and to the extent he doesn't resemble the composite I put a check mark in the "minus" column."

Granted, having TK as a suspect does afford you that luxury. However, I'll still standby ALA despite the fact that I can't say the same. I'm not discounting the SFPD composite because it doesn't resemble Allen. Instead, I discredit the SFPD composite because I'm convinced that it can be shown to not be creditworthy. There is a huge difference between the two. I look at it like this: If I have nothing but the composite in my investigative file, and I assume that the composite is trustworthy, then I'd have no alternative but to rule out Allen as a suspect. On the other hand, if I believe the composite to be less than credible, and I have all of the other stuff connecting Allen to the case, he'd immediately become one of my prime suspects. And, when you consider the fact that "the disguise" may or may not be represented in the SFPD composite, why would anyone place any value in it?

Toschi said, with regard to the composite, "Even in 1969, we didn't know how good (the composite) was."

A reminder of the "loose" thesis of this thread: "I'm convinced, now more than ever, that the SFPD composite of Zodiac is so vague . . . that it was essentially worthless from the moment it was finished by the artist."

Perhaps Toschi would agree?

"If the composites and/or descriptions had depicted other than a caucasian male between the ages of, say, 20 and 45, I'd have called it a day and gone home!"

Even if you had all of the connections that are made between TK and Zodiac that exists within your book and on your website? Somehow, I seriously doubt that.

Thanks again, folks!

Scott

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Scott. Being a new poster, most of my posts have been ignored.
Yes, I did see that picture of Peter O.-and did notice his left eye.

Does anyone know if the person who did the composite is still alive? Was he ever questioned
by anyone regarding his amendment to the first
sketch? I have always felt this drawing was very important in helping to identify the killer. I
am surprised that it seems very little attention
was given to find out the specifics of the whole
story surrounding it.

Judy

Judy: it's not that you're a new poster or that your posts are being ignored, sometimes that just happens. I (among other regular posters) occasionally post things that go unacknowledged, mainly because not everyone feels the need to reply to every single post (way too much to post and way too much for everyone else to read!). Trust me, they get read (I have read every single post on this board since it's inception in March 1999, except for Str*mjunkie's garbage).

As far as I know, the composite artist is still alive. Sandy mentioned that one of the times she called SFPD many years ago, she happened to get that very artist on the phone, but doesn't remember his name now. He might have been Asian, but Sandy can tell you more; it would be interesting to get right from the horse's mouth whether he actually did speak with Foukes and/or Zelms.

Thanks, Ed. I guess I'm being a little hyper-sensitive. Compared to most of the board members I really am a novice-just wanted to feel more like part of the group... And in reality, the few
posts I have put up were not exactly so inspiring
as to really warrant a response. Your point is
well taken.

By the way, do you have a favorite suspect? I
think I read-- I may be wrong-that at one time
you and Mr. Rodeli (sp?) shared the same suspect?

Judy

Judy, maybe you and Ed should e-mail each other about that instead of posting in this thread.

By the way, the teen witnesses were too far away to notice Zodiac's eyes, and the officer who allegedly saw Z from the patrol car only got a profile.

What happened was that Rodelli asked me to look for something in old issues of the Chronicle, and I came across a name that I was positive was made up. It wasn't, he recognized it, and it went from there; the suspect we both discovered is the SF businessman. Rodelli was really more excited about him as a suspect than I was (mainly because I could never discern why such an individual with so much to lose would become Z), and he did 95% of the research. What we uncovered was pretty amazing, to say the least, and had we turned up that evidence 25 years ago, he would certainly have been brought in for questioning.

The thing about the SFBM is that he's a dead ringer for the composite, even more so than Peter O. or any of the others. I really wish I could say more, because there'd be even more reason to suspect him, but since this thread concerns the composite, let's leave it at that. In any case, assuming that he's innocent of the Z crimes, the composite should have been enough for him to be questioned (apparently no one thought anything of the similarity back in 1969). When you take into consideration my post of Thursday, June 6th, 11:14 am, regarding Berson and Carbone, a great miscarriage of justice could have occurred had he been identified as Z in a lineup by the three teens.

Therefore, while the composite is certainly a useful tool, and perhaps the first step in an investigation, it is by no means the only tool that should be used in said investigation.

Scott, Kaczynski's large jaw wasn't mentioned in the descriptions either, but it was definitely given by the witness and used in the composite. As far as I'm concerned I can't see any justification for the SFPD artist taking such an extreme liberty with the Zodiac composite unless he received some kind of description from a witness.

Douglas, why would the artist add a detail like ptosis if it was clearly impossible for anyone to have seen it under the conditions I described in an earlier post?

Judy wrote, "Compared to most of the board members I really am a novice-just wanted to feel more like part of the group..."

Judy, we were all novices of the Z at one point or another, including Det. Baker and Tom. If you have access to this site, which, obviously you do, then essentially anything you need to know about this case is at your fingertips. The more you read about the case the more comfortable you will become in speaking/posting frankly about it, especially among this fiery but well intending group. If you feel intimidated about posting, all you need to do is spend more time reading. Trust me, the verbiage will flow freely soon enough.

Ed wrote, "The thing about the SFBM is that he's a dead ringer for the composite, even more so than Peter O. or any of the others. I really wish I could say more, because there'd be even more reason to suspect him . . ."

Personally, if based strictly upon the composite, I'd still say it's a tossup between Peter O. and the SF businessman. Nevertheless, your point is well taken, especially if you consider the 10/13/69 letter than Z sent to the Chronicle.

Doug wrote, "Kaczynski's large jaw wasn't mentioned in the descriptions either, but it was definitely given by the witness and used in the composite."

Doug, that is a very subjective opinion from where I stand, and you know as well as I do that, objectively speaking, your statement is completely false. However, with the wealth of information that you have gathered connecting Kaczynski and the Zodiac, does it really matter how well your suspect matches the SFPD composite?

That is the point I've been trying to make from the beginning: The SFPD composite, like the fingerprints found on Stine's cab, simply cannot be used to eliminate a single suspect. Therefore, assuming that the aforementioned is true, of what value is the composite in this particular case? Honestly, show me any evidence that the 3 teens or Foukes or Zelms, ever mentioned anything about the man they saw having a "large jaw" and I'll openly admit that TK is probably the most likely perpetrator of the Zodiac crimes. The point I'm trying to make is that, in my mind, having honestly tried my best to rationalize the value of the composite, I've honestly concluded that TK, Allen, Davis, etc., will still maintain their status as viable Zodiac suspects regardless of their resemblance to the composite. Look at it this way, if you had a few hard clues connecting a suspect to the Zodiac crimes, would you, as a prosecutor let's say, choose not to forward the proceedings because the defendant turns out to be a 23yearold, Hispanic male with a slight build? I mean, if you really had good evidence against this guy, of what value would the composite be to your theory at that point? As a prosecutor, do you seek a trial or not given these circumstances?

By the way Doug, I really appreciate your input. If I didn't, I wouldn't take the time to post a response that is as lengthy and, in some instances, redundant as that written above. I thank you if you actually took the time to read all of it!

Scott

Thanks for the info, Ed.

Scott, I have read all of the posts. It is just
so much info. to digest and to remember.

I think I have asked this question before: Has
anyone-the SF police, or anyone else, ever recreated the events of the night Mr. Stine was
killed regarding the view the kids had. Has anyone
actually gone into that same apt, under the same
conditions, and looked into the interior of a
car as they did that night? I would think this
would be one way to really ascertain what kind
of view they really had of the killer.

Judy

Scott, I don't deliberately lie about the facts as I understand them. The composite artist, a forensic specialist named Boylan, elicited details about the jaw and also Kaczynski's underbite, from the witness. I'll hold to my belief that the Zodiac artist wasn't worth his salary if he added such an egregious detail to the original sketch without anything to base it on. Maybe he thought it looked prettier that way?

That said, I tend to agree with your assessment of the composite's value. And I certainly wouldn't, if it were up to me, fail to pursue a suspect who fit the bill in all respects but the composite. However, in deciding whether to prosecute, I'd have to weigh the impact of factors such as wide divergence in racial characteristics, skin tone, hair type, etc., upon any jury likely to try the facts.

Another factor to consider is that, assuming I'm a law enforcement official, I don't have eons of time to go looking at every potential suspect simply because the possibility exists that the physical characteristics of the suspect as described by the witnesses might deviate from the actual facts. I won't necessarily "eliminate" every black woman or Chinese-American teenager, but they'll be way, way, way down on my list of potentials.

Let me reiterate, too, that I believe the value of a composite lies not in obtaining a conviction, but in drawing suspicion toward a particular individual so that individual can be investigated. By itself, it's a poor tool at best, but certainly better than nothing in extreme cases. The Bundy composite is probably the best I've ever seen, but even it was accompanied by details such as the Volkswagen, the ski rack, the name "Ted," and the British accent.

Scott,
Just to put a different slant on this; the person who abducted Johns was almost certainly not Allen,the Stine composite definitely does not resemble Allen.The fingerprints in Stine's cab weren't Allen's.You have argued that you believe
Foulks and Zelms spoke with Zodiac and that Allen is the Zodiac.We can argue that Zodiac did not abduct Johns,that the teenagers did not get a good look at Zodiac and also that he did not leave fingerprints,all well argued as stand alone items.However,when we begin to put all of them together, isn't there a problem?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot because personally,I will be shocked if Allen was not involved in this.However as evidence mounts it's getting harder to explain away.

I agree that there is a collective problem with Allen. What if there was a nearly identical incident whereas a composite of Zodiac was made, and let's say it matched the Stine composite very well. One could isolate both events and argue that neither can be said to be accurate. But common sense or otherwise collective reasoning tells us that the composites would be accurate. That same "collective-reasoning" should be used to gauge the entire case, composite included. Allen has a problem being Zodiac if there is any agreement between the witnesses on the accuracy of the composite(3 teens, 2 cops), because I would guess that Zodiacs disguise was mainly baggy clothes and glasses, similar to Woodfield placing Band-aids on his nose. The Stine composite includes glasses which is why there's only a small nose, you only are seeing the tip of the nose. The eyeglassless composite includes a real nose, and in my opinion holds a very good resemblance to Kaczynski. It is only my opinion, yet based on viewing hundreds of composites from other cases. It appears that the composite put a scare into Zodiac sending him in the direction of bombs. Works well with Kaczynski and his personality, but not so well with Allen who apparently would have to be a very daring type to pull this off less than a week after police interviewing him as a Zodiac suspect. Allen definitely does not resemble the composite, so it would make no sense to tell the police that he looks entirely different than the composite, especially knowing that he has recently fallen under suspicion. Would not he view the composite as unexpected and timely good luck, whereas the police would be led away from Mr. Allen via the composite. This kind of logic would also lead one into believing that this kind of incompetence would reflect elsewhere, in other words Allen would not have what it takes to pull off or otherwise create a high-publicity serial murder case. Kaczynski flows on this angle. Just a sidenote to ponder: Most rapists and molesters are apprehended because they aren't truly capable of killing.

Some of the composites in the Woodfield case were very accurate, however there were some differences
in height estimates,some as low as 5f 10'.These by victims who had spent some time with him.This isn't an Allen versus Kaczynski argument.Granted if it were,Kaczynski holds a slight advantage with regard to these specific points.However I do not see the Stine composite as resembling TK, the fingerprints were not his.Doug has done a good job on his site in likening him to the person Johns described.However Johns did point to the composite first.The children's clothes in the car
does also present a problem as in my opinion do the "shining shoes".My own personal opinion on Kaczynski, is that there has been a great case built against him as to why he should be considered a Zodiac suspect.
However,there is a difference between that and proving that he actually was, the Zodiac.

Scott wrote: "So, in your opinion, is it fair to say that the SFPD composite, which utterly lacks any multiple witnesses to the same event, is therefore, by definition, less accurate than a composite created from multiple witnesses viewing the same incident? :

Not quite. My point is that the debate about different witnesses seeing different things does not enter in unless we are talking about witnesses to the same event. If we are talking about one witness to an event, then we are talking about the inherent biases, prejudices etc of the one witness.

And no, I dont believe that a composite put together by a number of witnesses is inherently more relaible: it depends on the circumstances and individuals involved. In fact I can see how it could be less reliable: the result of compromise between an accurate recollection and an inaccurate one. Like averaging height estimates. Remember the old definintion of a camel: a horse put together by a committee.

While we're on the subject of composites, my attention was drawn today between the stark similarity between the composite drawing of the so-called "John Doe #2" put out by the FBI following the Oklahoma City bombing and John Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomb" conspirator arrested today by the FBI. What's the consensus here? Is there any similarity?

John Padilla:
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54908,00.html

John Doe #2:
http://xld.com/public/jdt/jdtindex.htm

My opinion? There's fodder here for further investigation.

Pardon; his name is Jose Padilla, not John Padilla.

Interesting Douglas.
Each time I hear someone saying "well look at Oklahoma City, no islamic fanatics there", I'm always replying "wait, not so fast".
Keep in mind as well that Ramsey Yousef and Terry Nichols were on the same flight to the Phillipines. Just a coincidence?
As for composites. There was a case recently on AMW that illustrates the way a composite can be used as a useful tool. The witness had seen the perp in much the same way as PH, looking down from a window at night. The perp left behind a ski mask with some of his strands of hair attached. When an informant contacted police, they matched the hair and made a comparison of the composite. The hair was a positive and the composite was so accurate that it was if he had posed in person for the sketch.
Bingo, they got their guy.
Thus, it can be simply one of many identifying factors.

Those 2 composites appear fairly similar. They both have very little forehead. Is this purely an exercise in composite comparison, or could they actually be the same person? I thought that that John Doe #2 composite turned out to be a youngster or otherwise someone that went up in flames. If not, it could get somewhat interesting because how many Americans of Mexican appearance are running around (possibly) involving themselves in grandoise bomb plots. His age would be right as well as the timing of his conversion, 1993. Mcveigh would probably hesitate to take a non-white into the fold unless that person was a real die-hard(thus trustworthy), and apparently this guy (possibly) is.

Zander, I think it's both an exercise in comparison and a possibility that they might be the same. I see where you're coming from with Padilla being "nonwhite" (actually, I think he'd be classed as Caucasian), but if you recall, Kaczynski flirted with leftists even though he obviously despised them. I believe he thought of them as his "useful idiots."

The teens saw Zodiacs face and person from different angles,but the incident that Ed brought out in a post some time back ,was that Zodiac stopped and looked straight up at them and paused.What a great Kodak (er Zodiac) moment, which aided their view of his face and person.
Great eyesight at that age and as the PD report said,their view was "unobstructed".If Zhe did have a disguise as he firmly declared,then the teens and the officer/s simply got a view of a disguised person/face!
I don't think the PH attack scared Z.All he had to do was kill,again,in lovers lanes and other less public places,etc.He was in charge and could select any area(Lake Tahoe/Patterson/L.A. areas as examples?;it's hard for some N CA bounders to get out of the kill box they place Z in!)or place he wished to kill.
He kept claiming 'victims',but whether or not they were real is a matter of debate.Bomb threats just added to the fear and panic he was trying to create.Afterall, not one device or bomb was attributed to Zodiac that went off and ,of course,there were no fatalities.
I personally think that in 1970, at the height of his bomb threats, he abducted Lass in Tahoe and Johns in the Patterson area.
Remember, KJ was not supposed to survive(the same for Mageau and Hartnell) and would have become another "number" in his ongoing count.He did say he had the "woeman and her baby" on his unfinished "list"!
I am all for getting a top expert on composites and use the poster picture/s and the surviving witnesses and come up with a more virtual view.The flat stiff cardboard look of the 60s is out and an advanced drawing displaying real form ,color and dimension is in.

One name springs to mind: Jeanne Boylan! However, is it possible to do an accurate composite of Z after 33 years?? Unsolved Mysteries did a segment on D.B. Cooper some years back, and the stewardess on that flight insisted that the composite that was done at the time was incorrect despite her protestations, and so UM did another one that she said looked like him. So, perhaps it's possible... if the then teens are interested and willing to do so.

Doug wrote, "I don't deliberately lie about the facts as I understand them. The composite artist, a forensic specialist named Boylan, elicited details about the jaw and also Kaczynski's underbite, from the witness."

Doug, which composite are you referring to? I never meant to imply that you were lying, just that I can't understand why such a feature would not be specifically referred to in the SFPD composite if it were so prominent. Without specific knowledge to the contrary, I have to assume that seeing such a feature in the SFPD composite is, by definition, subjective.

Lapumo, you make some very excellent points, but you know as well as I do that no suspect can be eliminated based on the fingerprints or the composite. As for Kathleen Johns, well, I'm of the opinion that her testimony is as about as useful as Mageau's. My biggest problem with KJ is that every police report on the incident seems to directly contradict her supposed "testimony." Not one police report mentions anything about Johns being attacked or threatened. In fact, she talks of the suspect as being "friendly." Also, why would the Z go from murder to kidnapping? Finally, if you read the description that KJ gave of her "attacker" and compare it to the SFPD composite, they don't match anyway. What are we to make of that? KJ's attacker sounds more like a Z wannabe that the actual Z, IMO.

Zander wrote, "Allen has a problem being Zodiac if there is any agreement between the witnesses on the accuracy of the composite(3 teens, 2 cops) . . ."

That's just it, Zander, there isn't any agreement that I can see. The 3 teens described Z as being "approximately 5'8"" whereas Foukes described him as "approximately 5'10"." The 3 teens described a "crew cut . . . perhaps with a reddish tint". Foukes described the hair as being "Short and light brown." Also, even though apparently both the teens and Foukes described the Z as having a "heavy build," the artist seems to have failed to include that feature into his drawing.

Thanks Peter, your points are well taken and I think we are working off of the same page, as it were. Also, I never averaged the height estimates if that is what you were alluding too. I think my reasoning for labeling the Z as "approximately 5'10"" is sound, and it has nothing to do with averaging witnesses' height estimates.

Sylvie, I agree with your assessment that a composite can be a useful tool. It's just that, for all the reasons that I have outlined thus far, I don't think that it happens to be a useful tool in this case.

Howard wrote, "If Zhe did have a disguise as he firmly declared,then the teens and the officer/s simply got a view of a disguised person/face!"

Exactly Howard; I'm of the same opinion.

Scott

Scott, you wrote: "also, why would Z go from murder to kidnapping?" Don't take this as an attempt to start any trouble, but you know why I find this amusi