Where Was Your Suspect . . .?


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Other Suspects: Where Was Your Suspect . . .?

By Bill Baker (Billbaker) (pool1085.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.156.65) on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 09:31 pm:

Before I get to the subject of this thread, first of all, by way of explanation to posters who have asked me to email them and have not received a response, I'm not inclined to reply to those asking for a revelation of my own Z suspect, although I would imagine that my posts over the months would suggest who it might be. I'm not being coy, only reluctant to publicly, and irretrievably, cast my vote. I'm not totally convinced of anyone's complicity in the crimes.

Neither am I disposed to respond to those that are merely baiting me, anxious to rebut, refute or vilify my judgment, whatever it may be (based upon posting archives, that isn't difficult to discern). For those with cross-purposed intent, we can address the issues on the Board. My email address is already accessible with a mere click; if you have "confidential" questions or issues to pose, feel free. My responses, if any, will be at my discretion. Sorry to sound like a control freak, but my personal beliefs are just that, and therefore subject to personal standards of disclosure.

Secondly, allow me to unequivocally announce my reason for being here (at this site): I want to know who killed Linda Edwards and Robert Domingos in Santa Barbara County in 1963. Period. From what I know (or tend to believe), there is cause to consider that the LB case and our case may be related. Since the Zodiac has been tied to the 1969 crime and that crime bears strong resemblance to our case, ipso facto, he is a suspect in our case. I am not in a position, nor do I possess the knowledge, to argue the fact or fiction of any particular suspect's involvement in the core Zodiac cases. Identification of the Zodiac killer, by virtue of his connection to LB, is now my best hope to achieving a solution to our case.
Conversely, if our case is solved and it results in the identification of Zodiac, or vice versa, so much the better.

Now, on to the thread.

I know more about the whereabouts of Arthur Allen during the 1963 time window than I do about those of Lawrence Kane, Theodore Kaczynski, Bruce Davis or any other suspect promoted at this site, thanks to Tom's endeavor. I would welcome more information about where these other suspects were known to be residing/frequenting in 1963, give or take a year. Perhaps suspect proximity, during the time in question, might prove to be the vital link to solution of our case. And, as I have said so many times before on this Board, I firmly believe that within the relatively unexplored territory of the Edwards/Domingos case lies the solution to the identity of Zodiac.

Jake, I'm sorry that I don't share your negative analysis that the Zodiac wouldn't have committed our killings and regressed to a simpler mode of attack: the unsophisticated, less confrontational "blitz" assault on unsuspecting parked couples. As I've said previously, I feel that he experienced a "failed" mission in 1963, what with his miscalculations and unanticipated potential for arrest. The automotive "blitz" attacks may well have been an effort to regain his composure and confidence, before redeeming himself for his earlier failed effort. I tend to think that he went into eclipse after the 1963 venture, fearing exposure and re-thinking his tactics, over time falling back on strategies that reduced his risk at being caught. Serial killers don't always "progress," do they, without correcting their fallibilities along the way?

Is it unlikely, just to reinforce my point of recidivism, that someone who would commit the killings in 1963 would not go on to kill again? Killings committed in this manner do not occur in a vacuum. Uncaptured, I have no doubt that this person would have killed again, in a similar fashion, in time.

I've posted, or will soon post, other messages around the site, not as a penile contest, but to elicit information that might further my own, personal, quest for solution.

Thanks for your indulgence and your objectivity.

Bill

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 09:55 pm:

Bill, you're a gentleman and a scholar. I think that the reason that Z wore the hood/costume at Lake Berryessa is because from experience (1963) he found that even though he had the element of surprise, a knife, a gun, and rope it was possible for the potential victims to escape as what almost happened in 1963. Lake Berryessa was a daylight attack and if a victim escaped they would have seen his face and would be able to eventually identify him. This is just my theory but it makes sense to me.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-74-23.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.74.23) on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 10:04 pm:

Bill,

I have to agree that there is a very good possibility that Zodiac was responsible for the Edwards/Domingos homicides. The Travis AFB ammo connection leads us in that direction, as well as the similarities of the LB attack.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac952c25.ipt.aol.com - 172.149.44.37) on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 10:55 pm:

Zodiac convinced the victims at Lake Berryessa that he meant them no harm; he just wanted to rob them. Once tied, the attack began.
I believe Zodiac probably had an earlier experience where he came on too strong before his victims were secured, thus losing (or almost losing) control of the situation.
Perhaps it was the Santa Barbara case.

By Bill Baker (Billbaker) (pool0234.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.152.234) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 01:03 am:

Edward, it was Vandenberg AFB, not Travis, to which the ammo was linked. VAFB is minutes, not hours as is Travis AFB, from our crime scene.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-ta041.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.36) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 01:04 am:

Esau: I'm not certain that the hood was to prevent anyone from seeing his face, because his intention, as evidenced by his call to Napa PD, was to kill both victims; thus, the hood would be irrelevant. It was lucky for him that he wore it, because Hartnell survived; otherwise, I'm certain that the case would have been closed by the end of 1969.

That's why I suspect that the entire encounter held special significance to Z, which is why he wore the (in my opinion) ritualistic "executioner's" hood. What that significance was, one can only guess, but if Z was responsible for the 1963 murders (MO and signature aspects are very similar, so it is highly likely that he was indeed the author of that crime), then it makes more sense, especially since LB stands apart from the other crimes.

Perhaps Z had intended to embark on a life of crime (or perhaps already had), and because of what happened on that beach in Santa Barbara, he had to retreat and regroup, as it were, and reevaluate his methods. This might explain why he reverted to the blitz style of attack we are so familiar with (absent at LB), because it was easier to do and victims were less likely to escape as they did five years earlier. When he regained his confidence, as Bill suggested, he attempted to recreate SB and do it right (in his mind) the second time around.

Could it be then that the Z crimes were an attempt by Z to rehearse for an upcoming reenactment of what he perceived to be a failed crime six years before? Was LB the focus of the crimes, and was it some form of sick therapy for himself to ease any feelings of inadequacy he may have experienced at SB? Just a thought...

By Bill Baker (Billbaker) (pool0234.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.152.234) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 02:57 am:

Ed, my thoughts exactly.

By Michael Mc (Michaelmc) (1cust53.tnt1.lancaster.pa.da.uu.net - 63.17.97.53) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 12:49 pm:

Bill, It occurs to me that in order to buy anything at a military exchange one must have a valid military id card. I hadn't really thought about it before, but I recall as a kid I had to show my dependent id just to get in the door. Do you think that this might be worth looking into. Suspect wise it would stand to reason that the killer was either active duty or reserve...a dependent or the ammmo was given to the killer by one of the above.

Michael

By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 24.176.178.187) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 01:05 pm:

Ed, the decision to wear the hood would have been made before the attack to make sure no one could identify him should they escape as what almost happened in 1963. Why Lake Berryessa and not the others? Probably because Lake Berryessa was the only daylight attack that we know of.

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-mtc-th032.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.32) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 02:29 pm:

Well, I have to admit that all the elements are there, including the "fire" reference on the Halloween Card, except of course for the attemt to hide and burn the bodies, which is unusual. I'm habitually skeptical on this topic, with so many other unrelated crimes being hailed as Z's work, but I guess I agree that these murders may bear additional investigation.

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

By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-mtc-th032.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.32) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 02:31 pm:

Make that "...attempt to hide and burn the bodies in the first place..."

--Jake

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-mtc-tb023.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.104.28) on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 05:32 pm:

Esau: I decided to post a few more thoughts under a new thread, Lake Berryessa:Behind the Hood, because discussing reasons for the signature aspects and MO didn't quite seem to fit here, and opens up a new discussion for possible reasons behind the weirdness at LB, for anyone who chooses to do so.