Bolt
SFPD
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 1:43 am

July 28th, 2018, 2:49 am #261

<<My guess is that he had a car parked somewhere on Pacific Ave. near Julius Kahn park.>>

That's not a bad thought, but Pacific dead-ends at Spruce, so you'd have to either drive up Spruce back toward the scene, or go east on Pacific where you're pretty visible, plus you hit Presidio Avenue, which the motorcycles and other LE traffic is using to rush into the Presidio.

There was also parking inside the Presidio, across the wall, in front of JK. Same problem though, you'd likely be driving directly into the path of your pursuers.

His description of his escape makes sense to me, if he didn't live in the neighborhood.

The woods, the Broadway gate when the coast was clear, and into a parked car.

And if he didn't have a parked car, and didn't have too much blood on him, plenty of city bus options.
Quote
Like
Share

mrey88
Old Newbie
mrey88
Old Newbie
Joined: February 18th, 2018, 5:28 am

July 28th, 2018, 4:47 am #262

csmith wrote:
mrey88 wrote:
csmith wrote:
Yes, you said in a previous post that the descriptions are no all that different, & I disagree!!  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, but as for the sketch, it has nothing to do with a suspect(although it is curious that the sketch does not resemble the main suspects-imo), it has to do with--as you say--following the evidence--the established evidence.  No, we don;t know that he wore disguises, but we also don't know that he DIDN'T wear disguises as he claimed, & as for his claims, we can't pick & choose which ones we deem reliable & which ones we do not.  We do NOT know for sure that he was a chronic liar--just because we can't confirm something doesn't mean it isn't true.  I mean, yes, jhe likely lied about many things, but in reality, we don;t know what & how many things for certain.  Mostly though about the sketch, it just comes down to common sense(& what we can prove factually).  I do not believe that it is reasonable to assume that this man, who fashioned an elaborate costume to wear at a crime scene that only he would survive to know of, would go to a crowded city street with potential witnesses around every corner in his natural state--that's not reasonable to me!  It at the very least calls his appearance that night into question. Now, is it possible that sketch is an accurate portrayal of Z?  Sure it is, but only slightly more likely than a sketch of your(or my)Uncle Milo, for that matter. We just don't know for sure, that's my whole point.  It's not "evidence", not reliable evidence anyway. Slightly OT, why would a suspect who was stopped & then let go by the SFD officers leaving the crime scene then go hide in the Presidio instead of just leaving? I suppose it's possible he encountered more cops on the way out & got spooked, but I would think more times than not in that instance a suspect would consider themsleves home free & just leave the scene.  Idk, just wonder about that, but it's a typical quandry of this case.
"as for his claims, we can't pick & choose which ones we deem reliable & which ones we do not."

I know this exchange got pretty heated a few weeks back, and I'm not trying to fan the flames here, but with all due respect, I totally disagree. I think this is exactly what we need to do. We have to sift through all his BS. This is exactly what Z intended and it's a big reason he hasn't been caught. He wanted to deceive, misdirect, and create doubts and uncertainty about the case. I believe he made true statements early on in his writings to establish credibility, so he could then lie and mislead later on. It's a common tactic of pathological liars. We have to be logical and--as creepy as it is--try to look at things through his perspective. 

Does anybody honestly think that after the Stine killing he was super confident about his disguise and the "fake clews" he left behind, yet he decided to make that his last known killing? I think he screwed up big time and knew he was lucky as hell to get away that night. The letter right after reeks of damage control, overcompensating, and false confidence. If he was really wearing a disguise why would he announce it to everybody? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of a disguise? Same with his claim that he left fake clues behind. If you really went to that kind of trouble, would you tell everybody about it? I also think hiding out in the Presidio after and potentially being trapped by SFPD on one side and MPs on the other would've been extremely foolhardy and a huge unnecessary risk, so I think that was very unlikely as well. My guess is that he had a car parked somewhere on Pacific Ave. near Julius Kahn park.
I agree totally that we need to have debates, as long as it's civil, I agree.  As 4 your post, 1--do we really know Z was a pathological liar?  For certain? & as for disguises, it wouldn't necessarily defeat the purpose to broadcast the fact that you're wearing disguises because the end result is still the same--no one knows your identity.  As for hiding out in the presidio, there are things about that that don;t make sense to me either, but it seems as though he was in the area for at least some time during the police search--he knew about the "motorcicle races", or however he spelled it, & hanging out somewhere on Pacific Ave. near Julius Hahn park wouldn't make sense either, why not just leave?  Unless he lived or was staying there.
You misunderstood me; I wasn't saying he's a pathological liar, just that it's a common tactic of pathological or habitual liars to establish trust by being honest initially so they can be more effectively dishonest later. I certainly don't think he wrote all the letters and ciphers to help LE catch him, but rather for the attention and to deceive. We know for a fact that Z was manipulative and had no problem lying to accomplish his sociopathic goals. A perfect example would be his BS story about being on the run from prison and going to Mexico at LB.

You may be right that it doesn't totally defeat the purpose of wearing a disguise, but--again think of it from his point of view--wouldn't it be so much better to say, "I must admit the sketch is a pretty good likeness of me but you'll still never catch me because I am way too clever" and make everybody believe your disguise is what you really look like?  

As far as where he went after, having recently visited the area, my best theory is that if he did hang around because he just couldn't resist watching the scene unfold that he drove up to Lyon and Pacific streets where you can easily look down the hill from relative safety several blocks away. Again, hiding in the Presidio to me just seems logically like a terrible plan if you don't want to get caught.
Last edited by mrey88 on August 9th, 2018, 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

csmith
Old Newbie
csmith
Old Newbie
Joined: February 27th, 2014, 4:58 am

July 28th, 2018, 5:09 am #263

mrey88 wrote:
csmith wrote:
mrey88 wrote:
"as for his claims, we can't pick & choose which ones we deem reliable & which ones we do not."

I know this exchange got pretty heated a few weeks back, and I'm not trying to fan the flames here, but with all due respect, I totally disagree. I think this is exactly what we need to do. We have to sift through all his BS. This is exactly what Z intended and it's a big reason he hasn't been caught. He wanted to deceive, misdirect, and create doubts and uncertainty about the case. I believe he made true statements early on in his writings to establish credibility, so he could then lie and mislead later on. It's a common tactic of pathological liars. We have to be logical and--as creepy as it is--try to look at things through his perspective. 

Does anybody honestly think that after the Stine killing he was super confident about his disguise and the "fake clews" he left behind, yet he decided to make that his last known killing? I think he screwed up big time and knew he was lucky as hell to get away that night. The letter right after reeks of damage control, overcompensating, and false confidence. If he was really wearing a disguise why would he announce it to everybody? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of a disguise? Same with his claim that he left fake clues behind. If you really went to that kind of trouble, would you tell everybody about it? I also think hiding out in the Presidio after and potentially being trapped by SFPD on one side and MPs on the other would've been extremely foolhardy and a huge unnecessary risk, so I think that was very unlikely as well. My guess is that he had a car parked somewhere on Pacific Ave. near Julius Kahn park.
I agree totally that we need to have debates, as long as it's civil, I agree.  As 4 your post, 1--do we really know Z was a pathological liar?  For certain? & as for disguises, it wouldn't necessarily defeat the purpose to broadcast the fact that you're wearing disguises because the end result is still the same--no one knows your identity.  As for hiding out in the presidio, there are things about that that don;t make sense to me either, but it seems as though he was in the area for at least some time during the police search--he knew about the "motorcicle races", or however he spelled it, & hanging out somewhere on Pacific Ave. near Julius Hahn park wouldn't make sense either, why not just leave?  Unless he lived or was staying there.
You misunderstood me; I wasn't saying he's a pathological liar, just that it's a common tactic of pathological or habitual liars to establish trust by being honest initially so you can be more effectively dishonest later. I certainly don't think he wrote all the letters and ciphers to help LE catch him, but rather for the attention and to deceive. We know for a fact that Z was manipulative and had no problem lying to accomplish his sociopathic goals. A perfect example would be his BS story about being on the run from prison and going to Mexico at LB.

You may be right that it doesn't totally defeat the purpose of wearing a disguise, but--again think of it from his point of view--wouldn't it be so much better to say, "I must admit the sketch is a pretty good likeness of me but you'll still never catch me because I am way too clever" and make everybody believe your disguise is what you really look like?  

As far as where he went after, having recently visited the area, my best theory is that if he did hang around because he just couldn't resist watching the scene unfold that he drove up to Lyon and Pacific streets where you can easily look down the hill from relative safety several blocks away. Again, hiding in the Presidio to me just seems logically like a terrible plan if you don't want to get caught.
It makes no sense to hide out in the Presidio all night unless he had no choice, unless he was trapped.  There are so many different ways to look at it, & they are all possibilities.  It's dizzying.  The thing that is so intriguing about this case is that--so many things don't make sense, yet we know that they happened or are at least likely to have happened.  What I don't get, as I stated in a previous post, is why he would remain in the area if he was sent on his way by the beat cops in the car? Likely learned that they were looking for a black male, so...why not just split?  Maybe he wasn't stopped by the cops, but observed the person who was.  As for disguise...who knows, there are arguments for & against, & there's no way to know which one is correct.  He had to have known he might be observed by someone that night(& argument in favor of a disguise), he also had to have known he might be CAUGHT that night, so....like i said, it's dizzying to think about all of the scenarios.
Quote
Like
Share

Bolt
SFPD
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 1:43 am

July 28th, 2018, 5:22 am #264

<<Again, hiding in the Presidio to me just seems logically like a terrible plan if you don't want to get caught.>>

You're talking a matter of a few minutes. You cross the Little League field into the woods. You let the motorcycles zoom by going west toward Arguello. You stay under the cover of the woods and exit the Broadway gate. I know the Presidio well, it's logical.
Quote
Like
Share

mrey88
Old Newbie
mrey88
Old Newbie
Joined: February 18th, 2018, 5:28 am

July 28th, 2018, 7:05 am #265

Bolt wrote: <<Again, hiding in the Presidio to me just seems logically like a terrible plan if you don't want to get caught.>>

You're talking a matter of a few minutes. You cross the Little League field into the woods. You let the motorcycles zoom by going west toward Arguello. You stay under the cover of the woods and exit the Broadway gate. I know the Presidio well, it's logical.
Let me clarify Bolt. I was referring to the notion of Z basically camping out in the Presidio for a prolonged period of time as being ludicrous and not logically a good plan. Cutting through the ball field and into the cover of the woods as he is escaping to a parked car by the Lyon Street Steps on Broadway or Vallejo on the other hand is a pretty solid plan, and I think he very well may have done that. He could've seen and heard motorcycles and dogs as he was getting the hell out of there. I actually walked that exact route thinking of that scenario just last week while I was in town. Once he got to his car, he could hop onto the 101, get to the GG Bridge in a matter of minutes and out of the area very quickly.  

On a side note, I have to say that walking through those woods at dusk while the fog is rolling in, fog horn blowing in the distance, and hearing coyotes yip and howl, all while imagining that Zodiac may have walked the same path is creepy as hell! 

The other possibility I thought of was that he parked fairly close to the base of Maple St. on Pacific. That way he could hop the wall and get in his car and out of the immediate area much more quickly. He could then drive up the hill to Lyon and Pacific where he could watch the searching of the park for a bit in his car before leaving for good. Although that would be somewhat risky to hang around in the area for a while.

Does anybody know how credible the account is of the witness who saw a man running into Julius Kahn Park or if it's more of a GraysMyth that hasn't really been substantiated? If it is pretty solid, Bolt, then I would say your escape route is the most likely.
Quote
Like
Share

Bolt
SFPD
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 1:43 am

July 28th, 2018, 7:44 am #266

mrey88 wrote:
Bolt wrote: <<Again, hiding in the Presidio to me just seems logically like a terrible plan if you don't want to get caught.>>

You're talking a matter of a few minutes. You cross the Little League field into the woods. You let the motorcycles zoom by going west toward Arguello. You stay under the cover of the woods and exit the Broadway gate. I know the Presidio well, it's logical.
Let me clarify Bolt. I was referring to the notion of Z basically camping out in the Presidio for a prolonged period of time as being ludicrous and not logically a good plan. Cutting through the ball field and into the cover of the woods as he is escaping to a parked car by the Lyon Street Steps on Broadway or Vallejo on the other hand is a pretty solid plan, and I think he very well may have done that. He could've seen and heard motorcycles and dogs as he was getting the hell out of there. I actually walked that exact route thinking of that scenario just last week while I was in town. Once he got to his car, he could hop onto the 101, get to the GG Bridge in a matter of minutes and out of the area very quickly.  

On a side note, I have to say that walking through those woods at dusk while the fog is rolling in, fog horn blowing in the distance, and hearing coyotes yip and howl, all while imagining that Zodiac may have walked the same path is creepy as hell! 

The other possibility I thought of was that he parked fairly close to the base of Maple St. on Pacific. That way he could hop the wall and get in his car and out of the immediate area much more quickly. He could then drive up the hill to Lyon and Pacific where he could watch the searching of the park for a bit in his car before leaving for good. Although that would be somewhat risky to hang around in the area for a while.

Does anybody know how credible the account is of the witness who saw a man running into Julius Kahn Park or if it's more of a GraysMyth that hasn't really been substantiated? If it is pretty solid, Bolt, then I would say your escape route is the most likely.
Understood Mrey, thanks for clarifying that.

I believe the initial newspaper accounting of the crime cited witnesses seeing someone headed toward JK, so that would have been way before Graysmith.

You could park in a couple limited spots on West Pacific back then (on the Presidio side of the wall) to use the playground, but I don't think you could at night, at least not without drawing attention. The MP's were strict.

Yes, he could have parked on regular Pacific (the civilian side of the wall). But if he was seen cutting down Maple to JK, you would assume his intent was to go into the Presidio.

The woods that you walked through covered more territory back then as well. Areas that were once wooded have been razed. From the ball field east, you essentially had solid woods to Presidio Boulevard.

That night SFPD had the US Army at its disposal. It's hindsight, but the smart move would have been to immediately secure all the gates. That likely would have led to the guy being apprehended trying to exit, or at least being pinned in the Presidio.

A friend of mine who lived on Pacific looked out the window and saw busloads of soldiers with M-16s cruising up and down, but my guess is Z was long gone by then.
Quote
Like
Share

Elvisatkinson
Newbie
Joined: July 12th, 2018, 11:34 am

August 6th, 2018, 3:59 pm #267

Anything you can tell us tom?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 23rd, 2018, 2:54 pm

August 8th, 2018, 6:31 am #268

any updates @TomVoigt 
I have to return some videotapes.
Quote
Like
Share

Moonglow77
Newbie
Joined: August 26th, 2018, 9:52 pm

August 26th, 2018, 10:25 pm #269

Waterson is the first suspect to be a dead-on (pun intended) match to the sketches, so much so that his photo next to the sketches gave me chills. However, I realize that as soon as someone says he's a match for the sketches, someone else will say the sketches are not accurate. Over time, I've read a great deal about Zodiac and much of this website. Of course, I can't remember everything I've read, so please refresh my memory. Have the people who gave first-hand information to the sketch artist been interviewed as to whether, at the time the sketches were created, they regarded the sketches as accurate? If so, which people were interviewed and by whom, when, and what, exactly, did they say about the sketches? Was the sketch artist interviewed?

If different eye-witnesses disagree strongly about the facial features (as compared to hair color and style) matching the sketches, I think we need to consider the possibility (even likelihood) that not all these cases are Z cases or that there was more than one person operating as Z.  

We don't yet know whether Waterson has a widow's peak or, for that matter, whether the person Fouke saw actually had a widow's peak or was even Z. But that widow's peak in the second sketch came from someone. The question is who gave the sketch artist that information or simply responded to the drawing with the widow's peak by saying, "Yes, that was his hairline." Or did it come entirely from the imagination of the artist? Did the artist ignore anyone's description?

We know that many details that were added later on didn't make it into police reports. Although police are trained to write reports, that doesn't mean that all of them are good at it or thorough. It also doesn't mean that they're good observers. It also doesn't mean that they don't embellish or outright lie for whatever reasons. It also doesn't mean that they didn't lead witnesses (ie. "Would you say he was over 6' tall and over 200 pounds?") rather than asking open-ended questions. Unless someone is standing next to someone or has another way of comparing height and weight, most people are not good at estimating either and they're terrible at estimating time and distance.

I think eye-witness comments about the accuracy of the sketches should be considered in a different light from their descriptions in police reports. Most people are not very good at giving detailed descriptions of individual facial features but they are very good at recognizing an entire face when they see it. 
Quote
Like
Share

Moonglow77
Newbie
Joined: August 26th, 2018, 9:52 pm

August 27th, 2018, 9:35 am #270

dirtyharry18 wrote:
Furthermore, the Stine witnesses had the best view of Zodiac. We have the adolescents in the house, Officers Fouke and Zelms, and residents who saw a stocky man running into the presidio. Their descriptions are consistent. They view the sketch as accurate. The only other two accounts of Zodiac unmasked are from MM and CS (we have her alleged description from the This Is the Zodiac Speaking documentary) and they only got very brief and partial views of his face. Their descriptions don’t cast doubt on the sketch.
Forgive me if the answer to this has been provided previously. When (how soon after the sketch was produced) and by whom were Fouke, Zelms, MM, CS and the adolescents interviewed specifically as to their opinions regarding the accuracy of the sketch? Did the sketch artist ever state who gave what input on the creation of the sketch or their opinions about its accuracy?

I know that decades later Fouke said the sketch was accurate, but that claim is not nearly as valuable, in my opinion, as an opinion stated close to the time the sketch was created, not to mention that we can't be positive that he saw Z. Whose word do we have that the unnamed adolescents worked with the sketch artist and all or any agreed that the sketch was accurate? We don't even know their names, do we?

I am not suggesting that the sketch is or is not accurate. I am simply trying to find out exactly what is known about how the sketch was created and which eye-witnesses stated unequivocally that the sketch was accurate and which stated it was not and in what way. For the following reasons, my questions pertain solely to the sketch, itself, and not to decription statements made in police reports. 

Most people are not very good at accurately describing facial features but are very good at recognizing full face likenesses. For that reason, I would place more credence on the claim of an eyewitness that a sketch was accurate than I would on the description provided by that witness in a police report.  If someone doubts that people are not very good at accurately describing facial features, I recommend that, without looking in the mirror or at a photo, they describe from memory their own face starting with overall shape, forehead, cheekbones, eye-shape, nose, lips, chin and ears. They'll likely find it very difficult to describe someone they've seen in a mirror multiple times every day of their lives. It's even more difficult to describe someone you've only seen briefly, especially if you placed no importance on the encounter (Fouke). If you were terrified (the victims), it might even be more difficult or, perhaps, you would remember one feature, such as the eyes, distinctly and the rest would be a blur. On the other hand, recognizing a full face image would be far easier. Our lives literally depend on our ability to recognize faces. Is that my neighbor at the door or a stranger? Is that my friend waiting by my car in the dark parking lot or a stranger? Is that someone I've met before stopping to talk to me in the park or is that a stranger? 

The people who saw Z who were not terrified yet realized that something was amiss and they should pay attention were the adolescents. I can't recall how many there were or their ages. Do we know if they were interviewed separately by the police or were they interviewed together and, hence, all but the first interviewed subject to suggestions planted by the first's description of Z?  If they were interviewed together, what did the first witness say? Did they give direct input to the sketch artist? After the sketch was completed, how accurate did they feel it was? Were they ever asked and, if so, by whom and when? 

I always thought the sketch was poor quality (the nose, especially, didn't look real) until I saw the photo of Waterson. I don't think we know nearly enough about Waterson to conclude that he's Z but at least we know that some human being looks exactly like the sketch and not in a generic way but in a very specific way. Anyway, that piqued my interest in the sketch.
Quote
Like
Share